Nuestras Voces Latinas

Children of immigrants should not be punished, court says

2011-02-01T06:56:00.001-08:00

Late last week, recently confirmed U.S. district court judge Tanya Walton Pratt temporarily enjoined a the Indiana Department of Health's practice of denying paternity affidavits to men who were unable to provide the state with their Social Security number. The state's practice, started in July 2010, effectively denied U.S. citizen children whose fathers could not produce a Social Security number, the opporunity to have their father's name on their birth certificate and be legitimated.

Judge Pratt found the evidence to show likelihood of success on the merits that this practice is a violation of the Equal Protection clause, and analyzed U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence which has found that children should not be punished by their parents' immigration status. She also found that legitimating children is in the public interest. The court ordered the Indiana Department of Health to revert back to its previous practice accepting the paternity affidavits without the Social Security numbers. The court noted that there had been no change in law
that led to the change in practice, only a change in personnel at the Indiana Department of Health.

There has been some negative reaction to the opinion, see for example comments by readers in the Indianapolis Star newspaper, which reported the decision: ("If they don't have papers they don't need to be in this country, much less this state. Send their butts back to where they came from. Just another example of our tax money being wasted on illegals."). However, this decision strikes me as a well reasoned and sensible opinion, since the Supreme Court jurisprudence is clear regarding not holding children responsible for the actions of their parents.
The case, L.P. v. Commissioner of Health, Case No. 1:10 cv- 1309-TWP- TAB, was filed by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union and continues pending in the Southern District of Indiana.

This case brings to bear concerns about U.S. citizen newborns born of undocumented parents, who may be affected by state policies and practices. There appears to be a trend: in California, there have been ballot proposals to deny birth certificates to children born of parents who cannot prove their immigration status in the United States. Other states, like Arizona, have attempted to enact legislation to identify the birth certificates of these children differently than the rest of the birth certificates issued in this state.

No need for Spanish warnings, federal court says...

2011-01-29T22:05:00.001-08:00

Thanks for Prof. Alberto Bernabe, of Chicago's John Marshall School of Law, who has brought this recent case to my attention. In Farias v. Mr. Heater, 2010 WL 4814660, the United States District Court of the Southern District of Florida found that there is no duty to provide safety warnings about products in Spanish. In doing so, the court dismissed the lawsuit of a Spanish speaker who had sued the manufacturer of two space heaters purchased at a Home Depot in Miami, following a fire in her home caused by the heaters.

In the court's view, the plaintiff, who has limited command of the English language (she did understand the word "caution") failed to investigate the danger to which she had been alerted by the manufacturer in the user's manuals for the heaters. The court also distinguished an earlier case, Stanley Industries v. W.M. Barr, 784 F.Supp. 1570 (S.D. Fla. 1992) in which a duty to warn in Spanish was found when the product was marketed specifically to a Spanish speaking population.

Prof. Bernabe has mixed feelings about this opinion, which I encourage you to have a look at in his Torts blog http://bernabetorts.blogspot.com. To me, the opinion does not recognize the reality of the limited availability of adult education English instruction for immigrants in the U.S. When last I worked directly with immigrant clients, I recall their dismay at the long waits for English classes. I don't imagine the situation has improved much in this age of budget cuts for education and human services, so this case puts immigrants' safety at risk, and as such, is cause for concern.

Happy New Year and Political Amnesia

2010-12-31T13:20:00.000-08:00

With 2010 ending concluding the nation thereby ends a harmful year of legislative enactments that bordered on the edge of hate crimes against gente de color generally but within the framework of this post Latinas/os specifically. Several of the harmful trajectories "chosen" harmed the nation and took America into the realm of the "against humankind" category.

Two such routes include the "kill ethnic studies" and anti-immigrant hysteria based legislation that defied the legal formalism of long established preemption law and federal state relationships. Isn't it something when such law is not engaged but instead rules are selectively employed to harm concrete population groups to garner favor and promote the skullduggery of political parties?

Yet political amnesia also caused the nation to travel down a dire and negative path. This approach directly and divisively ignored the contributions from communities of color of the past and into the future. Contemplate the labor and efforts of our communities that built and labored on the nation's railroad systems that shortened distances and expedited commerce. How would the agricultural sector fare without the work of farm laborers who are even into the present facing economic hardship? How about the efforts of fearless students and other activists that challenged state goons that sought to preclude their right to the franchise? Their efforts added immeasurable strength to the promises constitutional drafters sought and made. The list of such contributions is endless and benefited the nation's economic, social and political base.

Additionally fear based legislation and its mongers fail to reconcile the weakness of their stance in promoting harmful legislation with the future base needs of the nation. When presented with an invaluable opportunity through the DREAM Act the fear promoting politicians willingly chose a path with no return and thereby turned their backs on the nation. Try and reconcile the talent the affected students would have brought to the economic and well-being base of the nation. Even more specifically, the anti-votes are difficult to reconcile with the innumerable exceptions to current immigration law that permits the entry and permanent residence of many from foreign nations. Span the congressional record for such exceptions that were based inter alia on humanitarian, social, political or other purposes. It is not difficult to conclude that race looms over the political zeitgeist of the times.

Space limitations leave much that has to be left for another post but the passing of Latina/o fearless leaders and activists that fought so many civil rights and political battles mandate our asking "who will replace them?" Can we ever look back at this past year without a big sigh?

In surveying the political debris field this past year also brought a few amazing transformative changes from brave and honorable state and federal representatives and gives hope for the forthcoming new year. Consider the much appreciated news that Florida now and finally recognizes that children need the same-sex parents that sought to adopt them. Illinois also brought news on the civil rights front by recognizing same sex unions. Breathless in their scope but the media also brought attention to a joint collective effort. Specifically the rescue of the Chilean miners that was made possible by the actions of individuals from throughout North and South America.

The rescue underscores even more fundamentally when such collective action works. It further brings much hope for yet other seemingly insurmountable battles that the last elective season promises. Consider hope is needed because legislation is already being introduced to strip certain classes of babies from their citizenship status. One canot wonder about other problems that need attention and how anti-baby legislation is employed to divert constituents from the harsh economic times of the present.

The end of the passing year also obligates a look to the future that the New Year will bring but first mil gracias to the students who led the charge to enact progressive legislation and to protect ethnic studies and their supporters. Students have long engaged in civil rights activities including the present Puerto Rican student strikes of the present. From the past the Chicana/o Blowouts of East L.A. or the walk-outs of South Texas witnessed many students arrested for daring to protest educational disparities and inequities. The successes of the past opened many doors of the present and the present active challenges of students against colonialism and its entrenched tactics is much appreciated.

In saying adios to 2010 and looking to 2011 let us accordingly and for the well-being of the nation indulge a prayer, or a blessing, or a ritual or even one of those fascinating new year's eve superstitions with a firm conviction. Specifically like those brave students of the past and the present who battled so much let us also neither fear nor hide from the forthcoming political amnesia the last election cycle promises to bring.

Two Steps Forward? Part Two

2010-10-30T10:13:00.000-07:00

Earlier this month I wrote about a dialogue at the annual LatCrit conference on the subject of whether Latinos/as have a better life in the United States than they did some 50 years ago. I disagreed with remarks at the conference celebrating progress made, at least from the eyes of undocumented immigrants. Here I look from the similar perspective of the U.S. farm worker, most of them Latino/a and many of them undocumented. When César Chávez and Dolores Huerta started organizing Latino/a farm workers in the early 1960s in Delano, California, few were unionized and their work pay and conditions were miserable.

No doubt in the last 50 years some slight progress has been made—the grape boycott brought national attention to the plight of farm worker. The United Farm Workers union, among other achievements, helped outlaw use of the back-breaking short-handled hoe in California fields. At the same time, miserable conditions prevail today for U.S. farm workers. By 2005, only 2 percent of California’s field laborers were represented by a union. Wages are abysmal, with most farm workers making less than $10,000 a year. Labor contractors manipulate any wage protections by charging excessively for transportation and work equipment. A 2004 UC Berkeley study found that in addition to the sex trade, forced labor is prevalent in other U.S. labor sectors, including agriculture (10 percent) where Latino/a immigrants are often victims of involuntary servitude. Farm workers have slipped from the national consciousness after their brief heyday in the 1960s and 70s during the grape strike and the high-profile organizing efforts of the UFW.

But a green sprout has pushed through in Oregon. At a ceremony I attended earlier this year, our local union, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (PCUN) broke ground on a leadership institute building and last Friday held a forum to begin galvanizing volunteers to support the institute. http://www.pcun.org/gallery/87. In 2006 the Los Angeles Times blasted the UFW for straying from the roots of organizing farm workers and for engaging in such endeavors “far from the fields” as owning a Spanish-language radio station and trying to create a larger anti-poverty social movement. PCUN’s Radio Movimiento, an FM station, and its leadership institute, might be similarly criticized by those with a shallow understanding of the history of the challenges farm labor unions face. Only a struggle that aims to unite the Latino immigrant community in its allied industries and to teach the history of the movement struggles can gain ground against the seemingly intractable dynamics of agri-business and the globalized economy that have ravaged farm workers. I am looking forward to contributing to the leadership institute to help create a new generation of movement leaders to continue the honorable struggle of workers in the fields and beyond. ¡Viva la Causa!

Conservative Insecurity and Immigrants

2010-09-30T07:01:00.000-07:00

This week the Oregon Commission on Hispanic Affairs, on which I am an appointed commissioner, sparked controversy by asking the Multnomah County (includes Portland) Board of Commissioners to opt-out of the federal Secure Communities program. We attached a letter from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano that acknowledges the existence of such a procedure.

San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors is to be credited for pushing the opt-out issue and gaining this formal recognition. Following Napolitano’s acknowledgment on September 7th, so far at least two counties, California’s Santa Clara County and Virginia’s Arlington County, have invoked the opt-out procedure. http://www.deportationnation.org/2010/09/counties-on-west-east-coast-vote-to-opt-out-of-secure-communities/. In Oregon, our Commission letter this week sparked immediate controversy. National hate radio blowhard Lars Larson commented on his program that our Oregon Commission is complaining because the County is checking backgrounds of criminals who are rapists, drug dealers and killers. Of course, the knock on Secure Communities is that it is being used primarily to target immigration status violators rather than for dangerous criminals. In fact, our Commission letter specifically indicated that we support the deportation of those immigrants convicted of serious crimes. As expected, conservative commentators can’t be concerned with such nuances, as they are looking for stories to support their two-pronged belief that all undocumented immigrants are dangerous criminals, and that Latino organizations are complicit in the supposed carnage.

Rants of a former advocate of diversity/scholarship in the legal academy....

2010-09-29T07:59:00.000-07:00

While many of my fellow bloggers on the site typically submit posts on a variety of important topics that directly affect the Latina and Latino community, I have found myself often writing about more general issues related to the challenges and costs of diversity. While I typically write on Latina-Latino-related issues in my articles and books, I find blogging a great way to not only vent about what is currently on my mind, it is a useful vehicle to begin to collect my thoughts on future book projects.

In an effort to continue my ruminations on subjects that have captured a good deal of my attention of late, and perhaps to overcome a case of writers block, I will attempt here to recast my views on the value of diversity as well as the importance of scholarship in the legal academy.

In terms of diversity, there is little doubt about the legal academy's stated support for the value of diversity. There are several well-known statements by both the ABA and AALS. Indeed, if there is any profession in the world that should, and in fact has made statements about the importance of diversity, it is legal education. For instance, the AALS's powerful statement on diversity issued in 1995, provides that "the commitment to diversity reaches beyond merely granting access to persons from underrepresented groups, but actually increasing the number of minorities in the profession." The ABA likewise has a similar goal "to promote full and equal participation in the legal profession by minorities, women, and persons with disabilities." The AALS announced that it: "expects that by providing an educational experience and environment at its members schools that is inclusive and representative of our multicultural society, there will be increased and more meaningful representation and access for all members of society before our many different legal forums and systems."

These statements are truly impressive, but the question I have found myself asking is whether they are enough. Do law schools meet their respective obligations to promote diversity by merely pronouncing that they support it? Most would respond to this question by saying " obviously not." Yet most law schools fall terribly short of truly being diverse environments. Some might counter by saying law schools actually do better in terms of both students and faculty than many other disciplines and cynics like me should be grateful. Really? If this last approach is true, attempting to meet the goal of diversity is a gift to the less qualified. We, the beneficiaries of diversity goals and programs like affirmative action should be eternally grateful for what we have been given.

The problem is that when examining the facade of merit and inclusion, what some still see is a profession that extols inclusions, but exists in a state, to put it as generously as possible, where peculiar statistics exist. For instance, virtually every law school in America has at least one African-American faculty member, but most, irrespective of the size of the faculty, have no more than a handful at best( excluding HBCU's, that obviously have become experts on recruiting and retaining faculty of color). As I have written and spoken about elsewhere, for African-Americans, this profession's view of diversity for most law schools resembles a 1960s dinner party by an appropriately liberal Northerner--there is the one diverse invitee and the obligatory second. Are there really so few African-Americans out there? Or do we still use the classic, but inaccurate argument, that there is a dearth of qualified candidates? I think my fellow travelers know the answer here. I would nonetheless love to hear from them.

And as the handful of you that know my work would understand, the statistics for Latinos and Latinas are even more bleak. Indeed, as I have written about in the past, half of American law schools, despite their stated commitments to diversity, do not have a single Latina or Latino faculty tenured or tenure-track member. Yet Latinas and Latinos represent roughly 10% of law school student bodies and these individuals are the largest minority group in the country. How about the qualified candidate argument? As the work of AALS President-elect Michael Olivas has illustrated, Latina and Latino faculty have qualifications that typically exceed those of non-minority candidates. More recently, Profssor Olivas questioned Hispanic Business Magazine's ranking of top law schools for Hispanics by noting: "if these figures are to (not) be believed. Even counting as “Hispanic faculty,” those
who have eaten in Mexican restaurants, these are inflated." If the above is true, and diversity is either avoided, or distorted, then what is at play in this era of a "post-race" world? Can someone explain this to me before I jump ship?

If in fact advocating for diversity and arguably a more just academy is a waste of time and actually against my own interests in terms of advancement, I am left with the choice of being tactical. Shouldn't I ponder whether I should formally abandon my writings of social justice and civil rights, and merely attack diversity and openly write about opposing affirmative action? Perhaps this way I can prove myself worthy? Perhaps this way I can prove I should not be feared? At the very least, it may leave me less frustrated with statements like " scholarship is the coin of the realm for this profession." Is it really? In actuality, just a few years ago I never would have asked that question, but experience with school after school suggests my cynicism may stem from some truths.

If abandoning diversity isn't worthwhile and support of diversity isn't dangerous, what happens to race scholars like myself that achieve or exceed, by any objective measures, the label of being successful scholars? Do schools clamor for our services? Do the postulates of supply and demand come into play and make us valuable in the market place? If not, what then is at play here?

Irrespective of what your responses are to these questions, I hope you think about them as we approach our faculty recruiting season. Do we really believe in diversity in our profession? Let's not lose sight of what I recently told a school, that I am sure I frightened: if we believe in diversity, there should be a value to it and that value must be measured against the costs that are all too often used to discount reasons to hire a diverse candidate. The realities are, statistically speaking, for every racially and ethnically diverse professor there are at least 20-30 non-diverse professors, and the numbers are worse for faculty candidates. Unless diversity means something real and has a true quantifiable value, there is always a reason not to hire that potentially scary and different faculty member.

Ethnic Studies and the Power of Ideas

2010-09-28T08:29:00.000-07:00

We blogged earlier about Arizona's new law which is designed to suppress ethnic studies. Will Arizona be successful in this effort to eliminate ideas? It seems unlikely. Richard Delgado has recently observed that "ideas are not easy to kill" and that "education is an inherently destabilizing force that cannot readily be contained." (Liberal McCarthyism and the Origins of Critical Race Theory, 94 Iowa law Review 1505, 1544 (2009)). Arizona is finding this out. Instead of suppressing the ideas that ethnic studies generates, Arizona's new law has created greater interest in such studies and the number of students who are enrolled in such programs has almost doubled this year in Tucson, Arizona. (Mary Ann Zehr, Education Week, Tucson Students Aren't Deterred By Ethnic Studies Controversy, http://www.edweek.org/login.html?source=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/09/22/04ethnic_ep.h30.html&destination=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/09/22/04ethnic_ep.h30.html&levelId=1000).

Is Cuba Abandoning Its Revolutionary Marxist Economic System?

2010-09-25T13:32:00.000-07:00

For years now the writing has been on the wall. Over the last decade two great factions within the Cuban governing elite have been debating the future course of Cuban economic development. On the one side stood the governing apparatus of traditionalists tied to the old Soviet model of development. This group assumed there was no flaw in the Soviet model and they were determined to show that they could succeed where the Soviet sphere failed. On the other stood progressives, with significant elements in the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias, that increasingly looked to East Asian models of development as a means of preserving the political system while modifying the economic system to preserve political stability and the legitimacy of the leadership role of the Party. The battle between the two sectors of the governing elite appeared to tip in favor of the Raulistas at the beginning of September, 2010, when in a carefully staged interview, Fidel Castro appeared to concede the point. And so it is important to ask, at this point, what the Cuban elite is permitting to be said about this change. For that purpose, a recent article in the Communist Party paper may be of help. Leticia Martínez Hernández, Mucho más que una alternativa, Granma, Sept. 24, 2010.

To read the rest of the analysis, see Cuba Responds to Globalization and Reorganizes its Political Economy: Revolution, Retrenchment or Small Steps Towards Market Engagement Within a Marxist Framework Under the Leadership of a Vanguard Party Apparatus.

The U.S. Census and The List

2010-09-23T08:50:00.000-07:00

The United States census is critically important for a number of broad and varied reasons. On top of attempting to enumerate the population of the United States, the Census also provides extensive economic data. In the best of situations the Census mobilizes beneficial changes but in one instance its data fails in drawing sufficient bold and transformative trajectories.

In particular recent data shows poverty figures are increasing and reveal a measure of past failed policies in eliminating poverty in the nation. Past measures include for example linking the nation’s farm bills with food stamps but we all know not all hungry individuals are permitted food stamps. Honestly when the USDA changed the term “hungry” and replaced it with “food insufficiency” unnecessary battle lines generated further angst for activists seeking to eliminate the hunger that plagues the most vulnerable such as the elderly and children.

While not one individual -- particularly children -- should ever confront poverty and hunger, the figures underscore an essential emphasis. Specifically poverty and its attendant harm crosses race, class and gendered lines, yet the recent news of poverty in the Latina/o community dismays. The total figures emphasize that all such circumstances must be eliminated completely from the nation. Any ideas?

I have a list but as a start poverty with its attendant harm renders imperative our continued and collective vigilance in eradicating all heinous impoverishment figures from the nation’s economic base.

In celebration of Constitution Day!

2010-09-18T17:22:00.001-07:00

Yesterday was Constitution Day, the day we celebrate the signing of the U.S. Constitution. To highlight how the Equal Protection clause of U.S. Constitution applies to noncitizens, I authored an op-ed in my local newspaper, the Indianapolis Star. I include it below with the link to the newspaper site at the bottom. The comments to the op-ed in the site make for very interesting reading.

U.S. Constitution extends protection to immigrants
By Maria Pabon Lopez
Indianapolis Star September 17, 2010

As we celebrate today the 223rd anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution, which took place on Sept. 17, 1787, let us understand what the Constitution says about immigrants. In doing so, an examination of U.S. Supreme Court case law about immigrants and equality is instructive as well, having just ended a long summer during which the immigration debate has been raging nationwide.
I believe that a close look at the Constitution -- particularly its amendments, having over time been ratified by the states -- demonstrates the will and wisdom of the people of the United States. Take, for example, the 14th Amendment, which in Section One, Clause Two states: ". . . nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This is the Equal Protection Clause, and it mandates that the government -- both federal and state -- treat persons equally when enacting legislation. If the government treats persons unequally, the Supreme Court has devised analytical tests based on the government's reason for passing the law in order to assess whether the law complies with the Equal Protection Clause.
Notice that the clause specifically says "person," not "citizen." What this means is that the equality promise of the Equal Protection clause is available by its very terms not only to citizens of this country, but to any person, including those who are not U.S. citizens, as long as they are within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Supreme Court itself has recognized that immigrants are persons in cases that further outline what rights immigrants have in the United States.
In fact, the Supreme Court has confirmed the applicability of the Equal Protection Clause to those who are not U.S. citizens, whether they are present in the country in lawful immigration status or even if they are undocumented. The case is called Plyler v. Doe, and it is a 1982 decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that excluded children of undocumented immigrants from public schools. The court found that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause without having any rational basis for so doing.
In reaching this result in Plyler, the Supreme Court delved into the history of the enactment of the 14th Amendment. In particular, the court cited language from the 1866 congressional debate recorded at the time of passage of the Amendment as follows: "Is it not essential to the unity of the Government and the unity of the people that all persons, whether citizens or strangers, within this land, shall have equal protection in every State in this Union in the rights of life and liberty and property?'' These are the words of John Bingham, Republican congressman from Ohio, the principal framer of the 14th Amendment. So we see that the Supreme Court found not only in the letter, but also in the history, of the 14th Amendment that the guarantee of equal protection under the law applies to all persons, immigrants or citizens, in the United States.
Having reviewed the history of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court emphasized "that a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter." Thus, the court found that the 14th Amendment applies to those in the country unlawfully.
With this review of the past and present of the 14th Amendment, it is my hope that as the country continues to debate immigration matters into the fall, we will approach the discussion with a fuller understanding of the equality guarantee found in this amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20100917/OPINION01/9170321/1031/OPINION01/U-S-Constitution-extends-protection-to-immigrants

Arizona's Immigration Stance in a Regional Perspective--Mexico Builds a Wall to Keep Central American "Ilegales" Out

2010-09-16T12:18:00.000-07:00

The thrust of discussion of Arizona's efforts to participate in the control of its internal space, and in the process challenge the federal government's role in the policing of national borders and the management of immigration, has tended to focus solely on Arizona, as if it existed in its own space-time unconnected with the rest of the world--and especially the world beyond American borders. As ill advised and destructive as Arizona's efforts are, they are better understood in the context of regional efforts to control immigration.

A principal actor in the region is not the United States, but Mexico. It appears that Mexico is fierce in the defense of its own nationals as they cross the border northward into the United States. However, Mexico is perhaps even more fierce than the United States right wing in the defense of its own national borders against immigration from its "south"--especially migrants from Central America, either seeking a better life in Mexico or passing through to the United States. For these people, Mexico's elite sometimes tends to mimic the behaviors and politics of the more xenophobic of elements int he United States. Mexico thus occupies a middle place within hierarchies of power--the subaltern in its relations with the United States, and the dominant power with respect to its Central American neighbors. And, like any dominant power, Mexico appears ready and willing to reproduce the markers of subordinating power relationships between itself and those states lower down on the hierarchies of power in the Hemisphere. Whether it does this out of a need to serve the interests of the United States, to which it is dependent, or whether it represents the application of the ideals of power relations applied to inferior powers, is unclear.

Now clearly, Mexico's policies are as much a reaction to that of the United States as it may be a reflection of Mexican xenophobia in the region. Yet Mexico's enthusiasm for tactics that would be scandalous in the United States and among Latino advocates, is disturbing. Amnesty International has criticized Mexico for its treatment of its undocumented migrant populations. Amnesty International, Report: Invisible Victims: Migrants on the Move in Mexico, AMR 41/014/2010, published April 28, 2010. The Report is also available in Spanish as: VÍCTIMAS INVISIBLES MIGRANTES EN MOVIMIENTO EN MÉXICO

And now it has been reported that the Mexican government is contemplating mimicking the United States in another way--by the building of a partition wall between Mexico and Guatemala. This wall is meant ostensibly to control the flow of goods through Mexico, but also has an objective to control the free passage of illegal immigrants, according to officials (who interestingly had no problem using the term in Spanish). This proposed effort has been denounced by Mexican human rights and civil society advocates.

MIGRACIONES-AMÉRICA LATINA: Otro muro en la ruta a EEUU
Por Danilo Valladares

GUATEMALA, sep (IPS) - Viajar sin documentos a Estados Unidos desde América Latina supone una verdadera odisea, eludiendo delincuentes comunes, leyes contra las migraciones y narcotraficantes. Pero ahora, además, parece que también habrá que sortear un nuevo muro: esta vez entre Guatemala y México.
El intendente de aduanas de la guatemalteca Superintendencia de Administración Tributaria, Raúl Díaz, afirmó que, para impedir el paso de balseros con contrabando, el sureño estado mexicano de Chiapas pretende construir un muro en la costa del fronterizo río Suchiate, similar al ya avanzado en la frontera sur de Estados Unidos.
"Podría también evitar el libre paso de inmigrantes ilegales", admitió el funcionario.
El río Suchiate es utilizado para ingresar productos mexicanos al mercado guatemalteco sin pagar impuestos, pero, a su vez, es atravesado por miles de centroamericanos y sudamericanos con destino a Estados Unidos en busca de oportunidades y sin la documentación requerida.
Unas 500.000 emigrantes cruzan cada año el territorio mexicano sin permiso, según la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos de México (CNDH).
La intención de construir el muro fronterizo ha provocado una ola de rechazo en sectores sociales y gubernamentales por considerarlo una medida "sin sentido", la cual "no evitará" que las personas crucen la frontera "sin papeles" para llegar al Norte.
"Vemos con mucha preocupación la iniciativa del gobierno mexicano, porque los emigrantes están en una situación de altísima vulnerabilidad, como lo demostró la matanza de Tamaulipas, donde murieron cinco guatemaltecos", dijo a IPS Erick Maldonado, secretario ejecutivo de la Consejo Nacional de Atención al Migrante de Guatemala.
La crueldad a la que usualmente son sometidos miles de indocumentados quedó al desnudo el 23 de agosto, cuando 72 emigrantes procedentes, además de Guatemala, de El Salvador, Honduras, Ecuador y Brasil fueron brutalmente asesinados en la localidad de San Fernando, en el oriental estado de Tamaulipas, supuestamente a manos de la mafia criminal Los Zetas.
Además, un total de 9.758 secuestros de inmigrantes fueron denunciados en México entre septiembre de 2008 y febrero de 2009, según la CNDH.
La idea de amurallar la frontera guatemalteca con México "va a empeorar la situación de la población emigrante, porque nuestros connacionales tienen necesidades y siempre logran pasar en nuevos puntos ciegos que carecen de controles migratorios y de seguridad, lo cual implica mayores riesgos", señaló Maldonado.
La vulnerabilidad de la población latinoamericana, principalmente de América Central, que emigra "sin papeles" a Estados Unidos ha permanecido a flote en los últimos meses no sólo por el recrudecimiento de la violencia plasmada en la matanza de Tamaulipas, sino también por las medidas legales en su contra.
Tal es el caso de la ley SB1070, promulgada el 23 de abril por el sudoccidental estado estadounidense de Arizona, la cual autoriza a la policía a capturar a cualquier persona de la que tengan una "sospecha razonable" sobre su estatus migratorio.
A esta serie de barreras a la inmigración se ha sumado la construcción del muro en la frontera de México y Guatemala.
Sin embargo, las autoridades de Guatemala no han recibido hasta ahora ninguna comunicación del gobierno mexicano al respecto.
No obstante, Maldonado expresó el lunes su preocupación por esta medida al delegado mexicano de migración en el país, Alejandro Martínez.
El rechazo al proyecto llegó incluso a Casa Presidencial. "Los muros nos los saltamos y no son la solución a los problemas", dijo escuetamente sobre el asunto el vicepresidente de Guatemala, Rafael Espada.
La intención del estado de Chiapas trajo a colación la polémica construcción del muro perimetral de 1.126 kilómetros que bordea el río Bravo que realiza Estados Unidos en su frontera con México para contener la llegada de indocumentados.
"El aumento terrible del costo de polleros (traficantes de personas) y la corrupción de las autoridades es el fruto de los muros que Estados Unidos pretende construir y ha construido en la frontera. Este caso lo podemos trasladar en esta situación y los resultados serán los mismos", dijo a IPS el sacerdote Francisco Pellizari, de la Casa del Migrante.
Según el religioso, los muros son un "error histórico" de varios países en el mundo que no han ayudado a resolver las migraciones.
"Se supone que es para detener la migración pero eso no ha dado resultado y sí ha provocado un derrame económico y el desvío del flujo migratorio por caminos más inhóspitos que provocan miles de muertes", señaló.
Erick Zúñiga, alcalde del occidental municipio de Ayutla, más conocido como Tecún Umán, fronterizo con México, dijo a IPS que el estado de Chiapas ya comenzó con la construcción de la barrera, la cual "parece un muro para evitar que el río Suchiate se desborde".
En todo caso, "ningún muro impedirá las migraciones. Eso no impedirá que las personas pasen al otro lado porque la gente va en busca de oportunidades de empleo y un futuro para su familia", explicó.(FIN/2010). Danilo Valladores, Migraciones-América Latina: Otro Muro en la ruta a EEUU, Visiones de IPS (Inter Press Service) (Sept. 15, 2010).

English Version:

GUATEMALA CITY, Sep 15 , 2010 (IPS) - Travelling without documents to the United States from Latin America can turn into an odyssey, in which migrants have to elude common criminals and drug traffickers along the way, not to mention the laws on migration. But now another obstacle is emerging: a wall between Guatemala and Mexico.

According to the head of customs for Mexico's tax administration, Raúl Díaz, in order to stop boats carrying contraband, the southern Mexican state of Chiapas is building a wall along the border river Suchiate, similar to the one the United States is building along its southern border with Mexico.

"It could also prevent the free passage of illegal immigrants," admitted the Mexican official.

Smugglers use the Suchiate River to move products across an international border without paying duty taxes, but at the same time, thousands of Central and South Americans cross the river in their attempts to reach the United States in search of opportunity -- and without the required documents.

Some 500,000 migrants cross Mexican territory without permission each year, according to Mexico's National Commission on Human Rights (CNDH).

The intention to build a border wall has triggered a wave of opposition from civil society and government organisations, with charges that it is a "senseless" measure that will not succeed in preventing undocumented migrants from crossing the border on their way north.

"We are watching the Mexican government's initiative with concern because the migrants are in a situation of highest vulnerability, as demonstrated by the massacre in Tamaulipas, where five Guatemalans died," Erick Maldonado, executive secretary of Guatemala's National Council on Migrants, told IPS.

The cruelty to which undocumented migrants are often subjected was laid bare Aug. 23, when 72 people coming from Guatemala, as well as El Salvador, Honduras, Ecuador and Brazil, were brutally murdered in San Fernando, a town in the eastern Mexican state of Tamaulipas. They were presumably killed by the Los Zetas drug cartel, which is also involved in kidnapping and exploiting migrants.

In addition, a total of 9,758 kidnappings of migrants were reported in Mexico from September 2008 to February 2009, according to the CNDH.

Putting up a wall on the Guatemala-Mexico border "is going to make the migrants' situation worse, because to meet their needs they are always going to find blind points where there are no migration or security controls, which implies greater risks," said Maldonado.

The vulnerability of the Latin Americans, and especially Central Americans, who emigrate "without papers" to the United States has remained at the forefront in recent months, not only because of intense violence like the Tamaulipas massacre, but also because of government measures taken to fight illegal migration.

Law SB1070, enacted Apr. 23 by the southwestern U.S. state of Arizona, authorises police to inquire into the immigration status of any person based on "reasonable suspicion." Critics say the legislation leads to racial profiling and violations of civil liberties.

The long line of obstacles that migrants face on their way to the United States gets longer with the construction of the wall on the Mexico-Guatemala border.

However, the authorities in Guatemala have yet to receive any information from the Mexican government about the wall.

Nevertheless, Maldonado expressed his concern this week to Mexico's migration representative in Guatemala, Alejandro Martínez.

Opposition to the project has even reached the highest circles: "Walls we can jump over; they are not a solution to the problem," was the terse comment from the vice-president of Guatemala, Rafael Espada.

The Chiapas state's intention to build a wall in some ways echoes the United States' controversial construction of the 1,126-kilometre wall along its southern border river -- known as Río Grande in the U.S.; Río Bravo in Mexico -- to prevent entry of undocumented immigrants.

"The dramatic increase in the cost of 'polleros' (human traffickers) and the corruption of the authorities is the result of the walls the United States plans to build and has built along the border. We can transpose the Guatemala case to this situation and the results will be the same," Catholic priest Francisco Pellizari, of the Casa del Migrante (Migrant House), told IPS.

According to the priest, walls are a "historic error" in many countries around the world, and have failed to resolve the problems associated with migration.

"They are supposedly intended to halt migration, but that hasn't happened. Instead they have triggered an economic haemorrhage and a shift in the migratory flow to inhospitable routes that lead to thousands of deaths," he said.

Erick Zúñiga, mayor of the western Guatemalan municipality of Ayutla, better known as Tecún Umán, bordering Mexico, said the state of Chiapas has already begun construction of the barrier, which he said "looks like a wall to prevent the Suchiate River from flooding."

In any case, said the mayor, "no wall will prevent migration. It won't stop people from crossing because they are going in search of job opportunities and a future for their families." (END) Danilo Valladores, Another Wall Blocks Route to US, Visiones de IPS (Inter Press Service) (Sept. 15, 2010).

The report suggests the contours of the problem and even its relation ship to Hemispheric issues of drug interdiction and trade flow management. All of these lead inevitably to the United States and through Mexico. It is possible that Mexico must adopt the approach to these policy issues that reproduce precisely those activities which, when undertaken by the United States, produces the greatest outrage within the Mexican elite. Apparently that elite is doping more than seeking to dismantle those barriers to migration and trade that separate Mexico from the United States--for while that project of deconstruction is being undertaken, a project of barriers is being constructed on Mexico's southern border every bit as restrictive and aggressive as the one with respect to which Mexico complains in its own and in the American press. Understood in this more regional context, the difficulties of campaigns against Arizona's efforts to impede migration in and through its own borders become clearer. Those who join with Mexico and other elements in the dismantling of barriers to movement between states ought to be aware that selective spot lighting, while producing some measurable benefits may not ultimately produce substantive results and might, to some extent, produce perverse results.

Ashcroft v.Iqbal Takes a Toll in SB 1070 Litigation

2010-09-14T09:31:00.000-07:00

I earlier blogged that the U.S. Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal has established a tough new pleading standard -- the plausibility standard. I said then that Latinos/as and other minorities would find it difficult to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim and thereby satisfy the new standard. This has come to pass in the SB 1070 cases. In Escobar v. Brewer, the plaintiff, a Latino police officer, alleged among other things, that he had standing to bring the legal action because "as a Hispanic residing in Arizona" he was "exposed to all the dangers that [SB 1070] presents." Despite this, the district court dismissed the case for failing to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim. The court's opinion is here: (http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_083110_EscobarVsBrewerOrderGrantingBrewerMtD.pdf).

America's Toughest President?

2010-09-13T09:20:00.000-07:00

Last week I blogged about the federal Department of Justice lawsuit against Sheriff Joe. Since then, speculation has emerged whether Arizona’s iconic lawman plans a run in the 2012 presidential race. Over the weekend he addressed a Republican committee in New Hampshire as a lunch keynote speaker, sparking the rumor.

Candidates who build their campaigns around hate for immigrants have found some isolated success at the local level, as well as in some state races such as Pete Wilson’s reelection in California in 1994 built around his support for Proposition 187. But at the national level, at least, their campaigns have fizzled. Just ask Pat “we need an immigration time-out” Buchanan and Tom “defend the border against undocumented immigrant terrorists” Tancredo. I worry, though, about the appeal to the Fox-entranced masses of something like a Palin/Arpaio ticket. Watching most media these days gives the impression that we are under siege from criminal immigrants, who arrive with backpacks stuffed with illegal drugs to exploit our wealth and public services, while beheading the rich and dumping their bodies in the desert. The reality that many of us have detailed is that the undocumented immigrants are the ones exploited in labor at the margins of society. U.S. border cities are among our safest cities despite, and probably because of, the immigrant influx. And in Oregon, where anti-immigrant sentiment is blossoming, crime statistics released today by the FBI show violent crime here has dropped to the lowest rate since 1969, with property crime down to 1966 levels.

We don’t need the prison culture that Arpaio would bring to any public office. Rather, we need better funded schools and meaningful job growth and economic opportunity. Joe, we don’t need your bloated ego in the White House or anywhere inside or near the Beltway. You’ve got plenty to do in Maricopa County chasing down Jan Brewer’s incessant phantoms and delusions.

Lozano et al. v. City of Hazleton: Another Blow to Local Regulation of Undocumented Persons

2010-09-12T13:23:00.000-07:00

On September 9, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit issues its long anticipated opinion in Lozano et al., v. City of Hazleton, Case 07-3531(appeal from the Middle District of Pennsylvania). The opinion, written by Chief Judge McKee (on a panel with Judges Nygaard and Siler (Sr. Judge, 6th Cir., sitting by designation)) is worth careful consideration in its own right, but it may be as valuable for pointing to a possible resolution in state efforts, like those of Arizona, to regulate undocumented workers and others. The local regulations at issue related to employment and housing. For an insightful analysis, see Professor Ruthann Robson's posting at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Third Circuit Declares Hazelton Immigration Ordinances Unconstitutional (Sept. 9, 2010). I suspect we have not heard the last of this case. It may well provide a useful vehicle for a revision of the law of preemption, which itself might now serve as the battlefield for conflicts over the extent of state power and the nature and structural limits of federalism.

Rest In Peace....

2010-09-11T10:59:00.000-07:00

Dear friends,

In addition to the solemn anniversary of the tragic events associated with the attacks in NYC and Washington D.C. on this date ten years ago, I wanted to pass on a sad message a friend recently sent me. It is about the death of Puerto Rican Independence champion Juan Mari Bras. Mr. Mari Bras fought for Puerto Rican sovereignty for decades and went as far as attempting to denounce his United States citizenship in an effort to proclaim Puerto Rican citizenship. United States officials, after initially accepting his act, later proclaimed he had no right to revoke his U.S. citizenship. In some of my works, I examined this effort to raise the question concerning whether United States citizenship for my brothers and sisters in the land of my ancestors is a mark rather than a bundle of rights.

I truly feel fortunate to have met Mr. Mari Bras when I gave a talk at the University of Puerto Rico and compared his challenge to subordinate membership to the brave efforts of Dred Scott. After the talk, Mr. Mari Bras approached me and we shared a tear-filled hug. I wanted to share this sad moment in an effort to remind us of the sacrifices of others.

Here is an article about this civil rights advocate:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/us/politics/11bras.html

Peace,

Ediberto Roman

Avoiding Arizona

2010-09-11T07:15:00.000-07:00

The passage of the anti-Latina/o SB 1070 has really changed my TV-viewing habits. I am amazed at how many of my favorite television programs had Arizona connections. "Had" because I stopped watching anything that has any connection to Arizona.

House Hunters, on HGTV, for example, often features home searches in Arizona cities. Changed channels. Stopped watching.

ESPN of course features the many sports teams from Arizona, especially those that play at the University of Phoenix Stadium. So, no Arizona Diamondbacks, Cardinals or Rattlers; no Phoenix Suns, Coyotes, Mercury, or International Raceway; no Wildcats, Sun Devils or Lumberjacks. No Cactus League next year either. Change channels. I cannot stop watching all of ESPN —that would be wrong— so I just have to get good at channel-surfing. The ticker used during Sports Center makes it easy to plan which items I want to avoid. Arizona or Bob Knight (different story), change channels.

And then came the truly horrible realization. Even the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, the national championship of college football in which, with a little luck, the mighty Gators might play (I can dream). Change channels. Turn off TV.

Hasta la vista Arizona.

New Economic Data on Cuba From the Spanish Embassy in Havana

2010-09-07T07:34:00.000-07:00

The Spanish Embassy in Havana has recently published a short economic analysis of the Cuban economy. Embajada de España, Oficina Economía y Comercio de España, Coyuntura político-economía (March 2010).

The critical issue, ironically, was one of translation.

La existencia de un sistema económico centralizado, con precios intervenidos y control de salarios, rentas y, lo que es más importante, controles sobre las cantidades de bienes y servicios suministrados, hace difícil traducir a términos de economía de mercado la información económica del país. Id.

The systemic differences between free market and state market systems makes the use of numbers generated by each essentially incomprehensible to the other for purposes of comparison. Moreover, the free market focus on pricing as an indicator of value is of little help in state market systems where price is an expression of political will with respect to availability rather than a measure of the value of the object priced.

Los precios no funcionan como indicadores de los costes ni de las preferencias del consumidor: una parte importante del consumo de las familias lo proporciona el Estado a precios políticos, por lo que valorar dicho consumo es difícil (los costes salariales son determinados centralizadamente). Por otro lado, los márgenes de distribución de muchas empresas cubanas funcionan más como impuestos sobre el consumo que como retribución de la actividad empresarial. Id.

For those interested in the relationship between law and economics, and the approaches to governance in states where the public and private spheres are conflated in a way that privileges government direction and control of the factors of production, the document makes fascinating reading.

For those interested in the subject, the country report on Cuba prepared by the Oficina Económica y Comercial de España en La Habana (Feb, 2010) is also worth reading for a global Spanish perspective--sympathetic but critical, of the situation in Cuba.

Illegal Immigration Has Declined: Why?

2010-09-04T06:31:00.001-07:00

By Heather Horn

A new study from the Pew Hispanic Center finds that illegal immigration is down. Annual inflow between 2007 and 2009 was roughly two-thirds less than between 2000 and 2005, report Pew authors Jeffrey Passel and D'Vera Cohn. Furthermore, "the most marked decline in the population of unauthorized immigrants has been among those who come from Latin American countries other than Mexico."

This might not be what one would expect, given the current political tension over illegal immigration, say, in Arizona. Here's how immigration experts and political observers are parsing the numbers.

•'It's the (Labor) Market Stupid,' says Kevin Johnson, law professor and professor of Chicana/o Studies at University of California, Davis. Audrey Singer elaborates at The New Republic: "Loss of immigrants, particularly the unauthorized, may be the ultimate indicator of economic sluggishness." The fascinating thing about the Pew Hispanic Center estimates, she says, is that "because of the time period measured (through March 2009), [they] may not yet have captured the greatest declines in unauthorized immigrants for these states that have seen abrupt u-turns in their overall growth and as enforcement capacity is strengthened at the border."
•And a Few Other Factors The Washington Post's Tara Bahrampour talks to Princeton University sociologist Douglas Massey, who studies migration. He, too, says the recession and job market are "major factors." He brings up some other trends worth noting:
Massey also pointed to a rise in guest-worker visas, from 104,000 in 2000 to 302,000 in 2009, allowing more immigrants to come to the United States legally. The other likely reasons for the decline, he said, include an increase in law enforcement and deportations, and enactment of stricter legislation against illegal immigrants.

•More Evidence This Immigration Debate Is Bizarre This report is "yet another piece of information which seemingly debunks" the idea that we're in an "immigration 'crisis,'" thinks Doug Mataconis. "Before we start engaging in a wholesale immigration debate, it would be nice to get the facts right."
•But Unlikely to Change Anything Adam Serwer, filling in for Greg Sargent at the Washington Post, agrees: "The report ... offers more evidence that the criticisms of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and other Republicans about lax enforcement on behalf of the federal government are overblown." But "none of this is likely to change the politics of comprehensive immigration reform."

I-95 A 'Trap' For Migrant Fruit Pickers

2010-09-04T06:27:00.000-07:00

September 4, 2010

Audio for this story from Weekend Edition Saturday will be available at approx. 12:00 p.m. ET
Transcript
Phillippe Diederich/Getty Images
Farmers depend on cheap and flexible labor to pick fragile crops like oranges, peaches, blueberries and more.
text size A A A September 4, 2010 Look closely at the traffic on Interstate 95, between the tractor-trailers and the vacationing families piled into minivans, and you might see them: migrant farm workers, following the growing season from state to state. When the season ends in the North, those workers along the East Coast will head south in search of work.

For the undocumented workers who make up the majority of that labor pool, the journey can be harrowing. Just ask Ramiro, a migrant worker on a tomato farm in New Jersey. "Last year, we almost had an accident," he says. "Thanks to God we didn't, but we came close."

Ramiro was riding in a van with other undocumented workers on I-95 in Maryland when another car swerved into their lane. Ramiro's van wound up on the side of the road, and the police came to investigate. He was afraid of being deported.

"We definitely were scared. It stays stuck in your mind," he says.

Ramiro doesn't want his last name used because he's afraid of attracting attention from immigration officials. But it's a risk migrant workers can't always avoid when traveling.

"They just move and hope they will not be detained, stopped or anything like that. So that's the risk that they're taking," says Nelson Carrasquillo, the general coordinator of CATA, a support group for agricultural workers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Carrasquillo says migrant workers try to keep a low profile, traveling with friends and labor contractors in cars and unmarked vans. They generally avoid buses for fear of running into immigration checkpoints.

"The 95 corridor — the traditional way of moving for them — has become kind of a trap," Carrasquillo says.

A Change Along The Way

Greg Schell, an attorney at the Migrant Farmworker Justice Project in Florida, estimates that more than 100,000 farm workers commute up and down the I-95 corridor every year.

"When the Florida harvest ends and the workers need to get to North Carolina, the fastest way there is to get on the interstate," he says. "Likewise, when they finish in the Carolinas and need to get to Pennsylvania or New Jersey, Interstate 95 or other interstates are the highway of choice."

Migrant workers have been traveling up and down the East Coast since well before the days of I-95. Farmers depend on cheap, flexible labor to pick fragile crops like tomatoes, peaches, blueberries and more.

In the 1960s, the workers were mostly American citizens. University of Delaware professor Mark Miller says the migrant workforce has changed dramatically since he began studying it 30 years ago. "There, still at that juncture, was a prevalence of African-American migrant workers from Florida. Today, the composition is very different. There's been a 'Hispanization' of the agricultural workforce," he says.

African-Americans have largely moved on to jobs with better pay and working conditions, Miller says. Back on the New Jersey tomato farm, Ramiro says he, too, would like to settle down.

"I've been thinking about it," he says. "Work's going to be finishing up pretty soon. I would like to stay here, but I don't know what else to do."

Without documentation, Ramiro says, it's difficult to find work in the off-season. So in October, he'll probably head back down I-95 to Florida and take his chances.

by Joel Rose
NPR News

Katrina, Kimberly and Scott Roberts and "Con Todo Mi Corazon"

2010-09-03T16:14:00.000-07:00

This year marks the fifth year since the full force of Katrina and the “man made” contributions of its failed levees brutalized New Orleans. For the past couple of weeks the media has broadcasted various news clips on what has been identified as one of the nation’s deadliest storms to hit the coastal and Gulf of Mexico regions. Amid the news clips and the focus of this post emerged a documentary that speaks volumes as to how the poor, the disabled and elderly in New Orleans’ 9th Ward were left to confront the storm and attendant breach of the levees. Although issued last year and while there have been other films on what happened during Katrina, the documentary “Trouble the Water” is compelling beyond the norm.

The documentary features Kimberly Rivers Roberts, her husband Scott and their family, as they fought to survive Katrina in their house a few blocks from the ill “maintained” levee system that bordered the 9th Ward. The Roberts along with their poor, elderly and disabled neighbors were unable to leave because they lacked funds. The City’s failure to provide public transportation to safer grounds moreover forced the Roberts’ and their neighbors to confront inestimable odds in their fight to survive.

Kimberly who happened to purchase a $20.00 camcorder to film family events instead used it to record what they and their neighbors endured during and after the storm. The result provides a much-needed historical record of what the poor faced and how they survived nature’s force.

Yet while much of New Orleans weathered the storm the poorly maintained levees further constructed the horror story that the Roberts and 9th Ward confronted. At one point in the film we see the family and the neighbors in the Roberts' attic and the shots Kimberly took of outside showing the forceful rain, and increasingly rising water and winds left us breathless.

The documentary takes us on a journey of the difficulties the Roberts’ witnessed during and after the storm. It provides extensive heart-wrenching details of the wide spread governmental failures that added to the family’s distress. Aside from failing to maintain the levees that exposed the 9th Ward to great dangers, the government also barred the Roberts’ and their tiny band of survivors from staying in a vacated National Guard building. When the Roberts’ requested entry (after the water had subsided) the guards denied them access with M16s. Thereafter the government that failed the Roberts commended the guards for protecting governmental property.

Other details reveal the cavalier responses of government officials that caused the family to endure so much. Their dealings with FEMA for example underscores the scary and violent spaces the poor confront. Eventually after a series of delays Kimberly receives the funds FEMA promised, but her brother who lacked a permanent address was denied financial assistance.

Yet what remains truly astonishing is the hope that Kimberly possessed notwithstanding each hurdle she confronted. She kept her family together and rescued others with immeasurable courage and astonishing hope that tomorrow would bring improved conditions.

In sum, the documentary also speaks volumes as to what status the poor reside in, shows in concrete detail the class struggle and hardships that poverty imposes on those from working class and impoverished backgrounds. It reveals moreover causal links with the disparate treatment and the lack of foresight attendant to the nation’s stubborn refusal to eradicate poverty across the country. Try and reconcile the governmental subsidies the agricultural industrial complex obtains with the narrow definitions of who among the impoverished “qualify” for food stamps and other government “assistance.” Impossible!

Finally and although five years after Katrina and the breach of the levees, a recent tour of the 9th Ward still packs an emotional wallop. For me moreover and ultimately rendering a mystery was the huge writing across an abandoned ranch style house in the 9th Ward. Written across the length of the house was this: “Con todo mi corazon” (“with all my heart”) that left me with yet another reminder.

While New Orleans' history is tightly woven with earlier Spanish governance, how and why those four Spanish words ended up on a house in the 9th ward is a mystery. The words nonetheless underscore how the violence of poverty and particularly as constructed and maintained by ill intended governmental policies show a systemic and perpetual harm on the poor. This stance moreover tainting and spreading across class, race and gendered lines.

Kimberly Rivers Roberts and her hopeful stance ultimately help conclude this post. How? Kimberly is a rap musician who writes music that speaks to the difficulties she faced and the hope she promotes. You can find her music at http://www.bornhusterrecords.com. A copy of the documentary can also be purchased at http://www.troublethewaterfilm.com.

Sheriff Joe

2010-09-02T11:44:00.000-07:00

On Thursday, the Department of Justice turned up the heat on Sheriff Joe by filing a lawsuit in federal district court to force the controversial Sheriff to cooperate in the DOJ’s investigation of allegations that his policies and policing discriminate against Latinos/as. The complaint can be found at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/36806322/DOJ-suit-against-sheriff-joe. That investigation dates to early 2009 and encompasses alleged unconstitutional search and seizures and discriminatory practices, including those targeting limited or non-English proficient inmates. Among the allegations investigated is that Maricopa County’s Sheriff Joe runs an English-Only jail, requiring even bilingual officers to speak to inmates in English at all times, except in emergencies.

Even prisoners have constitutionally protected language rights, sourced in constitutional guarantees of free speech and protection from cruel and unusual punishment. Of course, these protections are balanced against safety prerogatives and funding issues. For example, a Wisconsin prison demanded its inmates speak English in front of staff, fearing that Spanish conversations might include discussions of escape, assault, hostage-taking, riots, and gang activity. State of Wisconsin ex rel. Velez v. Litscher, 680 N.W.2d 833 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004 ) (unpublished opinion affirming dismissal of lawsuit based on these security concerns and the bilingual capability of the complainant prisoner). This is reminiscent of employer arguments in Title VII cases attempting to justify English-Only policies to prevent worker plots to steal from the workplace. Of course, hiring a bilingual supervisor or prison guards would solve the problem, and there is always the potential for planning illicit activity, in any language, out of earshot of guards.

Prison officials might be motivated by legitimate safety concerns to impose restrictions on non-English language in some limited prison settings. My assumption, however, is that Sheriff Joe cares little for the nuances of constitutional balancing and imposes his English-Only policies as part of his overarching campaign to humiliate prisoners. Pink underwear, scorching tent cities, and forced marches through the streets are the stuff of legend in Arizona, but signal a man with an outlaw agenda that surely exceeds the bounds of decency and constitutional privilege.

My New Birth Certificate

2010-08-26T14:15:00.000-07:00

When I picked up my mail today, I found my new birth certificate issued by the Registro Demográfico de Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico’s Demographic Registry). As María Pabón López wrote some weeks ago, every person born in Puerto Rico who needs a birth certificate for any purpose was required to obtain a newly-issued official copy.

I have a recently-issued passport and foresee no reason to need the certificate. But I wanted to see how the process would work, given the expected high demand for the new documents, especially from those of us Boricuas on this side of the Atlantic.

The process was fairly painless and even efficient. On July 29, 2010, I filled out the application online in the site set up for this purpose by Puerto Rico’s Department of Health, which includes the Demographic Registry. I paid the modest five dollar ($5.00) fee online and waited until yesterday to receive the document. Now, less than a month later, I have my crisp new certificate in hand.

(To visit the official site to file the request go here:
https://serviciosenlinea.gobierno.pr/Salud/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fSalud%2fOrders.aspx).

But I still find it outrageous that the Puerto Rican legislature caved in to pressure from federal executive officials and passed the law that required us to get the new documents. This is yet another example of the absurdities of colonialism. If the federal officials had told, say, Florida government officers that every one of its citizens had to get a new birth certificate, the outcry about the absurdity of such a requirement and its accompanying cost to taxpayers would have derailed such a ridiculous request. But Puerto Rico does not have sovereignty to refuse such a request, and it also lacks two senators and half a dozen or so members of congress who would have called those executive branch employees to Capitol Hill to publicly rake them over the coals for even making such a ridiculous request. Federal executive overreaching is simply one of the defining characteristics of colonialism. ¡Ay bendito!

Voces of Art, Music and Dialog From Cuba

2010-08-25T18:38:00.000-07:00

As part of a series of innovative encounters among academics, artists and musicians in Cuba, Estado de SATS recently released a short video of some music produced from this meeting of art and ideas. Well worth a listen:

Concierto "Estado de Sats"

Video of some of the presentations, and discussion of Cuba's future can be accessed at:

Fragmentos del Panel: Futuros y visiones de Cuba.

Youth and Border Gardens

2010-08-25T11:48:00.000-07:00

From ace reporter Kent Patterson welcomed news that counters the masters' narrative of border violence. By now it remains clear that violence on the nation's southernmost geographical border is skewed in the media. In fact local groups are rejecting the media firestorm that proclaims the border a zone of violence. The attendant result has increasingly witnessed the ongoing militarization of the border with criticism directed at skewed and hyped up media reports infrequently published. In reality local reports show that the border is not as violent as the media and others would have us believe. So it was a welcomed respite to see a column on something of value as opposed to the daily reactionary stream of those that seek to control the dominant narrative of culture, life and economics in the nation's border regions.

Specifically, Kent's recent post focused on the Vado, New Mexico community gardens that are packed with chiles, tomatoes, eggplant and sunflowers. Trees, herbs, fruits and potted plants are also grown locally. Vado joins other low income communities that are scattered throughout the region. The payoff of this particular garden is that it is operated primarily by young students who then sell their plants every Saturday at a local farmer's market located behind the Desert Crossing Restaurant.

A further benefit for the students goes beyond cultivating, harvesting and selling their commodities. The program that sponsors the young students also teaches them money management such as operating costs and as the column underscores the students' "blossom." it further allows them to "express community pride as well as the gleanings of future political leadership."

While the Program's success is well established it operates primarily through grants and one hopes for their continued success. The gardens offer not only a counter narrative they also promote food access to healthy alternatives that fall outside dominant food distribution chains. Against the backdrop of today's food safety issues this counter narrative thereby speaks volumes for the value of the gardens and the youth of Vado.

Olivas on Mexican-American Legal History

2010-08-20T07:03:00.000-07:00

In the SB 1070 litigation, a number of Mexican -American groups and individuals have brought lawsuits seeking to strike down the Arizona immigration law and vindicate their rights: for example, MALDEF v. Brewer, Salgado v. Brewer and Escobar v. Brewer. The SB 1070 litigation is not the first time that Mexican-Americans have brought legal actions to enforce their rights. In fact, Mexican-Americans have a long history of using the courts to assert and establish their civil rights. For instance, Mexican - Americans brought a lawsuit seeking to overturn legalized segregation of Mexican -Americans in public schools in Texas in 1930. For those interested in Mexican-American legal history, Professor Michael Olivas has recently posted an article reviewing a number of books dealing with the history of Mexican-American civil rights litigation: "Review Essay: The Arc of Triumph and the Agony of Defeat: Mexican -Americans and the Law." (http://ssrn.com/abstract=1658516). Among other things, Olivas writes that "the rise of this developing field of legal history" shows that Mexican-Americans "have history --and law--in our blood."

More On the Debate Within Cuba Over Culture and Expression

2010-08-18T14:44:00.000-07:00

More on the debate within Cuba over homophobia. For those of you who read Spanish the following might be interesting from Alberto Roque of the Cuban health establishment:

Declaración de la Sección Diversidad Sexual de la SOCUMES sobre el artículo “Homofobia no, respeto”

El pasado 20 de Julio el periódico “5 de Septiembre” de la provincia de Cienfuegos publicó, en sus versiones impresa y digital, el artículo de opinión “Homofobia no, respeto”, firmado por el periodista Jesús Mena Aragón.

La Sección de Diversidad Sexual de la Sociedad Cubana Multidisciplinaria para el Estudio de la Sexualidad (SOCUMES) da la bienvenida a la iniciativa del periódico “5 de Septiembre” de promover la reflexión sobre estos temas. El artículo ha generado un favorable debate y ha tenido una amplia difusión mediante la mensajería electrónica y en las redes sociales de la Internet.

Sin embargo, resulta llamativo para nuestra Sección que Jesús Mena Aragón señale la existencia de “una abrumadora propaganda desatada en Cuba contra la homofobia” y que los cubanos “somos instruidos por todas las vías posibles sobre la conducta a asumir ante las preferencias sexuales de cada cual”. El autor también considera que existen “cuestiones más perentorias” que atender y remarca la idea de que en Cuba no existe discriminación basada en la orientación sexual o la identidad de género de las personas, todo ello desde su apreciación personal.

Las y los especialistas de la Sección de Diversidad Sexual de la SOCUMES respetamos las opiniones personales de Mena Aragón, pero deseamos expresar nuestro desacuerdo con los argumentos vertidos por el periodista, desde las evidencias científicas en que se sustenta el Programa Nacional de Educación Sexual y la experiencia adquirida en la labor multidisciplinaria e intersectorial desarrollada en el país durante décadas.

Coincidimos en que nuestro proyecto social socialista no educa en los prejuicios que lastran a otras sociedades, pero somos herederos de un legado cultural sexista y machista, que subyace en el imaginario popular y nutre acciones y omisiones discriminatorias. Por ello, las personas homosexuales, bisexuales y transgéneros en Cuba enfrentan aún serias limitaciones para expresar su sexualidad y disfrutar de similares derechos a los de las personas heterosexuales, reconocibles solamente para estos últimos en los marcos social, político y legislativo.

Desconocerlo y silenciar la homofobia contribuye a empeorar el sufrimiento humano de nuestras familias, cuando cualquiera de sus integrantes tiene una orientación sexual diferente a la heterosexual; lo cual suele implicar, además, la exclusión, el rechazo y el distanciamiento a estas personas.

Los derechos sexuales y reproductivos se ejercen, son legítimos e inalienables a cada ser humano y es responsabilidad de los Estados y los gobiernos ofrecer las garantías para el ejercicio pleno de ellos por sus ciudadanos y ciudadanas. Todos, incluyendo el derecho al disfrute de una vida más plena en lo económico o en la participación en las políticas, son perentorios. Ninguno es más importante que el otro.

La Campaña Educativa por el Respeto a Libre Orientación Sexual e Identidad de Género en Cuba integra los aportes bien documentados de investigaciones realizadas en el país y en el mundo sobre los efectos nocivos de la homofobia, el daño a la salud que puede generar -incluso a las personas heterosexuales-, y en el disfrute pleno de todos los derechos. Nuestra sección expresa su disposición a seguir participando y aportando elementos, desde la investigación científica y la capacitación, que permitan su avance de forma integral.

Invitamos a otros medios de comunicación a promover la reflexión y el debate sobre estos temas, e instamos a sus profesionales a recibir capacitación sobre diversidad sexual y homofobia. Sin dudas tendrán más herramientas para superar sus prejuicios y desarrollar su trabajo por una nación con mayor igualdad, solidaridad, responsabilidad y respeto.

11 de agosto de 2009
Sección Diversidad Sexual
SOCUMES

Yale Professor Opines on Congress's proposed Hearings on Birthright Citizenship...

2010-08-15T13:24:00.000-07:00

Below is a recent op-ed by Yale Professor Peter Schuck concerning Congress' proposed hearings concerning the possible elimination of birthright citizenship for children of undocmented immigants as a means to curb so-called illegal immigration. Below his op-ed, is my response posted on several law profesor listservs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/opinion/14schuck.html

Birthright of a Nation
By PETER H. SCHUCK
NY Times
August 13, 2010

DESPITE persistent calls for comprehensive immigration reform, the hot debate today is about an old issue: birthright citizenship.

The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, provides that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...” This language has traditionally been interpreted to give automatic citizenship to anyone born on American soil, even to the children of illegal immigrants.

Congress plans to hold hearings this fall on a constitutional amendment to change that language, something even moderate Republican senators like South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham support. With a new study showing that undocumented mothers account for a disproportionate number of births, even some Democrats might find it hard to stand opposed to altering the citizenship clause.

Fortunately, the history of the clause suggests an effective, pragmatic solution that should appeal to both parties.

The clause’s purpose was to guarantee citizenship for former slaves — a right Congress had enacted in 1866 — and to overrule the infamous Dred Scott decision, which had denied blacks citizenship and helped precipitate the Civil War.

But the clause also excluded from birthright citizenship people who were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This exclusion was primarily aimed at the American-born children of American Indians and foreign diplomats and soldiers, categories governed by other sovereign entities.

The citizenship clause reflected a new American approach to political membership. Under common law dating back to the early 17th century, national allegiance had been perpetual, not consensual. Our country contested this assumption during the War of 1812 after the British impressed Americans into the Royal Navy, insisting that they remained the king’s subjects.

By 1868, Congress had come to view citizenship as a mutual relationship to which both the nation and the individual must consent. This explains why it passed — one day before the citizenship clause was ratified — the Expatriation Act, allowing Americans to shed their American or foreign citizenship.

Particularly relevant to today’s controversy was the floor debate on the citizenship clause. It suggested that the American-born children of resident aliens would indeed be citizens, a suggestion confirmed in an 1898 Supreme Court decision involving the son of a resident Chinese couple.

Congress did not, however, discuss the status of children of illegal immigrants — at the time, federal law didn’t limit immigration, so no parents were here illegally.

Nevertheless, it is hard to believe that Congress would have surrendered the power to regulate citizenship for such a group, much less grant it automatically to people whom it might someday bar from the country. The Supreme Court has never squarely held otherwise, although it did assume, without explanation, in a brief 1982 footnote that the American-born children of illegal immigrants were constitutional citizens. This history suggests that Congress can act on birthright citizenship without a constitutional amendment.

Fast-forward to today to an America with 11 million illegal immigrants. If the Constitution permits Congress to regulate their children’s citizenship by statute, what should that statute provide?

This question is much harder than the zealots on both sides suggest. The argument against any birthright citizenship is that these children are here as a result of an illegal act and thus have no claim to membership in a country built on the ideal of mutual consent.

In the extreme case of “anchor babies” — children born after a mother briefly crosses the border to give birth — the notion of automatic citizenship for the child strikes most people as not only anomalous but also offensive. No other developed country except Canada, which has relatively few illegal immigrants, has rules that would allow it.

At the same time, we rightly resist punishing children for their parents’ crimes. Without birthright citizenship, they could be legally stranded, perhaps even stateless, in a country where they were born and may spend their lives. And because more than a third of undocumented parents have a least one American child, ending birthright citizenship would greatly increase the number of undocumented people in the country.

Fortunately, these strongly competing values, combined with the notion of mutual-consent citizenship, suggest a solution: condition the citizenship of such children on having what international law terms a “genuine connection” to American society.

This is already a practice in some European countries, where laws requiring blood ties to existing citizens have been relaxed to give birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who have lived in the country for some time — Britain, for example, requires 10 years and no long absences from the country.

Congress should do likewise, perhaps conditioning birthright citizenship on a certain number of years of education in American schools; such children could apply for citizenship at, say, age 10. The children would become citizens retroactively, regardless of their parents’ status.

Other aspects of the larger immigration debate would continue, of course. But such a principled yet pragmatic solution to the birthright citizenship question could point the way toward common ground on immigration reform.

Peter H. Schuck, a professor of law at Yale, is a co-editor of “Understanding America: The Anatomy of an Exceptional Nation.”

Here is my response posted on the immigration professors listserv:

Thank you Stephen for informing this group of Professor Schuck's op-ed. I think it is terribly important for legal experts to take part in this important debate. As you might expect, I am one of those progressive citizenship scholars that is troubled by the consequences of Schuck's position.

While the position for allowing Congress to change longstanding constructions of the Fourteenth Amendment has some historical support, I find such an approach to be politically as well as legally troubling. As citizenship scholars have long written about, western constructions of citizenship have repeatedly been used to limit access to political membership to disfavored groups( as we all know--African-Americans, Indigenous people, and territorial island people, and LGBT communities, just to name a few).

To have Congress in the Twenty-First Century use the malleable construct of citizenship to deny individuals that have long been considered full members of society, see i.e., Plyler, would be just another example of the members of the privileged class deciding who could be allowed in the political club known as Americans. To do such a thing to a group, with no voting rights because of their age, among other reasons, would be another example of selective use of our inclusive rhetoric associated with citizenship (this position on my part is not new as my recent book Citizenship and Its Exclusions takes issue with some of Schuck's previous positions on the inclusiveness of citizenship in the United States).

I hope to one day discuss and perhaps even debate these matters on a panel or other public forum with Schuck and others of similar views. Thanks again for your input.

Is Florida the next Arizona?

2010-08-13T23:45:00.000-07:00

From Commondreams.org:

Florida Immigrant Crackdown Aims to Outdo Arizona Laws
State attorney general Bill McCollum promises harshest anti-illegal immigration legislation yet.

by Ed Pilkington

Florida's attorney general on Wednesday promised to introduce laws emulating - and exceeding - the draconian clampdown on undocumented immigrants recently attempted by Arizona.

'Arizona is going to want this law,' says Florida Attorney General and GOP gubernatorial candidate Bill McCollum. Architects of the plan boast they will be the harshest anti-illegal immigration laws yet, a claim that could have an incendiary effect in Florida given the state's high proportion of Latinos. (WILFREDO LEE / AP)
The proposed legislation would put the sunshine state at the forefront of the anti-immigrant moves rapidly sweeping across the US.

Architects of the plans boast they will be the harshest anti-illegal immigration laws yet, a claim that could have an incendiary effect in Florida given the state's high proportion of Latinos.

Bill McCollum, Florida's attorney general, is the main proponent of the clampdown. He said the legislation would "provide new enforcement tools for protecting our citizens and will help our state fight the on-going problems created by illegal immigration. Florida will not be a sanctuary state for illegal aliens."

Under the proposals, police would be required to investigate the immigration status of anyone they stopped whom they suspected of being illegally in the country. Any suspects lacking papers would be liable to up to 20 days in jail after which time they would be handed over to the immigration services for deportation.

In an innovation that goes beyond anything tried in Arizona, the Florida law would allow local courts to impose longer prison sentences and tougher bail conditions on anyone committing a crime in the state who is found to be undocumented.

Critics of the increasingly hostile mood of local politicians in states across America towards illegal immigrants accuse them of pandering to popular white prejudices towards Hispanics in order to garner electoral support.

In Florida's case, McCollum is currently embroiled in a close electoral fight to gain the Republican party's nomination for governor of the state ahead of elections in November.

His Republican rival for the candidacy, Rick Scott, accused McCollum of devising policy specifically for electoral gain. His spokesman told the Miami Herald: "It's clear the only way to get McCollum to take any action on anything is when he's down in the polls."

McCollum and his supporters in Florida are highly mindful of the fact that Arizona's attempt to force the police to check on the immigration status of suspected undocumented workers has been blocked by the federal government in a legal dispute that is likely to go all the way to the supreme court.

McCollum claims to have avoided a similar challenge from the Obama administration by being more specific about the circumstances under which officers are obliged to check immigration papers.

In particular, McCollum said the proposed new rules would avoid any whiff of racial profiling against Hispanics - an accusation widely levelled at Arizona where the vast majority of undocumented residents are Mexican.

Under the planned law, police would need to have a concrete reason for suspicion such as an altered driving licence or an admission from the suspect that they were in the country without permission.

"It's not how you look, it's not what you say," McCollum said.

Despite his insistence that his proposals would be less likely to provoke federal intervention, they are likely to face a challenge. The Obama administration is alarmed that immigration policy is spinning out of its control as individual states seek to make their own rules.

The Future of Whiteness in the United States, Revised

2010-08-13T11:53:00.000-07:00

Since at least the 1990 Census we have been treated to a regular parade of predictions that white North Americans will lose their traditional majority status sometime in the early 21st Century. But now that prediction has been revised—pushed back by nearly a decade to mid-century—because the recent economic calamities, together with anti-immigration policies and practices, have slowed down the flow of persons coming into the United States, including those who are brown. Currently, the total U.S. population is just over 300 million people, two-thirds classified as “non-Hispanic whites.” The new Census projections predict that total population will rise to nearly 400 million by 2050, with whites making up exactly half of that total. Blacks will remain at 12% while Hispanics increase from 15% to 28% and Asians from 4.5% to 6%. However, actual shifts in national demographics will be determined by the interplay of many factors, from the economic to the cultural to the natural and the legal...This data underscores what really is at stake in the current hullabaloo over immigration law and policy: for how much longer will this richly diverse country remain under the rule of a single racial/ethnic group?

As we know from the early experience with immigration law in this country, which from the very beginning restricted citizenship to “white” immigrants, this group has used its control over public policy since then to reinforce its domination of the country, its culture, and its economy. For how much longer will this history continue? The answer to this query will be determined by the complex of factors in play right now—including the reshaping of immigration law and policy, which is all over the nation’s headlines once again: under a “zero immigration” scenario, in which the country effectively refuses to take in any new immigrants, whites would be predicted to remain solidly in the majority by 2050, with nearly 60% of the population, while the Hispanic figures would increase to only 21% by that time...As in so many cases, the numbers tell the story.

Link:

http://www.thegrio.com/news/white-americans-majority-to-end-by-mid-century.php

By Frank Valdes

The Politics of Indigenous People in the Caribbean

2010-08-12T08:47:00.000-07:00

For many years, political elites,especially in Cuba and Puerto Rico, have assumed the extinction of the indigenous populations of those islands, or at least their absorption into a mixed population that served as the basis of a new "indigenous" people who could then be mobilized to face outside threats, usually the North American. I have written about this in the context of the construction of a "Cuban" politically and culturally useful ethno-racial type. See, e.g., Larry Catá Backer, From Hatuey to Che: Indigenous Cuba Without Indians and the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, American Indian Law Review, Vol. 33, 2009.

A group in Puerto Rico has been working to destabilize these assumptions, as well as the racism and cultural privileging inherent in these ideologically driven histories. They have produced a film speaking to these issues noted on the United Nations Radio Spanish language Website.

Una película sobre la extinción del pueblo Taíno, oriundo del Caribe, explora el tema de la autodeterminación de la identidad indígena y las raíces de la población en Puerto Rico. Pero además reflexiona sobre la negación de los orígenes indígenas, un problema actual inspirado en el racismo y la exclusión de esos pueblos.

Reportage: La polémica sobre la existencia de los Taínos, United Nations Spanish Radio (August 11, 2010) (directed by Alex Zacharías).For those interested, a more general (and also short) broadcast on Latin American indigenous rights is also available. Los derechos indígenas y las doctrinas coloniales United Nations Spanish Radio (Aug. 9. 2010).

Latino Immigrant Heads the ABA and creates Commission to study Latino legal issues

2010-08-10T22:34:00.000-07:00

Stephen N. Zack, a Miami, FL lawyer who emigrated from Cuba in 1961 when he was 14 years old is now the President of the 400,000-member American Bar Association ("ABA"). The ABA is the world's largest voluntary bar association and a leading national legal professional organization.

After receiving the gavel from outgoing ABA President Carolyn Lamm at the ABA convention in San Francisco earlier this week, Mr. Zack shared his vision: “Today, I would like to talk to you about four responsibilities: preservation of the justice system, civic education, protecting human rights, and preparing for disaster.” President Zack further outlined his view that “[e]very day, our nation becomes more divided with respect to civil rights,” and introduced his Committee on Hispanic Legal Rights and Responsibilities. President Zack noted that , “We are a nation of immigrants. Our basic freedoms are based on the principle that the minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority.”

Miami lawyer César L. Alvarez, also a Cuban-American, will chair the Hispanic Legal Rights and Responsibilities commission, which will hold public hearings in major U.S. cities with large Latino populations. The commission will analyze whether the legal system is addressing the needs of Latinos.

President Zack has stated that "[w]e need to find out the facts and we need to see how the system is working or not working to make sure that Hispanics are fully integrated and treated equally within our justice system.''

Once the commission conducts the hearings and analyzes its findings, these may result in a report akin into the one issued this past spring by the ABA's Commission on Immigration. The ABA supports the creation of a new immigration court system, and many other measures designed to improve consistency, fairness and efficiency in immigration law proceedings.

These are welcome developments and great news for the Latino community and the legal community as well.

Ethnic/Raza Studies and "Power Brokers"

2010-08-09T11:26:00.001-07:00

Close on the heels of Governor Brewer's extra-jurisdictional anti-immigrant legislation the state's schools Superintendent Tom Horne also joined by Brewer supporters set their sights on the State's Ethnic Studies Programs. In sum, they are seeking to eliminate diversity in education and in essence drive the histories of the Indigenous, Blacks and Latinas/os and others from the State's educational structures. Even more critically and thus raising the alarm bells is that Arizona's actions are not isolated and ethnic studies are rendered vulnerable to yet other politicians that are joining the bandwagon of hate.

Chicana/o Studies exposed me and provided inter alia on the inequities of farm laborers that were ignored in mainstream education. To my dismay farmworkers were also commonly ignored (until recently) on the outside of academic investigation decades after earning my undergraduate degree.

Although during childhood, I was exposed to the unfairness and enslaved conditions of farmworkers, Chicana/o Studies underscored new ways of learning, sophisticated political nuances, and the subject of class warfare. It gave me the tools to assess critically and ask the myriad of questions that the nation's farm bills and methods of food production with a focus on those at the bottom of the food chain obligate. Try and reconcile the welfare handouts large corporate entities receive without regard to those at the bottom. For example, the welfare form of handouts also known as subsidies has induced a realm of harm on the poor and the workers that provide so much for those of us that like to eat. Reference the http://www.ewg.org website to locate the agricultural enterprises in your state that receive more than their fair share of public funds for a clue as to the nature of agricultural disparities.

Yet Brewer and other politicians as well as self-perceived "power brokers" would remove alternative ways of learning, teaching and seeking transformation for all communities in distress. Their actions require that we as a group remain vigilant on any ill-driven tactic to remove studies of those long disenfranchised.

Against the above backdrop and ultimately this post respectfully ask our communities to support the efforts of the educators and students who are supporting ethnic studies. Begin by going to their website http://ethnicstudiesweekoctober1-7.org and sign up!

Hate Marches On

2010-08-05T18:57:00.000-07:00

Despite the injunction blocking much of Arizona's draconian Senate Bill 1070 legislation, and the threat of significant litigation and expense ahead, a Texas newspaper reported last week that two Texas lawmakers intend to push forward with bills inspired by Arizona. http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/07/29/2371938/texas-lawmakers-to-proceed-with.html.

This week, the word in Oregon is that a Latino state representative, Republican Sal Esquivel, may introduce similar legislation in Oregon. Oregon is drowning in unemployment and painful government cuts are commonplace. Although Texas has weathered the economic crisis somewhat better, I can't believe these legislators would set in motion laws that are legally dead on arrival, at least in the opinion of most scholars of consequence. Much as I appreciate the business for my former students and the legal community, passing controversial legislation sure to spark a wildfire of legal response doesn't seem prudent, especially during a financial crisis.

Of course, the legislators will contend they are trying to issue a clarion call to Congress to rescue the states from the supposed costs of undocumented immigration. Pete Wilson said the same thing in championing California's Proposition 187 that a federal court ultimately derailed. If so, a far cheaper route, and one insulated from legal attack, would be to pass a state resolution imploring Congress to act to better enforce the borders, whatever that means.

Instead, I think these legislators intend warfare on the Latino immigrant population and beyond. Just as we don't tend to do the math on warfare abroad, or even internally for such campaigns as the war on drugs, I believe that when it comes to Latinos, some people are willing to spend anything to keep demographic and cultural change at bay. But they are swimming against the current and history will recognize them as wasting our money, and poisoning our cultural well. Let's not wait for future generations to judge us for our shameful treatment of immigrants seeking a piece of the American dream. Our best hope is that Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 is swept swiftly into the dustbin of history and that other states keep their collective heads and hearts in the right place.

Dolores “Lolita” Lebrón, 1919-2010, QEPD (RIP)

2010-08-02T14:33:00.000-07:00

Puerto Rican Nationalist Dolores “Lolita” Lebrón Sotomayor was born in Lares, Puerto Rico, on November 19, 1919. She passed away in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on August 1, 2010.

I do not abide violence as a matter of principle, even to promote Puerto Rican independence. I further object to the acts of Nationalist violence in which Lebrón participated on practical grounds because they were used to justify a disproportionate police response that only undermined Puerto Rico’s hopes for political status change.

But I have respect for the dedication and sacrifice of some of the nationalists, and for Lebrón in particular, since she did not cause injury and was disproportionately singled out for a politically-long sentence (she was thirty-four at the time of the attack on congress, was sentenced to fifty years in jail, and spent over twenty-five years at the Federal Women’s Prison in Alderson, Virginia). She conducted herself according to principle and with dignity in prison and upon her release. After her sentence was commuted by President Carter, as explained below, she became a non-violent political activist, and a potent symbol of Puerto Rican desire for fair treatment by the U.S. and of the desire of some of us for an independent island nation.

Lebrón reportedly became politically aware and active as a result of the Masacre de Ponce (Ponce Massacre), which I describe in my book: “on Palm Sunday, March 31, 1937, the pro-independence Puerto Rican Nationalist Party marched through the streets of Ponce. The mayor had initially granted a permit for the march but had tried to rescind it at the last minute after Governor Blanton Winship “ordered the chief of police, Colonel Orbeta, to tell the mayor” to do so. After a shot of “undetermined origin,” the police fired into the crowd, killing nineteen people, including two policemen. “A later inquiry by the American Civil Liberties Union “concluded that there had been a ‘gross violation of civil rights and incredible police brutality.’” The incident is known in Puerto Rico as the Masacre de Ponce (Ponce Massacre). (Pedro A. Malavet, America’s Colony: The Political and Cultural Conflict between the United States and Puerto Rico at 91 (NYU Press 2007) (citing Arturo Morales-Carrión, Puerto Rico: A Cultural and Political History (New York: American Association for State and Local History, 1983)).

Lebrón took part in the attacks carried out by the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party in Washington, D.C. “The nationalists … staged two attacks in Washington, D.C., during the 1950s. Coinciding with the uprising in Puerto Rico, on November 1, 1950, nationalists “Griselio Torresola and Oscar Collazo, attempt to assassinate President Harry S. Truman at Blair House in Washington. Torresola is killed and his partner and three police officers are wounded. . . . [White House Police Officer Leslie Coffelt died of his wounds in hospital later that night.] On March 1, 1954, four . . . nationalists [Rafael Cancel Miranda, Irving Flores, Andrés Figueroa Cordero, and Lebrón] fire 30 shots from the U.S. House visitors’ gallery, wounding five congressmen.” (Id. at 92, citing “Blast Rips World Trade Center in N.Y.; 5 Dead, Hundreds Hurt,” Los Angeles Times, February 27, 1993, sec. A, 1 (includes a timeline of attacks tied to Puerto Rican nationalists)).

Lebrón was carrying a weapon but fired only one shot into the air before displaying a Puerto Rican flag and reportedly yelling that she had not come to kill anyone, but rather to die for Puerto Rico that day. I am glad that she lived and had the opportunity to die in her own country, even if it is not yet free.

Emma Brown wrote for the Washington Post:

Lolita Lebron, a Puerto Rican nationalist known to some as a terrorist and to others as a near-mythic freedom fighter for her violent attack on the U.S. Capitol more than a half-century ago, died Aug. 1 at a hospital in San Juan of complications from respiratory disease. She was 90.

Ms. Lebron was called both fanatical and fearless for her efforts to draw attention to the cause of independence for her home island, claimed by the United States as spoils after the Spanish-American War and made an American commonwealth in 1952.

LeBron bought a ticket from New York to Washington on March 1, 1954. She and three fellow nationalists lunched at Union Station and then walked to the Capitol. They made their way to the House gallery. A security guard asked whether they were carrying cameras; they were not.

But they did have pistols. And in a crusade for Puerto Rico’s independence that Ms. Lebron saw as no different from the uprising by America’s 13 colonies against England in the 18th century, the four nationalists opened fire in the House chambers as more than 240 members of Congress debated an immigration bill.

“Viva Puerto Rico libre!” Ms. Lebron screamed. Chaos swirled as she unfurled a Puerto Rican flag. Five congressmen were struck by bullets, including 35-year-old Alvin Bentley, a Republican from Michigan who was hit in the chest.

Rep. James Van Zandt (R-Pa.) and a gallery spectator managed to wrestle away the assailants’ guns. Arrested and handcuffed, the four nationalists were photographed outside the Capitol in an image splashed across newspaper front pages.

In the photograph, a striking Ms. Lebron wears a set jaw and a stylish skirt and jacket. She had expected to die that day, and police found a note in her purse along with a tube of lipstick and Bromo-Seltzer pills.

“My life I give for the freedom of my country,” the note read. “The United States of America are betraying the sacred principles of mankind in their continuous subjugation of my country.”

‘I am a revolutionary’

The shooting and its aftermath captivated Washington for weeks. Ms. Lebron and her fellow attackers had unleashed 29 bullets, leaving scars still visible at the Capitol, but none of the five injured congressmen died.

Ms. Lebron sat quietly during most of the trial, breaking her silence to tell the jury in a fiery 20-minute speech that she was “being crucified for the freedom of my country.” She was sentenced to more than 50 years in prison.

In a move widely suspected to have been part of a prisoner swap to release CIA agents jailed in Cuba, President Jimmy Carter granted clemency to Ms. Lebron, two of her co-conspirators and a nationalist who had tried to kill President Harry S. Truman.

Released in 1979 after serving 25 years in prison, Ms. Lebron embarked on a tour of Puerto Rican population centers in the United States. She was also received in Havana as a guest of President Fidel Castro.

The attack came four years after a failed attempt by Puerto Rican nationalists to assassinate Truman. It gave Ms. Lebron a place among the most famous of Latin American revolutionary figures, including Che Guevara and Pancho Villa.
“I am a revolutionary,” she said at the time. “I hate bombs, but we might have to use them.”

Lolita Lebron was born Nov. 19, 1919, in Lares, a Puerto Rican village where, in 1868, local men rose up against Spanish colonists in a legendary rebellion known as El Grito de Lares, “the cry of Lares.”

Her father was a coffee farmer and her mother was a homemaker. Ms. Lebron, crowned “Queen of the Flowers of May” as a teenager, left Puerto Rico for a better life in New York in 1940. She left behind a baby daughter, who later died. Ms. Lebron’s granddaughter is writer Irene Vilar. A complete list of survivors could not be confirmed.

Working as a seamstress in the garment district, Ms. Lebron lived in grinding poverty and found herself the object of racial discrimination. “They told me it was a paradise,” Ms. Lebron said in a Washington Post interview in 2004. “This was no paradise.”

She began corresponding with Harvard-educated Puerto Rican nationalist Pedro Albizu Campos after he was jailed for his part in the 1950 plot against Truman. Albizu Campos reputedly tapped Ms. Lebron to lead the siege against Congress as a last-ditch effort for independence.

Ms. Lebron in turn inspired other nationalists to violence. Between 1974 and 1983, Puerto Rico’s Armed Forces of National Liberation set off dozens of bombs in Chicago and New York, killing six people and injuring more than 100.

But the independence movement did not gain momentum in Puerto Rico. When voters were asked in 1998 whether they wanted the island to become a state or an independent nation or retain their semiautonomous status, the prevailing response was “none of the above.” Independence won 2.5 percent of the vote.

Renouncing violence

After returning home to Puerto Rico, Ms. Lebron became a symbol of nationalist pride. She continued to protest U.S. involvement on the island, but she renounced violence, saying her change of heart was rooted in religious revelations she had while she was in jail.

In 2001, she was arrested at age 81 while protesting the U.S. military’s use of Vieques, a neighboring Caribbean island, as a bombing range. She was sentenced to 60 days in jail for trespassing. The bombing range was later closed.

Her pledge of nonviolence was tested in 2005 when the FBI shot and killed Filiberto Ojeda Rios, the Puerto Rican leader of a paramilitary pro-independence group. Ojeda Rios was wanted in connection with the 1983 robbery of an armored-truck depot in Connecticut. As angry crowds gathered in the streets, Ms. Lebron spoke out.

“She had a tremendous impact,” Juan Manuel Garcia Passalacqua told the Chicago Tribune in 2006. “Young people were protesting in the streets, and there was talk of getting revenge. But Lolita told people, ‘No violence!’—and there was none.”

Emma Brown, A fervor for Puerto Rico's freedom led her to violent act at U.S. Capitol, The Washington Post, B-4, August 2, 2010.

See also Sara M. Justicia Doll, Lolita Lebrón se Armó por Valor por su Ideal, Primera Hora, 2 Agosto 2010.

Challenges for Cuban Family and Society: Alberto Roque on Homophobia in Cuba

2010-08-01T15:37:00.000-07:00

Dr. Alberto Roque Guerra a medical doctor associated with the Cuban National Center for Sexual Education (Centro Nacional de Educación Sexual (CENESEX)), has recently circulated the following paper that is worth reading for those interested in the state of Cuban law, society and culture with respect to the rights and assimilation of sexual minorities in Cuba:

Silencio y homofobia en Cuba, dos males de nuestro tiempo
Por: Alberto Roque Guerra

La sexualidad es parte de la personalidad de cada ser humano y se construye mediante complejos procesos que operan a nivel consciente e inconscientemente en la medida en que nos desarrollamos como personas. De forma ideal, dicha construcción debiera interactuar con otros aspectos de forma armónica y enriquecedora del desarrollo de la personalidad. La diversidad es el denominador común en su expresión, independientemente de los preceptos morales, culturales y religiosos de cada sociedad. Sin embargo, desde edades muy tempranas, las expresiones de la sexualidad humana se convierten en rehén de los mencionados preceptos; cada ser humano tendrá que ajustarse a una normativa rígida enmarcada en lo que hemos identificado como género.

Nuestras identidades sexuales y el significado de nuestros cuerpos sólo tienen cabida en las normas heterosexistas (heteronormatividad), basadas en relaciones de poder, donde lo masculino heterosexual dispone y manda, y predetermina una dicotomía entre lo masculino y lo femenino. El resto de las diversas expresiones han sido negadas, estigmatizadas, violentadas, cercenadas y excluidas predominantemente a lo largo de la historia de la humanidad. Muchas, incluyendo a la sexualidad femenina heterosexual, se han visto obligadas a la expresión silenciosa, al confinamiento de lo privado.

Recluir las expresiones de la sexualidad al espacio privado es un acto cruel que limita la libertad plena de las personas. Es una violación y una negación al disfrute pleno de los derechos sexuales que todo ser humano tiene desde el momento de su nacimiento. Es igualmente grave la negación o la disimulación de la discriminación basada en la orientación sexual o la identidad de género de las personas.

El silencio es un arma contra toda expresión “diferente” a las normas socialmente impuestas, es en esencia discriminatorio y excluyente. Resulta llamativo y nada nuevo cómo se combinan en nuestra sociedad cubana contemporánea la homofobia y el silencio. Semejante asociación representa también un peligro equiparable a la homofobia basada en la agresión física o verbal.

Coincido con muchas personas en que hemos transitado favorablemente por un largo proceso de asimilación de las nuevas interpretaciones de las ciencias referentes a la sexualidad. Dentro los dinámicos y radicales cambios que se produjeron en las primeras décadas de la Revolución cubana se reconocieron los derechos plenos de las mujeres y se cuestionaron las bases de poder patriarcal en su relación con las mujeres cubanas heterosexuales. Sin embargo, el machismo, sinónimo de poder patriarcal, no se ha erosionado lo suficiente; sus fundamentos siguen intactos. Las y los defensores de su poder se atribuyeron el derecho supremo a aplicar y a apoyar políticas discriminatorias hacia las personas homosexuales durante las primeras tres décadas de la Revolución cubana.

Afortunadamente, esta contradicción con el sentido humanista y de igualdad de la Revolución, ha sido superada en gran medida en la actualidad. Ejemplos de ello es la despenalización de la homosexualidad desde 1997, la inclusión del trabajo con mujeres lesbianas y bisexuales en la Federación de Mujeres Cubanas (FMC) y los avances innegables en la atención integral a las personas transexuales, por mencionar sólo algunos.

La educación sexual en Cuba ha contribuido a lo que denomino erosión del poder patriarcal. En la actualidad, el Programa Nacional de Educación Sexual incluye un enfoque de género, que desarticula el enfoque binario (masculino y femenino) imperante en nuestra sociedad, además de incluir los temas relacionados con la diversidad sexual. Sin embargo, los prejuicios no superados de los decisores en el área de la educación cubana limitan su aplicación de forma transversal en todos los niveles de enseñanza.

La Campaña por el Respeto a la Libre y Responsable Orientación Sexual ha desencadenado un incipiente debate sin precedentes en la historia de la Nación. Entre las opiniones contrarias más destacables tenemos la que denuncia “una homosexualización de la sociedad cubana que condiciona la conducta homosexual en los niños”. La obnubilación mental que produce los prejuicios homofóbicos no les permite apreciar que la mencionada campaña sólo persigue educar en el respeto y la igualdad entre los seres humanos. Su esencia incluye la validez de todas las expresiones sexuales, incluyendo la heterosexual y las expresiones transgéneros. Sus objetivos apelan al pleno reconocimiento de la igualdad y la no discriminación como principios fundamentales de los derechos humanos.

En un medio de prensa digital cubano leí un artículo titulado “Homofobia no, respeto” donde su autor, Jesús Mena Aragón, apela al silencio de la homosexualidad como expresión de respeto y minimiza, en un tono casi pueril, los efectos de la homofobia en Cuba. El autor no parece advertir, desde su limitada visión, que las personas homosexuales y transgéneros en Cuba estamos en “desventaja social” en relación al resto de la población cubana. El texto entre comillas no es mío, lo sugirió un oficial de la Policía Nacional Revolucionaria en una pregunta que me realizara durante una actividad de capacitación. Me limitaré solamente a expresar en este texto algunas de los desafíos sociales que enfrentamos:

·         Las parejas del mismo sexo no tenemos reconocimiento legal, por lo que se limita los derechos patrimoniales de uniones amorosas legítimas y el derecho a la adopción bajo argumentos no demostrados por evidencias científicas y sí legitimados por los prejuicios.
·         Imposibilidad de contraer matrimonio, construcción en mi opinión heterosexista y de demostrados orígenes religiosos, pero importante para muchas personas homosexuales y transgéneros.
·         Imposibilidad de mostrar afectos en público, aun cuando no está penalizado por la Ley.
·         Imposibilidad de las parejas lesbianas de tener acceso a las técnicas de reproducción asistida.
·         Limitación para ocupar altas responsabilidades políticas y sociales. Salvo honrosas excepciones, y de no estar explicitado en ningún reglamento o Ley, en la práctica se aplica con impunidad.
·         Imposibilidad de pertenecer a cualquier cuerpo armado de la nación y silenciamiento de las expresiones sexuales diferentes a la heterosexualidad en los miembros de sus filas.
·         Prejuicio generalizado dentro de las filas de Partido y de la Juventud Comunista de que la homosexualidad no es compatible con los principios de la moral socialista. Afortunadamente en este aspecto hemos avanzado, pero mientras no se permita el ingreso de personas transgéneros (travestis y transexuales) y no se explicite en los estatutos y reglamentos la no discriminación por estos motivos, seguirá siendo discriminatorio. Muestras de ello son los avances en los temas de la religión y en la eliminación de las medidas que sancionaban a los miembros del Partido que “perdonaban el engaño amoroso de sus esposas” (a las mujeres militantes engañadas por sus esposos raras veces se les aplicaban medidas disciplinarias cuando optaban por el perdón).
·         Violencia verbal y física en las escuelas hacia los niños y niñas con expresiones de género no coincidentes con su sexo biológico (asignado al nacer).
·         Imposibilidad de las personas transgéneros de acceder al empleo y la educación superior al vestirse con ropas diferentes a las del género en sus documentos de identidad. La discriminación laboral hacia las personas homosexuales se practica de forma más sutil, ej. burlas, comentarios, acoso laboral o imposibilidad para ocupar cargos administrativos o a ser promovidas o promovidos.
·         Reconocimiento de la identidad de género de las personas transexuales y de sus derechos sexuales, sólo cuando sean sometidas a una cirugía de reasignación sexual.
·         Asedio policial hacia las personas homosexuales y transgéneros en sitios públicos.
·         Acceso a algunos sitios de recreación por parejas, solo se permiten   de hombre y mujer, nunca del mismo sexo o en solitario. Por más que me esfuerzo, no le encuentro la lógica a semejante medida de las administraciones en un país que desterró para siempre los clubes y espacios exclusivos para ricos y que cuenta con tan pocos sitios para el recreo y el esparcimiento.

Es esencial entonces romper el silencio y promover el debate sobre estos temas. Es imprescindible visualizar la homofobia y sacarla definitivamente de nuestras mentes. Es también importante que se garantice la plena expresión de las sexualidades diferentes a la heterosexualidad y la inclusión de estas garantías sociales en las políticas de nuestro país. Debieran incluirse de forma explícita en nuestro código penal leyes que condenen la discriminación basada en la orientación sexual y la identidad de género, así como el reconocimiento pleno de otros modelos válidos de familia –no solo la familia nuclear o heteroparental- en las leyes civiles.

Cómo se puede apreciar, tenemos mucho que trabajar y que avanzar en el respeto y reconocimiento de estos derechos. Contrario a lo que plantea Mena Aragón en su artículo, el alcance de la Campaña es aún insuficiente y el debate no ha tomado la intensidad ni la profundidad necesarias.

Considero además que estos temas de alcance social, que también incluye la lucha contra la discriminación racial y de la mujer, deben tener tanta prioridad como los desafíos políticos y económicos que enfrenta la Nación. Retrasarlos o postergarlos es un acto de injusticia y se volverá contra nosotros mismos.

For those interested in following these issues, Dr. Roque Guerra maintains a blogs worth reviewing, La diversidad es natural and http://aroqueg.blogspot.com/ (a space to debate issues of sexuality and sexual diversity). For remarks in English and Spanish, see, Dr. Alberto Roque Guerra, Challenges to the Cuban Family and Society, May 16, 2010, Remarks given at the opening of the panel on the family and society during the observation of World Anti-Homophobia Day, 2010 (A CubaNews translation. Edited by Walter Lippmann).

A "TAKE OUR JOBS" Reminder

2010-08-01T14:28:00.001-07:00

Arizona's ill-advised anti-Brown SB 1070 legislation is difficult to distinguish from the increasing hate bias actions across the nation that are facing our Latina/o communities and others impacted by immigration driven policies. By its actions Arizona is collapsing broad based immigration complexities into narrow minded approaches as to who is "permitted" in the nation. (Hmmm in a state with a large Indigenous population and others causes me to ask whether anyone has seen the purported "citizenship" credentials of those who promulgated SB 1070?).

To underscore the madness of SB1070 and the broad scope of bias it is engendering against all of us, an attorney with the New York based Center for Constitutional Rights was arrested while serving as an observer during the protests against SB1070. She along with the other attorneys were wearing hats and T-shirts that identified them as legal observers. Local attorney Antonio Bustamante who had organized the team of thirty volunteer attorneys stated: "she didn't intend to get arrested. . . I don't know why it happened. Maybe because they can't read." Whether or not they can read reveals that the State is doing all it can to diminish the health and safety of its residents by its promotion of racially biased legislation.

At this juncture one more emphasis is obligated. It is not difficult to surmise that Arizona's anti-immigration campaign is intending to drive out all individuals who appear "foreign sounding" or "foreign looking." Accordingly, this post serves as a reminder. Specifically, during the winter seasons California farmworkers head to Arizona to harvest its lettuce and other crops. If the State continues in its rabid race-based approach even where it lacks jurisdiction area farmers will face labor shortages. Why? Because anyone coming in the cross hairs of a state that refuses to acknowledge its jurisdictional limitations shows we can trust that no one will be safe from questioning "where are your papers" from officials lacking immigration training thereby causing many to probably flee the State.

To prepare the State all interested parties who argue that immigrants take their jobs are greatly encouraged to help out the region's owner operators of key food commodities. They are always crying the blues over the lack of domestic based workers. To apply applications can be pulled from the United Farm Workers "TAKE OUR JOBS" campaign site available at http://www.takeourjobs.org. Reference also Professor Steve Bender's July post on the Campaign with specifics on the nature of agricultural employment.

In the meantime be forewarned! The legislative framework of agricultural employment is tethered to ancient 1930s legislation that offers very few protections for those working in the fields or in agriculture generally. (see the National Labor Relations Act).

So if hired don't forget to take with you plenty of water, a portable potty, a first aid kit and if possible a cell phone. Why a cell phone? Well while a good sturdy hat is also in order it can only do so much against the heat and in the case of heat stroke the nearest hospital will be miles away from the fields. A good cell phone could come in handy with calling for assistance---something sorely lacking when seventeen year old Maria Isabel Vasquez Jimenez lost her life to heat stroke while employed in a California field. (Reference the http:www.ufw.org website).

Arizona Loses First Motion in Ninth Circuit: Hearing Set for November 2010

2010-07-30T18:57:00.000-07:00

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has denied Arizona's motion for an expedited appeal from Judge Bolton's order granting a preliminary injunction of key parts of SB 1070, with an early hearing date in September. Instead, the court of appeals has set a hearing for November 2010 in San Francisco in accordance with the court's normal scheduling rules for preliminary injunctions. (Arguments in Arizona Immigration Law Appeal to be held in SF in November, SF Appeal, July 30, 2010).

Why we need a sound immigration policy(and not fifty or more).....Arizona sheriff not relenting after court ruling

2010-07-30T13:50:00.000-07:00

AP--

Nowhere in the U.S. is local enforcement more present than in metropolitan Phoenix, where Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio routinely carries out sweeps, some in Hispanic neighborhoods, to arrest illegal immigrants. The tactics have made him the undisputed poster boy for local immigration enforcement and the anger that so many authorities feel about the issue.

"It's my job," said Arpaio, standing beside a sheriff's truck that has a number for an immigration hot line written on its side. "I have two state (immigration) laws that I am enforcing. It's not federal, it's state."

A ruling Wednesday by a federal judge put on hold parts of the new law that would have required officers to dig deeper into the fight against illegal immigration. Arizona says it was forced to act because the federal government isn't doing its job to fight immigration.

The issue led to demonstrations across the country Thursday, including one directed at Arpaio in Phoenix in which protesters beat on the metal door of a jail and chanted, "Sheriff Joe, we are here. We will not live in fear." And in another sign of the divisive atmosphere surrounding the issue, authorities said the judge had received menacing threats and police were investigating whether a bullet hole found in the office of an Arizona congressman was related to the immigration debate.

In total, 71 people were arrested during the Thursday protests, officials said Friday.

Meanwhile, Gov. Jan Brewer's lawyers went to court to overturn the judge's ruling so they can fight back against what the Republican calls an "invasion" of illegal immigrants. The state of Arizona has received more than $1.6 million in a fund to help defend the new law, including $75,000 on Wednesday, the day parts of the law were blocked.

Ever since the main flow of illegal immigrants into the country shifted to Arizona a decade ago, state politicians and local police have been feeling pressure to confront the state's border woes.

In addition to Arpaio's crackdowns, other efforts include a steady stream of busts by the state and local police of stash houses where smugglers hide illegal immigrants. The state attorney general has taken a money-wiring company to civil court on allegations that smugglers used their service to move money to Mexico. And a county south of Phoenix has its sheriff's deputies patrol dangerous smuggling corridors.

The Arizona Legislature have enacted a series of tough-on-immigration measures in recent years that culminated with the law signed by Brewer in April, catapulting the Republican to the national political stage.

But the king of local immigration enforcement is still Arpaio.

Arpaio, a 78-year-old ex-federal drug agent who fashions himself as a modern-day John Wayne, launched his latest sweep Thursday afternoon, sending about 200 sheriff's deputies and trained volunteers out across metro Phoenix to look for traffic violators who may be here illegally.

Deputy Bob Dalton and volunteer Heath Kowacz spotted a driver with a cracked windshield in a poor Phoenix neighborhood near a busy freeway. Dalton triggered the red and blue police lights and pulled over 28-year-old Alfredo Salas, who was born in Mexico but has lived in Phoenix with a resident alien card since 1993.

Dalton gave him a warning after Salas produced his license and registration and told him to get the windshield fixed.

Salas, a married father of two who installs granite, told The Associated Press that he was treated well but he wondered whether he was pulled over because his truck is a Ford Lobo.

"It's a Mexican truck so I don't know if they saw that and said, 'I wonder if he has papers or not,'" Salas said. "If that's the case, it kind of gets me upset."

Sixty percent of the nearly 1,000 people arrested in the sweeps since early 2008 have been illegal immigrants. Thursday's dragnet led to 13 arrests for warrants or other criminal charges, but it wasn't clear if any of them were illegal immigrants.

Critics say deputies racially profile Hispanics. Arpaio says deputies approach people only when they have probable cause.

"Sheriff Joe Arpaio and some other folks there decided they can make a name for themselves in terms of the intensity of the efforts they're using," said Benjamin Johnson, executive director of the pro-immigrant American Immigration Council. "There's no way to deny that. There are a lot of people getting caught up in these efforts."

The Justice Department launched an investigation of his office nearly 17 months ago over allegations of discrimination and unconstitutional searches and seizures. Although the department has declined to detail its investigation, Arpaio believes it centers on his sweeps.

Arpaio feels no reservations about continuing to push the sweeps, even after the federal government stripped his power to let 100 deputies make federal immigration arrests.

Unable to make arrests under a federal statute, the sheriff instead relied on a nearly 5-year-old state law that prohibits immigrant smuggling. He has also raided 37 businesses in enforcing a state law that prohibits employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

"I'm not going to brag," Arpaio said. "Just look at the record. I'm doing what I feel is right for the people of Maricopa County."

Crack in the Drug War Armor

2010-07-29T17:16:00.000-07:00

This week Congress acted to significantly reduce the disparity in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine thereby making the law, as one commentator put it, “only one fifth as racist as it used to be.” A summary of the law awaiting President Obama’s signature details that it:

Reduces the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine from 100:1 to 18:1, with a 5-year mandatory minimum for 28 grams of crack cocaine and a 5-year mandatory minimum for 500 grams of powder cocaine.

Eliminates the mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine (the only mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of a drug).

[And, because one can’t appear too “soft” on crime these days, it also:] Significantly increases fines for convicted major drug traffickers.

Significantly increases sentences for drug offenders involved in aggravating factors, including bribing law enforcement; maintaining an establishment for drug manufacturing or distribution; involving minors, seniors, or vulnerable victims in the offense; importing drugs; intimidating witnesses; tampering with evidence; or obstructing justice.

Finally recognizing the impact of the sentencing disparity on the Black community, this new legislation is one step in the direction of repairing racism coursing through the veins of the U.S. drug laws. If Congress wanted to fully acknowledge the rotten racial core of the drug laws, it would recognize that just as fears of Chinese immigrants helped spur the regulation of opium in the early 1900s, outlandish fears of Black men raping White women and launching murderous sprees while high on cocaine led to cocaine’s initial restriction. In the years since, similar fears directed at Mexican and Black users of marijuana swept pot into the drug enforcement war. At the same time, use of these drugs became more prevalent among Whites and entered the cultural mainstream.

The disparity in sentencing between crack cocaine in Black communities and powder cocaine in the soccer mom suburbs is, however, just the most formal disparity in drug laws. Congress did nothing to address the disparity in profiling of potential drug suspects that has many urban Blacks and Latino/as viewed with suspicion and subjected to pretextual stops while police enforcement in White neighborhoods looks more for “suspicious” minorities out of their supposed element than to what is likely going on behind closed doors. Congress seized some of the low hanging, rotten fruit of the national drug policy this week, but likely won’t touch the larger issues of injustice that have survived the last century.

Arizona appeals to U.S.Court of Appeals

2010-07-29T15:17:00.000-07:00

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has sought an expedited appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She seeks to overturn Judge Susan Bolton's order granting a preliminary injunction of key portions of the new Arizona immigration statute -- SB 1070. The governor contends that the lower court "relied on an erroneous legal premise or abused its discretion" in issuing the preliminary injunction. The governor's motion to expedite the hearing on the preliminary injunction appeal is here: (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Brewer_Motion.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody). It is unlikely the governor will prevail on appeal in the Ninth Circuit. The lower court's opinion is very thorough and persuasive in explaining why the U.S. is likely to prevail on the merits of their claim that SB 1070 is preempted by federal law.

Dozens arrested in protests of AZ immigration law

2010-07-29T12:40:00.000-07:00

AP –

PHOENIX – Opponents of Arizona's immigration crackdown went ahead with protests Thursday despite a judge's ruling that delayed enforcement of most the law, and dozens of people in Phoenix were arrested after peacefully confronting officers in riot gear.

Gov. Jan Brewer called U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton's Wednesday's decision halting the law "a bump in the road," and her spokesman said they'd appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco later Thursday.

Outside the state Capitol, hundreds of protesters began marching at dawn, gathering in front of the federal courthouse where Bolton issued her ruling on Wednesday. They marched on to the office of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has made a crackdown on illegal immigration one of his signature issues.

At least eight protesters approached a police line and allowed themselves to be arrested. A group of about two dozen protesters then sat down in the middle of the street or refused to leave, and police arrested them as well.

Earlier, three people were detained at the courthouse after apparently entering a closed-off area. Former state Sen. Alfredo Gutierrez, who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2002, was among them.

Marchers chanted "Sheriff Joe, we are here, we will not live in fear," and among the crowd was a drummer wearing a papier-mache Sheriff Joe head and dressed in prison garb.

Arpaio vowed to go ahead with a crime sweep targeting illegal immigrants. It was Phoenix police who made most the early arrests, but other protests were planned later in front of a county jail.

"My deputies will arrest them and put them in pink underwear," Arpaio said, referring to one of his odd methods of punishment for prisoners. "Count on it."

Arizona is the nation's epicenter of illegal immigration, with more than 400,000 undocumented residents. The state's border with Mexico is awash with smugglers and drugs that funnel narcotics and immigrants throughout the U.S., and supporters of the new law say the influx of illegal migrants drains vast sums of money from hospitals, education and other services.

The ruling was anxiously awaited in the U.S. and beyond. About 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered at the U.S. Embassy broke into applause when they learned of the ruling via a laptop computer. Mariana Rivera, a 36-year-old from Zacatecas, Mexico, who is living in Phoenix on a work permit, said she heard about the ruling on a Spanish-language news program.

"I was waiting to hear because we're all very worried about everything that's happening," said Rivera, who phoned friends and family with the news. "Even those with papers, we don't go out at night at certain times there's so much fear (of police). You can't just sit back and relax."

In New York City, about 300 immigrant advocates gathered Thursday near the federal courthouse in lower Manhattan.

New York City Councilman Jumaane Williams, a first-generation Caribbean-American, told the crowd: "We won a slight battle in Arizona, we've got to continue with the war."

In Los Angeles, about 200 protesters invaded a busy intersection west of downtown Los Angeles.

Police shut down the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Highland Avenue and diverted traffic away after demonstrators moved into the street and sat down at about 10 a.m. Thursday.

The protesters chanted, "These are our streets" during the raucous demonstration. Police say there have been no arrests.

Bolton indicated the government has a good chance at succeeding in its argument that federal immigration law trumps state law. But the key sponsor of Arizona's law, Republican Rep. Russell Pearce, said the judge was wrong and predicted the state would ultimately win the case.

In her temporary injunction, Bolton delayed the most contentious provisions of the law, including a section that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. She also barred enforcement of parts requiring immigrants to carry their papers and banned illegal immigrants from soliciting employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers that congregate in large numbers in parking lots across Arizona. The judge also blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.

"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," said Bolton, a Clinton administration appointee who was assigned the seven lawsuits filed against Arizona over the law.

Other provisions that were less contentious were allowed to take effect Thursday, including a section that bars cities in Arizona from disregarding federal immigration laws.

Kris Kobach, the University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped write the law and train Arizona police officers in immigration law, conceded the ruling weakens the force of Arizona's efforts to crack down on illegal immigrants. He said it will likely be a year before a federal appeals court decides the case.

"It's a temporary setback," Kobach said. "The bottom line is that every lawyer in Judge Bolton's court knows this is just the first pitch in a very long baseball game."

Opponents of the law said the ruling sends a strong message to other states hoping to replicate the law. Lawmakers or candidates in as many as 18 states say they want to push similar measures when their legislative sessions start up again in 2011.

"Surely it's going to make states pause and consider how they're drafting legislation and how it fits in a constitutional framework," Dennis Burke, the U.S. attorney for Arizona, told The Associated Press. "The proponents of this went into court saying there was no question that this was constitutional, and now you have a federal judge who's said, 'Hold on, there's major issues with this bill.'"

But a lawmaker in Utah said the state will likely take up a similar laws anyway.

"The ruling ... should not be a reason for Utah to not move forward," said Utah state Rep. Carl Wimmer, a Republican from Herriman City, who said he plans to co-sponsor a bill similar to Arizona's next year and wasn't surprised it was blocked. "For too long the states have cowered in the corner because of one ruling by one federal judge."

Key Portions of Judge Bolton's Injunction Decision Re. SB 1070...

2010-07-28T19:52:00.001-07:00

The Court first addresses the second sentence of Section 2(B): “Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.”

Arizona advances that the proper interpretation of this sentence is “that only where areasonable suspicion exists that a person arrested is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States must the person’s immigration status be determined before the person is released.” (Defs.’ Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. (“Defs.’ Resp.”) at 10.)5 Arizona goes on to state, “[T]he Arizona Legislature could not have intended to compel Arizona’s law enforcement officers to determine and verify the immigration status of every single person arrested – even for United States citizens and when there is absolutely no reason to believe the person is unlawfully present in the country.” (Id.)

The Court cannot interpret this provision as Arizona suggests. Before the passage of H.B. 2162, the first sentence of Section 2(B) of the original S.B. 1070 began, “For any lawful contact” rather than “For any lawful stop, detention or arrest.” (Compare original S.B. 1070 § 2(B) with H.B. 2162 § 3(B).) The second sentence was identical in the original version andas modified by H.B. 2162. It is not a logical interpretation of the Arizona Legislature’s intent to state that it originally intended the first two sentences of Section 2(B) to be read as Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document 87 Filed 07/28/10

As initially written, the first sentence of Section 2(B) did not contain the word “arrest,” such that the second sentence could be read as modifying or explicating the first sentence. In S.B. 1070 as originally enacted, the first two sentences of Section 2(B) are clearly independent of one another. Therefore, it does not follow logically that by changing “any lawful contact” to “any lawful stop, detention or arrest” in the first sentence, the Arizona Legislature intended to alter the meaning of the second sentence in any way. If that had been the Legislature’s intent, it could easily have modified the second sentence accordingly.

As a result of this conclusion, the Court reads the second sentence of Section 2(B)independently from the first sentence. The Court also concludes that the list of forms of identification that could provide a presumption that a person is not an unlawfully present alien applies only to the first sentence of Section 2(B) because the second sentence makes no mention of unlawful presence: the second sentence states plainly that “[a]ny person who is arrested” must have his or her immigration status determined before release. A presumption against unlawful presence would not dispose of the requirement that immigration status be checked because a legal permanent resident might have a valid Arizona driver’s license, but an inquiry would still need to be made to satisfy the requirement that the person’s “immigration status” be determined prior to release.

The United States asserts that mandatory determination of immigration status for all arrestees “conflicts with federal law because it necessarily imposes substantial burdens on lawful immigrants in a way that frustrates the concern of Congress for nationally-uniform rules governing the treatment of aliens throughout the country – rules designed to ensure ‘our traditional policy of not treating aliens as a thing apart.’” (Pl.’s Mot. at 26 (quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 73 (1941)).) Finding a state law related to alien registration to be preempted, the Supreme Court in Hines observed that Congress “manifested a purpose to [regulate immigration] in such a way as to protect the personal liberties of law-abiding aliens through one uniform national . . . system[] and to leave them free from the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.” 312 U.S. at 74.

The Court is also cognizant of the potentially serious Fourth Amendment problems with the inevitable increase in length of detention while immigration status is determined, as raised by the plaintiffs in Friendly House, et al. v. Whiting, et al., No. CV 10-1061-PHX-SRB. Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked. Given the large number of people who are technically “arrested” but never booked into jail or perhaps even transported to a law enforcement facility, detention time for this category of arrestee will certainly be extended during an immigration status verification. (See Escobar, et al. v. City of Tucson, et al., No. CV 10-249-TUC-SRB, Doc. 9, City of Tucson’s Answer & Cross-cl., ¶ 38 (stating that during fiscal year 2009, Tucson used the cite-and-release procedure provided by A.R.S. § 13-3903 to “arrest” and immediately release 36,821 people).) Under Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070, all arrestees will be required to prove their immigration status to the satisfaction of state authorities, thus increasing the intrusion of police presence into the lives of legally-present liens (and even United States citizens), who will necessarily be swept up by this requirement.

The United States argues that the influx of requests for immigration status
determination directed to the federal government or federally-qualified officials would “impermissibly shift the allocation of federal resources away from federal priorities.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 30.) State laws have been found to be preempted where they imposed a burden on a federal agency’s resources that impeded the agency’s function. See Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 351 (2001)(finding a state law preempted in part because it would create an incentive for individuals to “submit a deluge of information that the [federal agency] neither wants nor needs, resulting in additional burdens on the FDA’s evaluation of an application”); cf. Garrett v. City of Escondido, 465 F. Supp. 2d 1043, 1057 (S.D. Cal. 2006) (expressing concern in preemption analysis for preliminary injunction purposes that burden on DOJ and DHS as a result of immigration status checks could “impede the functions of those federal agencies”).

The problems associated with burdening federal resources are even more acute when considered in light of other state laws similar to this provision. (See Pl.’s Mot. at 31-32 (citing to a newspaper article stating that at least 18 other states are considering parallel legislation).); see also North Dakota v. United States, 495 U.S. 423, 458-59 (1990) (Brennan, Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c), DHS is required to “respond to an inquiry by a Federal,State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status . . . for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.” DHS has, in its discretion, set up LESC, which is administered by ICE and “serves as a national enforcement operations center that promptly provides immigration status and identity information to local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies regarding aliens suspected of, arrested for, or convicted of criminal activity.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 6-7 (citing Palmatier Decl. ¶¶ 3-6).) Mr. Palmatier states in his Declaration that LESC resources are currently dedicated in part to national security objectives such as requests for immigration status determination from the United States Secret Service, the FBI, and employment-related requests at “national security related locations that could be vulnerable to sabotage, attack, or exploitation.” (Palmatier Decl. ¶ 4.) Thus, an increase in the number of requests for determinations of immigration status, such as is likely to result from the mandatory requirement that Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies check the immigration status of any person who is arrested, will divert resources from the federal government’s other responsibilities and priorities. For these reasons, the United States has demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on its claim that the mandatory immigration verification upon arrest requirement contained in Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law. This requirement, as stated above, is likely to burden legally-present aliens, in contravention of the Supreme Court’s directive in Hines that aliens not be subject to “the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.” 312 U.S. at 74. Further, the number of requests that will emanate from Arizona as a result of determining the status of every arrestee is likely to impermissibly burden federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from the priorities they have established.

DHS statement on Arizona immigration law ruling

2010-07-28T18:39:00.001-07:00

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Deputy Press Secretary Matt Chandler issued the following statement July 28 in response to a federal judge's decision on the SB1070 immigration enforcement law in Arizona:

"The court's decision to enjoin most of SB1070 correctly affirms the federal government's responsibilities in enforcing our nation's immigration laws. Over the past eighteen months, this Administration has dedicated unprecedented resources to secure the border, and we will continue to work to take decisive action to disrupt criminal organizations and the networks they exploit. DHS will enforce federal immigration laws in Arizona and around the country in smart, effective ways that focus our resources on criminal aliens who pose a public safety threat and employers who knowingly hire illegal labor, as well as continue to secure our border.

"ICE works every day with local law enforcement across the country to assist them in making their communities safer and we will continue do so in Arizona. At the same time, we will continue to increase resources in Arizona by complementing the National Guard deployment set to begin on Aug. 1 with the deployment of hundreds of additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, Border Patrol agents and other law enforcement personnel that will aid in our continuing efforts to conduct outbound inspections, patrol challenging terrain, and interdict illicit smugglers. We are focused on smart effective immigration and border enforcement while we work with Congress toward the type of bipartisan comprehensive reform that will provide true security and establish accountability and responsibility in our immigration system at the national level."

As we have predicted..

2010-07-28T13:29:00.000-07:00

As many interested legal experts have hoped for, and in fact predicted for months, hs frnoon a federal judge in Arizona enjoined Arizona from implementing the most offensive aspects of SB 1070. The court prevented Arizona officials ( i.e., police) from stopping and questioning individuals concerning their immigration status. This section of the law, despite statements to the contrary, was aimed at racial profiling. As some have asked privately, the reason for the preemption basis for the attack is that in immigration contexts, the Supreme Court sadly has allowed for profiling to be part of the basis for immigration stops. Thus, opponents of over-zealous local efforts, such as those in Arizona must rely on the preemton issue--I.e., immigration is a federal issue and we do not want 50 immigration policies for the 50 states.

For more on this story, please reveiw the news CNN report below:

Federal judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law

By the CNN Wire Staff
July 28, 2010 3:32 p.m. EDT

Judge blocks police from questioning people's immigration status
SB 1070, as the law is commonly known, is set to go into effect Thursday
Seven lawsuits ask a federal court to block the law
The state argues the federal government has failed to enforce immigration law
Phoenix, Arizona (CNN) -- A federal judge has blocked one of the most controversial sections of a tough Arizona immigration law, granting a preliminary injunction Wednesday that prevents police from questioning people about their immigration status.

That provision of the law requires police to "make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested" if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the United States illegally.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton's ruling, in response to a motion filed by the federal government, came with scant hours to go before the law goes into effect.

She also blocked provisions of the law making it a crime to fail to apply for or carry alien registration papers or "for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work," and a provision "authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person" if there is reason to believe that person might be subject to deportation.

Ruling's impact
Toobin: What does Arizona immigration ruling mean?

Reactions to the Arizona immigration law injunction Seven lawsuits are seeking to block implementation of the law, signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer in April. The law, which also targets those who hire illegal immigrant laborers or knowingly transport them, is to go into effect Thursday.

CNN senior analyst Jeffrey Toobin said the ruling reflects the government's argument that immigration enforcement should be dealt with at the federal level.

In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens," she said in a statement. "I am deeply grateful for the overwhelming support we have received from across our nation in our efforts to defend against the failures of the federal government."

She emphasized that Wednesday's action was a temporary injunction, and that many other parts of the bill will go into effect as planned.

For instance, a ban on so-called sanctuary cities stands, as does making it a crime to pick up day laborers who are illegal immigrants. The parts of the law dealing with sanctions for the hiring of illegal immigrants also goes into effect Thursday.

Another supporter of the law, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, said that he and his crusade against illegal immigration will not be deterred.

" I am not really dissapointed about the judges decision," Arpaio said. "I know what my policies are and we are going to continue doing what we have been doing."

The Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates immigration reduction, was disappointed but not surprised by the ruling, said executive director Mark Krikorian.

"If the opponents hadn't turned it into this bogey man it would have been a useful, if modest, tool for the police," said Krikorian.

He argues the Arizona law wasn't intended to usurp federal authority.

"Arizona does not have its own immigration policy, even with the law. They are buttressing federal law," Krikorian said.

President Barack Obama, a critic of the Arizona law, was not expected to comment on the ruling Wednesday.

The Justice Department issued a statement saying the court "ruled correctly."

"While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive," the statement said. "States can and do play a role in cooperating with the federal government in its enforcement of the immigration laws, but they must do so within our constitutional framework."

The Department of Homeland Security also weighed in, saying that the injunction "affirms the federal government's responsibilities in enforcing our nation's immigration laws."

Meanwhile, the president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Thomas A. Saenz, said, "I think it's a great victory for the Constitution. I think all the provisions she has blocked from implementation were the most egregious."

Reaction was not limited to the United States.

Applause erupted at a protest outside the U.S. embassy in Mexico City when a speaker announced the judge's decision.

"I think it is a big victory, and it is the start of many more," said Sergio de Alba, president of the National Confederation of Workers and Farmers Organizations.

Minutes earlier, he had called on Mexicans to boycott products from the United States in protest.

Protesters attached signs to a gate in front of the embassy, with one slogan saying, "Boycott Against Arizona-Nazizona, home of hunting migrants and the Ku Klux Klan."

Opponents say the law will lead to racial profiling, which is illegal.

Supporters point out that the law prohibits racial profiling and people cannot be stopped and asked for proof of legal residence based solely on their looks.

In addition to the U.S. Justice Department, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Coalition of Latino Clergy, the Christian Leaders League of United Latin American Citizens and other individuals or groups have asked the judge to halt the law, commonly known as SB 1070. Bolton heard arguments in the case last week from the Justice Department and the ACLU.

The separate hearings were held in Phoenix, where Bolton sits on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

Bolton's courtroom was packed during the two July 22 hearings and protesters chanted outside throughout the afternoon.

Seven protesters were arrested on civil disobedience charges, according to the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.

The legal arguments revolved around a range of issues, including racial profiling, effective enforcement and possible harm to Arizona's citizens.

Attorneys from the Obama administration presented their case at the second hearing. The administration's challenge contends Arizona's law would usurp federal supremacy on immigration.

Brewer attended the hearing.

Arizona has argued that the federal government has not done a good job of securing the border.

"A law unenforced is no law at all," said state attorney John Bouma.

The American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of civil rights groups argued earlier in the day that the controversial law amounts to racial profiling and will have a profound effect if it goes into effect.

"It treats people of color as suspects first, rather than citizens," attorney Karen Tumlin said after the hearing.

Bouma said the law would not treat people unfairly.

"These are hypothetical arguments. Local police are enforcing immigration laws all over the country," he told Bolton.

Those in favor of the law say SB 1070 is consistent with federal law. They say the law explicitly prohibits racial profiling and they are challenging the legal standing of many of the groups opposed.

They also contend opponents of the law have not been able to show there will be any harm from its implementation.

During the first hearing, Bolton said the law has a section allowing parts to still take effect even if other parts are struck down, according to CNN affiliate KNXV.

Tumlin, managing attorney for the National Immigration Law Center, and other lawyers and foes of SB 1070 repeated assertions that Arizona's law should be rejected.

"We are here to defend the rights of those who cannot stand up for themselves," said Terri Leon, CEO of the Friendly House, which supports the legal challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Bolton heard a challenge to SB 1070 by an Arizona police officer the previous week.

SB 1070 has been partially enjoined

2010-07-28T12:53:00.000-07:00

Today, Wednesday, July 28, 2009, United States District Judge Susan R. Bolton issued a Preliminary Injunction prohibiting the enforcement of four key provisions of SB 1070 in response to the action brought by the Attorney General of the United States.

In part of her ruling, judge Bolton noted: "Under Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070, all arrestees will be required to prove their immigration status to the satisfaction of state authorities, thus increasing the intrusion of police presence into the lives of legally-present aliens (and even United States citizens), who will necessarily be swept up by this requirement" (emphasis added). She added: "The Court is also cognizant of the potentially serious Fourth Amendment problems with the inevitable increase in length of detention while immigration status is determined, as raised by the plaintiffs in Friendly House, et al. v. Whiting, et al., No. CV 10-1061-PHX-SRB."

Judge Bolton's order concludes: "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED preliminarily enjoining the State of Arizona and Governor Brewer from enforcing the following Sections of Senate Bill 1070 (as amended by House Bill 2162): Section 2(B) creating A.R.S. § 11-1051(B), Section 3 creating A.R.S. § 13-1509, the portion of Section 5 creating A.R.S. § 13-2928(C), and Section 6 creating A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5)."

United States of America v. State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity, No. CV 10-1413-PHX-SRB.

For analysis, see: http://maldef.org/news/releases/court_blocks_major_07282010/

Federal Judge Blocks Key Portions of SB 1070

2010-07-28T10:49:00.000-07:00

Federal Judge Susan Bolton has preliminarily enjoined the most controversial portions of SB 1070, including the section which required police to check the immigration status of persons where there was a reasonable suspicion that the person was undocumented. In so doing, the judge prevented the portion of the law which authorizes racial profiling from going into effect. The judge found that the plaintiff was likely to prevail on the merits in showing that the enjoined provisions were preempted by federal law. The decision is a major victory for civil rights in this country. The judge's ruling and opinion is here: (http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0729sb1070-bolton-ruling.pdf).

Governor Brewer Has Moved to Dismiss U.S. v. Arizona

2010-07-27T11:25:00.001-07:00

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has moved to dismiss the complaint of the United States Department of Justice against Arizona on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The governor argues that plaintiff's constitutional challenges to Arizona's new immigration statute -- SB 1070-- must fail because SB 1070 is not preempted by either federal immigrration law or U.S. foreign policy. The governor's motion to dismiss is here: (http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/documents/doc/072610_1070_dismiss_motion_doc).

Immigration Debate Tied to Rise in Hate Crimes

2010-07-26T12:44:00.000-07:00

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has pledged to advance legislation that would expand prosecution of bias crimes. (By Manuel Balce Ceneta -- Associated Press)

U.S. civil rights leaders said yesterday that an increase in hate crimes committed in recent years against Hispanics and people perceived to be immigrants "correlates closely" to the nation's increasingly contentious debate over immigration.

Hate crimes targeting Hispanic Americans rose 40 percent from 2003 to 2007, the most recent year for which FBI statistics are available, from 426 to 595 incidents, marking the fourth consecutive year of increases.

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund issued a report that faulted anti-immigrant rhetoric in the media and mobilization of extremist groups on the Internet. The conference said that some groups advocating for tighter immigration laws have invoked "the dehumanizing, racist stereotypes and bigotry of hate groups."

"Reasonable people will disagree . . . but the tone of discourse over comprehensive immigration reform needs to be changed, needs to be civil and sane," said Michael Lieberman, Washington counsel for the Anti-Defamation League.

The FBI reported in October that the number of hate crimes dropped in 2007 by about 1 percent, to 7,624. But violence against Latinos and gay people bucked the trend. The number of hate crimes directed at gay men and lesbians increased about 6 percent, the FBI reported.

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which was criticized in the LCCREF report, said it was "another salvo against free speech by the pro-amnesty coalition."

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 17, 2009

A recent request from the AALS for us to write about our blog...

2010-07-26T12:15:00.001-07:00

Minority Voices in the Brave New World of Blogosphere:

When I was recently asked to submit an article for the American Assocaition of Law Schools (AALS) Minority Group Section Newsletter on the opportunities and challenges of creating a blog dedicated to addressing issues affecting minority issues, I first found the request a bit humorous. You see, as a faculty member slightly older than many of my colleagues, I never considered myself particularly hi-tech. Indeed, I recall not long ago asking one of my colleagues, Howard Wasserman, a regular contributor to the Lawprawf’s blog “what the heck is a blog and how do you create one?” So being considered a knowledgeable person in this so-called new generation or means of scholarship is a bit ironic. I say this not only to provoke a smile or two, but more importantly, to encourage others with a yearning to write regularly on matters you believe are largely dismissed in existing blogs or scholarship, to consider contributing to an existing blog, or better yet, to create your own blog. I will first briefly describe possible inspirations for creating a blog, focusing on my own, and then provide a rough blueprint for providing your own, perhaps outsider’s, perspective to a fairly successful blog. I hope this helps in inspiring others to enter this brave new world of scholarship and engagement?

As a few of you may know, a few months ago, I, along with a group of respected scholars, created the “Nuestras Voces Latinas” blog. It is specifically dedicated to addressing issues that affect Latina and Latino communities, but are rarely addressed by members of those communities. What inspired me to create the blog was, with notable exception to the Immigrationprof and Blackprof blogs, I rarely, if ever, noticed Latina or Latino faces or names as experts opining on subjects affecting the Latin communities in the U.S. or abroad. Be it the Bill Maher Show, Face the Nation, or one of the many blogs addressing contemporary news or political topics, none seemed to have representative voices. I had written on the subject in one or more obscure law review articles, that I am sure few had noticed, so I began to learn more about this genre by speaking to colleagues I respected and knew had experience with blogs. I was then inspired by two important events: the first was a panel on “the Dearth of Latina Public Intellectuals” at the most recent LatCrit Conference in Washington, D.C. where a fairly heated debate arose concerning whether law professors at the conference were in fact public intellectuals. While I was pleased when one colleague was kind enough to list several of the professors in attendance as public intellectuals and sources of inspiration, I nonetheless began to question the impact our scholarship had on the profession and larger communities. The second event was a conversation I had with my daughter about her experiences as one of the few Latinas at NYU’s business school. From that conversation, I sensed a yearning for alternative voices to the flood of perspectives that all-too-often define Latina and Latino issues as largely limited to music, fashion, immigration, and food. So I started what was to become a fairly large part of my professional life.

The following is the blueprint and a ever-so-slight word of caution.I first spoke to many, and recruited some, experienced bloggers. This for me was an essential first step. I started by writing to many colleagues I respected, but may not have know that well, and asked if they were willing to meet at the AALS conference to discuss a new blog project. An organizational meeting of respected possible contributors is strongly encouraged. In that meeting, we will able to commit to a schedule for the submissions or posts (often a thorny issue as life gets in the way), a list of potential other bloggers, an understanding of the overall scholarly commitment, and a schedule for launching the blog. All of these are crucial subjects in order to ensure accountability in the future. I then recruited a handful of experienced bloggers. Fortunately, I was able to include invaluable sources of reference and experience, such as Steven Ramirez, Larry Cata Backer, and Leticia Nadia Cabrera Pierre-Louis. I also was able to gather an amazing group of scholars and additional fellow bloggers, including: Steven Bender, Guadalupe Luna, Berta Hernandez, Frank Valdes, Pedro Malavet, Charles Venator, George Martinez, and Maria Lopez. Receiving administrative support from my home institution, Florida International College of Law, was also helpful. Ensuring independence from my home school, however, was an issue my fellow editors raised, but was easily resolved. I raise it here only for new bloggers to consider. Then we began to write. Another important piece of advice is to ideally have bloggers from other blogs to announce your launch—we were fortunate to have blogs such as “the Faculty Lounge” and “Law Prawfs” announce our entry into the sphere. We also fortunately arrived on the blogosphere when crucial events, such as the enactment of Arizona SB 1070’s anti-immigration law, occurred. Events such as these allowed the blog and its editors to gain exposure and to provide the outsider perspective that was a primary goal for creating the blog in the first place. Indeed, some of the editors have been interviewed by newspapers throughout Latin America, national domestic print media, and other important blogs, such as Factcheck.com.

I will end with both a few words of caution, and perhaps one or two of inspiration. First the caution, be prepared to receive a certain amount of hate mail. Indeed, a week does not go by when I or one of my fellow bloggers doesn’t receive some form of a personal attack. I have responded by first filtering the comments and proving a warning that only respectful comments will be posted. These words nonetheless do sting for a few minutes. For me, I try to use my continuing search for balance and peace to remind me that such hate mail only demonstrates that the blog is having some impact. So I suggest toughening up that skin and giving it a go. I for one realize that dozens of articles and a few books had not had nearly the impact a two month old blog had when, for instance, the members of our group were able to gather over 200 law professors to publicly oppose Arizona’s SB 1070. I would thus strongly encourage all of you to consider entering this brave new world.

Race and Ethnicity in Immigration: Employment or Violence?

2010-07-23T09:25:00.000-07:00

Is there a connection between U.S. immigration policy, Latina/o employment, and black violence across this country? Yes, say LSU researchers Edward S. Shihadeh and Raymond E. Barranco in their recently issued report, “Latino Employment and Black Violence: The Unintended Consequence of U.S. Immigration Policy”. To compile their report, Shihadeh and Barranco studied 117 major U.S. cities to examine the links, if any, between Latina/o immigration and black crime. Their detailed report unfolds in four stages. Shihadeh and Barranco first examined the direct, overall linkage before considering more specific variables, including whether Latino immigration “increases black crime by shifting the ethnic composition of low-skill labor markets in Latinos’ favor.” In the end, their data “suggests” that black violence rises in those areas where blacks lose ground to Latinas/os in the competition for low-skilled jobs. While specifying that they do not “advocate restricting the flow of Latino migrants—in either direction,” Shihadeh and Barranco emphasize that their study documents “black structural disadvantage and how U.S. immigration policy contributes to the formation of the underclass.”

Clearly, these findings can be made explosive. Demagogues interested in wedge politics can try to spin this information as a brown versus black field of conflict. But, as Shihadeh and Barranco emphasize, this information also points to the linkage of brown and black disadvantage under the rule of white privilege. Which will it be? Will data like these push us to build race/ethnicity coalitions capable of delivering social justice across brown/black color lines, or will racial and ethnic minorities continue to allow established majoritarian groups and their politicians to play traditionalist identity politics and set things up so that outgroups end up fighting each other for the crumbs at the edge of society?

Links:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-04/lsu-lrf041210.php

muse.jhu.edu/journals/social_forces/v088/88.3.shihadeh.pdf

By Frank Valdes

Shirley Sherrod, the USDA and "Accountability"

2010-07-22T18:49:00.000-07:00

The outrageous and unconscionable USDA firing of Mrs. Shirley Sherrod over an ill intended blog/video filled to the moon and back with crude falsehoods inspires this post. The facts are well known thanks to news anchor Rick Sanchez and to the much admired grace of Mrs. Sherrod who convinced us with unmitigated restraint the slander and defamation of her good name.

Since the real facts have surfaced, U.S. Agric. Secretary Vilsack has done the honorable "thing," and apologized for his hasty and ill-informed discharge of an individual who has given the nation so much. In essence, Mrs. Sherrod may end up returning to the USDA and hopefully further remedies are forthcoming. The circumstances leading to her firing however cannot end there and allows us to turn our lens on USDA animosity and its discriminatory tactics against people of color who farm. In short, her discharge has thrown additional fuel into the agency's tainted history.

Farming is labor intensive and is vulnerable to the whims of the market, the environment and other unknown externalities. Congress through farm bills and other massive legislation has deemed agriculture important to the nation providing emergency and other funds to small owner operators. The USDA moreover facilitates congressional mandates in protecting small owner operators as well as others. The agency's disparate practices of people of color however have left an enduring legacy into the present. Even more fundamentally the USDA has escaped accountability in their actions where farmers of color lost their farms and suffered other injuries from the agency's harsh treatment. Against this backdrop it is difficult to reconcile the lack of remedial relief for parties injured by the USDA with the rapid firing of Mrs. Sherrod.

Land is tied culturally to our communities and in numerous circumstances ensured the survival of communities of color. Yet the record encompassing the legislative, historical and over all atmosphere of hostile treatment of people of color is solid. In case after case many independent owner operators lost their farming operations to USDA linked practices. The evidence is seen in the litigation over the disparate loan practices that denied African Americans, Native Americans, and female farmers emergency funds to keep their farms afloat. In instances where loans were granted they would arrive late and preclude the purchase or planting of seeds ensuring no future income for owner operators. Yet into the present, the lawsuits chasing remedial relief over the loss of family farms remain languishing in federal courts or lost in vague procedural posturing.

Although Mrs. Sherrod is owed one million apologies for her ill treatment, she is receiving (thank goodness) a small measure of remedial relief. By the way thank you Mrs. Sherrod for all you have sacrificed in promoting civil rights. Against this backdrop a reminder that the present lack of accountability over farm losses against people of color continues to taint the agency with the Ag. Secretary providing fuel to this issue. Specifically in a statement following his conversation with Mrs. Sherrod, he asserted: ". . . I also want to renew my firm commitment to put behind all of us the USDA's past record on civil rights. While we have made some progress over the last 18 months, more work is needed." Yes, Sec. Vilsack more work is needed.

The firing of such an honorable individual at breakneck and breathless speed comparable to the lack of accountability in the loss of small farming operations, renders it extremely curious why people of color at the USDA are held to a different standard than those that perpetuated such massive harm on the farmers seeking remedies over the loss of their farms.

If and only if the Secretary's assertion of addressing discrimination is to mean anything--as well as his apology to Shirley Sherrod-- lets insist on nothing less than at the very minimum promoting accountability within the agency directly.

Live Coverage of SB 1070 Hearings in MALDEF and U.S. v. Arizona Cases

2010-07-22T08:13:00.000-07:00

ABC15.com reporter Corey Rangel is providing live coverage of the hearings in the MALDEF and the U.S. Department of Justice cases today on twitter at (http://twitter.com/coreyrangel).

Governor Brewer Files Response in United States v. Arizona

2010-07-20T19:07:00.001-07:00

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has filed her response to the United States Government's motion for a preliminary injunction to block the implementation of SB 1070 in the United States v. Arizona litigation. Among other things, the Governor argues that the Arizona immigration law is not preempted by federal immigration law because the State of Arizona only seeks to "assist" the U.S. Government in enforcing immigration law. In addition, the Governor argues that the Arizona law is not preempted because it does not conflict with U.S. foreign policy. The governor's brief is here: (http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/documents/doc/072010_brewer_sb1070_doc). The governor's arguments are not persuasive. As the bloggers of NVL have been arguing along with numerous other legal authorities, Arizona has unconstitutionally invaded the province of the federal government to regulate immigration. To allow Arizona to prevail will lead to an intolerable situation where we could have each of the 50 states enacting their own immigration laws and policies. There should be only one immigration policy -- a federal policy. In addition, Arizona's argument that its law does not conflict with our nation's foreign policy is without merit. Mexico has already filed a brief in the SB 1070 litigation stating that the Arizona immigration statute has seriously damaged the the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico. Moreover, seven other Latin American countries (Bolivia, El Salvador, Colombia, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru) have filed a motion seeking to join the brief filed by Mexico opposing SB 1070. (Latin American Nations Join SB 1070 Suit, KPHO.com, July 20, 2010). The federal court will hold a hearing on the federal government's motion for a preliminary injunction on July 22, 2010. The law is set to go into effect on July 29, 2010. The judge in the case has already said that she may not be able to rule in time before the law is scheduled to go into effect. Accordingly, people should be prepared for the law to go into effect on July 29, 2010.

Conference on the Confluence of Art and Law in Cuba July 23-25

2010-07-20T11:01:00.000-07:00

Cuba remains an important source of intellectually stimulating developments. An upcoming conference organized by a group of artists and intellectuals, Estado de SATS, suggests such vibrancy. The conference explores Cuban identity and its expression in thought and arts.

To follow the conference, please access the website of Estado de SATS, which can be accessed here.

Cuban Transnational Economic Activity and Human Rights: Complementarity or Conflict?

2010-07-18T13:56:00.000-07:00

The Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy (ASCE) will beholding its 20th annual meeting this coming July 28-Aug. 1, 2010 in Miami, Florida. As usual, the program is varied and informative, combining representatives from a broader spectrum of opinion than is common in meetings associated with the study of Cuba. "The main theme for the meeting will be “Cuba at the Crossroads in the 21st Century" focusing on Cuba's existing economic and social conditions, recent Cuban policies to address the impact of the world economic and financial crises, Cuban policy shortcomings, and needed structural reforms. " ASCE XXth Annual Meeting.

For that conference I will be presenting a short and preliminary study of some of the collateral effects of Cuba's recent efforts to theorize and implement a new form of transnational trade, one founded on socialist principles. For that purpose Cuba has challenged the dominant form of global trade--based on a privileging on free movements of capital and restricted movements of labor,and centered on private market activity with a residuary regulatory role for states. In its place Cuba would see substituted a system of trade grounded in the role of the state as both regulator (internal) and market participant (external) with a residuary role reserved for private enterprises. In place of a system that privileges the unimpeded flow of capital, Cuba would see flows of both capital and labor, directed by states, to maximize the welfare of national populations through bilateral and multilateral trade and commercial transactions effected among like minded states. Cuba has begun to implement this model among its partners in ALBA, the Alternativa Bolivariana Para los Pueblos de Nuestra América. A number of projects established under this framework involve barter transactions. In the case of the Misión Barrios Adentro, focused on the provision of medical services, Cuba agreed to supply medical personnel (and other serviced and products) to Venezuela in return for discounted prices on Venezuelan petroleum. This transformative system of trade, however, may raise issues of compliance with global human rights norms conventionally understood. In the case of the MBA program, the issue involves the characterization of the labor barter transactions as voluntary in character or as forced labor, compelled by the state to further its trade and political objectives. It also suggests that as Cuba emerges as a more active player in global trade and commercial markets, it may be exposed generally to liability on these grounds, and subject its trade partners to liability as well on theories of complicity. The preliminary conference paper can be accessed here: Cuba's Grannacional Projects at the Intersection of Business and Human Rights.

Utah identifies 2 allegedly behind immigrant list

2010-07-16T21:16:00.000-07:00

AP – Gov. Gary R. Herbert and Kristen Cox, Executive Director of the Utah Department of Workforce Services, …
Play Video Immigration Video:New Video of Illegals Along Arizona Border FOX News Play Video Immigration Video:List Outs Illegal Immigrants in Utah ABC News Play Video Immigration Video:Arizona sheriffs weigh in on Senate Bill 1070 lawsuits KTVK 3TV Phoenix By BROCK VERGAKIS, Associated Press Writer Brock Vergakis, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 38 mins ago
SALT LAKE CITY – Utah officials said Friday they have identified at least two state workers who apparently accessed confidential documents to create a list of 1,300 purported illegal immigrants that was mailed to law enforcement officials and the news media.

Gov. Gary Herbert said the employees work for the Department of Workforce Services, which administers food stamp programs and other public benefits. The employees have been placed on administrative leave, and the state attorney general will determine whether to file criminal charges.

"It's a very small group. The people we've identified certainly have some strong political opinions and seem to be frustrated with some of the issues around immigration," said Kristen Cox, executive director for the department. "I think it's an immense hypocrisy to talk about taking people to task for being illegal and doing so by breaking the law."

Newspapers started receiving the list of names and personal information this week, and its publicity created widespread fear in the Hispanic community. The anonymous mailing said it also was sent to immigration officials. It demanded that those on the list be deported, although some named have said they are in the country legally.

"This tactic by these rogue employees to go out and to single out individuals and their families, in some case falsely accusing people of an illegal status, is in fact deplorable," Herbert said.

A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman acknowledged that it received the list but declined to say whether the agency is doing anything with it.

ICE won't confirm whether it has been investigating anyone unless there is some type of action such as an arrest, spokeswoman Virginia Kice said. She noted that with limited resources, the agency prioritizes its efforts on dangerous convicted criminals, not sweeps or raids that would target undocumented immigrants indiscriminately.

Cox said there may be a few more people implicated in the leak of the names, but she's confident that the core group that is responsible has been identified.

Intentionally releasing a private record in Utah is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. If someone stole such a record, it could be prosecuted as a felony with a penalty punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

"We will begin an immediate, aggressive, formal investigation," Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff promised Friday on a conference call with national and local Hispanic leaders.

Herbert said accessing the private information and distributing it to federal immigration authorities is also a violation of federal law. Shurtleff said he would seek the help of the U.S. attorney's office.

"We're talking serious, felony-level crimes," Shurtleff said.

Hispanic advocates applauded how quickly the state acted to find the source of the leak and to assure the community that state policy doesn't allow for just anyone to access private information.

"The governor took the first step today to bring that trust back again," said Tony Yapias, former director of the Office of Hispanic Affairs.

Cox said most of the people are on the list because their children are receiving benefits. Herbert said there are two benefits administered by the state — food stamps and prenatal care — that would provide information that could indicate someone is in the country illegally.

The list that was mailed contains Social Security numbers, birth dates, workplaces, addresses and phone numbers. Names of children are included, along with due dates of pregnant women.

Officials continued investigating Friday even though state employees usually have the day off as part of the state's four-day workweek to cut energy costs.

Herbert, a Republican, is preparing to host a public summit on immigration Tuesday. The governor has said he will sign an immigration bill into law next year if he's still in office, but it's unclear how closely that bill might mirror one lawmakers recently passed in Arizona.

Arizona's law, which takes effect July 29, directs police enforcing other laws to determine a suspect's immigration status if there is reason to believe the person is in the U.S. illegally. The Obama administration has sued Arizona to throw out the law and keep other states from copying it.

First SB1070 Hearing: Salgado v. Brewer Live Coverage

2010-07-15T09:58:00.001-07:00

Reporter Corey Rangel is covering the first hearing in the SB 1070 case, Salgado v. Brewer, live for abc15.com on twitter: ( http://twitter.com/coreyrangel ).

Brief for 9 states backs Arizona immigration law

2010-07-15T07:00:00.000-07:00

Several states have argued that they have the authority to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said Wednesday in a legal brief on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona's immigration law.

Cox, one of five Republicans running for Michigan governor, said Michigan is the lead state backing Arizona in federal court and is joined by Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, as well as the Northern Mariana Islands.

The Arizona law, set to take effect July 29, directs officers to question people about their immigration status during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops and if there's a reasonable suspicion they're in the U.S. illegally.

President Barack Obama's administration recently filed suit in federal court to block it, arguing immigration is a federal issue. The law's backers say Congress isn't doing anything meaningful about illegal immigration, so it's the state's duty to step up.

"Arizona, Michigan and every other state have the authority to enforce immigration laws, and it is appalling to see President Obama use taxpayer dollars to stop a state's efforts to protect its own borders," Cox said in a statement.

Arizona's Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, in a statement released by Cox's office, said she was thankful for the support.

In a telephone interview, Cox said the nine states supporting Arizona represents "a lot of states," considering it was only Monday that he asked other state attorneys general to join him. The brief was filed in U.S. District Court in Arizona on the same day as the deadline for such filings.

"By lawsuit, rather than by legislation, the federal government seeks to negate this preexisting power of the states to verify a person's immigration status and similarly seeks to reject the assistance that the states can lawfully provide to the Federal government," the brief states.

The brief doesn't represent the first time Cox has clashed with the Obama administration. Earlier this year, he joined with more than a dozen other attorneys general to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of federal health care changes signed into law by the Democratic president.

Like with his stance on health care, the immigration brief again puts Cox at odds with Democratic Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Granholm, who can't seek re-election because of term limits, disagrees with the Arizona law, her press secretary Liz Boyd said. The Michigan primary is less than three weeks away on Aug. 3.

"It's a patently political ploy in his quest for the Republican nomination for governor," Boyd said.

By DAVID RUNK, Associated Press Writer David Runk, Associated Press Writer – Thu Jul 15, 3:50 am ET

Despite these arguments, as I, other legal experts, and now the justice department have argued, these states are simply wrong. Arizona's SB 1070 interferes rather than assists federal immigration policy. As a result, it is preempted and thus unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause. If the high court follows the law rather than politics, it will agree with my assessment.

Disgusting: Anti-Latino Hit List

2010-07-14T12:56:00.000-07:00

Multiple media outlets reported today that an anonymous group purportedly from Utah sent out a list of 1,300 persons whom they claim are undocumented migrants.

This list targeted mostly persons with “Hispanic” names. As has often occurred in anti-latina/o so-called anti-immigrant bashing, children and expectant mothers have been the particular targets of this disgusting piece of hate. Here we have a highly personalized illustration of the anti-latina/o nature of the “immigration” discourse that is currently spreading like a virus through our country.

United Press International reported: “The list of people accused of being in the United States illegally included addresses, birth dates, phone numbers and -- in 31 cases -- social security numbers, the [Salt Lake] Tribune said. The list also included the names and dates of birth of 201 children.” (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/07/14/Utah-investigates-illegal-immigrant-list/UPI-15961279087383/).

MSNBC reported that: "My phone has been ringing nonstop since this morning with people finding out they're on the list," said Tony Yapias, former director of the Utah Office of Hispanic Affairs. "They're feeling terrorized. They're very scared." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38234429/ns/us_news-immigration_a_nation_divided/).

I have several predictions. First, most of the people on this list –particularly the children-- will turn out to be citizens and documented residents of the United States. Second, many of them will be harassed, probably by the same vermin that put together this list, and I hope that the proper authorities will immediately mobilize to ensure the personal safety of those so targeted. Third, should a few undocumented immigrants be found on this list, they will be held up as examples of the righteousness of this bit of anti-latina/o guerrilla warfare, and the “collateral damage” of the gross invasion of privacy at the very least, and worse harassment of citizens and legal residents will be dismissed, because it could not happen to those who promote this sort of thing.

The news reports indicate that Utah authorities are laboring to find out how this list was distributed and by whom. I hope that they do so quickly and before anyone comes to harm.

Another question is the possible misuse of state confidential databases to produce this list. The Salt Lake Tribune reported today that Utah’s governor has ordered a review to find out whether this is the case. “If [the investigation] reveals any kind of evidence of wrongdoing or release of private information we will turn it over to the Attorney General’s Office,” said Angie Welling, [Gov. Gary] Herbert’s spokeswoman. (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/49922073-76/list-dates-information-state.html.csp).

We must be vigilant in these situations and hold these state officials to their promise to protect the civil and human rights of all.

======================

Additional References:

On the evil effect of racial profiling resulting from purported “immigration enforcement” see Violation of Latino Civil Rights Resulting from Ins and Local Police's Use of Race, Culture and Class Profiling: The Case of the Chandler Roundup in Arizona [article], Cleveland State Law Review, Vol. 52, Issues 1 & 2 (2004-2005), pp. 75-96, by Romero, Mary; Serag, Marwah.

On the targeting of women and children in these individual vendettas, see Go after the Women: Mothers against Illegal Aliens' Campaign against Mexican Immigrant Women and Their Children [notes], Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 83, Issue 4 (Fall 2008), pp. 1355-1390 by Romero, Mary.

More on the Puerto Rican Birth Certificates

2010-07-13T21:51:00.000-07:00

I previously blogged about the law which would invalidate all the Puerto Rican birth certificates as of July 1, 2010 (see Ay Bendito in Puerto Rico posted March 2, 2010). If you recall, the rationale of the Puerto Rican legislature was to curb identity theft. However, the magnitude of the effort to have the over 8 million Puerto Ricans in the island and the U.S. obtain new birth certificates has dawned on the Puerto Rico legislature. So now, the legislature has amended the law extending the validity of the pre-July 1, 2010 birth certificates issued. The extension is until September 30, 2010. For more information about about how to obtain a birth certificate see http://www.pr.gov/CitizenPortal/Templates/TxPosting.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID={54D8AD18-838F-4127-8B2F-876D9823B428}&NRORIGINALURL=/citizenportal/071-001-000-000.htm&NRCACHEHINT=Guest.

SB 1070: LULAC v. Arizona

2010-07-12T07:06:00.000-07:00

The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), "the largest and oldest Hispanic organization in the United States," and other individuals have brought the seventh lawsuit seeking to strike down Arizona's new immigration statute -- SB 1070. LULAC alleges that SB 1070 is unconstitutional because it amounts to "an impermissible attempt by state actors to regulate immigration." In addition, SB 1070 and its associated police training materials which have been developed to implement the new statute deny the plaintiffs their rights under the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution by, among other things, "permitting detentions and arrests based on vague or ill-defined facts such as dress, demeanor, and limited English-speaking ability." The LULAC complaint is here: (http://drop.io/fpeecpn).

Take Our Jobs, Please

2010-07-11T13:40:00.000-07:00

One of the more interesting ideas to influence public perception on the contentious immigration issue is the United Farm Worker union’s Take Our Jobs campaign. Comedy Channel’s Stephen Colbert has joined to help promote this campaign that uses existing (and therefore likely undocumented) farm workers to train U.S. citizens and legal residents in farm labor. The premise is that few, if any, U.S. citizens will actually want to undertake this grueling career (as of last week three had signed up), thus conveying a valuable lesson on our reliance on the sweat and grit of undocumented workers. The UFW website solicitation of trainees (http://www.takeourjobs.org/) warns that: “Job may include using hand tools such as knives, hoes, shovels, etc. Duties may include tilling the soil, transplanting, weeding, thinning, picking, cutting, sorting & packing of harvested produce. May set up & operate irrigation equip. Work is performed outside in all weather conditions (Summertime 90+ degree weather) & is physically demanding requiring workers to bend, stoop, lift & carry up to 50 lbs on a regular basis.”

In the interest of full disclosure, those U.S. residents interested in supplanting the labor of mostly Latino/a immigrants should know a few more things before they treat agricultural labor as the solution to our unemployment woes:

1. Salaries are abysmal. A 2005 report found it was rare for a farm worker to earn over $10,000 annually. In 2000, the median income for migrant and seasonal workers was just $6,250 a year.

2. There is almost no chance of salary advancement. Twenty years ago, a worker made 12, 13, or 14 cents for each bin picked of oranges. Today, that same work pays 15 or 16 cents despite 250 percent inflation in the interim.

3. Forget about health insurance and paid vacations.

4. Your salary might be undercut by a host of deductions for services ostensibly provided by your employer or the labor contractor—for example, gloves and transportation to the remote job-site.

5. You may be exposed to hazardous pesticides that you will share with your family when you arrive home with contaminated clothing.

6. Housing is hard to find proximate to farming locations, meaning you may be living in substandard converted housing and your children may be commuting long distances to school.

7. Most exciting of all, you can look forward to the average life expectancy of a farm worker—just 48 years!

U.S. residents undervalue the labor contributions of Latino/a immigrants, documented or not. Consider just the vitally important food supply, which used to anchor our economy and which we now largely take for granted as we focus national attention on other sectors such as the financial industry and manufacturing. Let’s thank these Latino/a immigrants for their contributions in the fields and beyond, as I don’t expect their labor to be displaced by Anglo workers anytime soon.

Editorial: Don’t copycat Arizona

2010-07-09T11:38:00.000-07:00

The Orlando Sentinel editorialized today against copying Arizona’s SB 1070 and it specifically took on the mythology of the “criminal alien”.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/os-ed-gop-immigration-070910-20100708,0,4993250.story

The editorial noted that the Department of Justice has found that immigrants are generally more law-abiding than the general population and that Florida had a large drop in crime during the same period during which it ranked third nationally in the number of undocumented immigrants entering into the state.

SB 1070: United States v. Arizona

2010-07-06T12:20:00.000-07:00

The United States has brought a lawsuit against the State of Arizona seeking to strike down the new Arizona immigration statute -- SB 1070-- on the ground that the "Constitution forbids Arizona from supplanting the federal government's immigration regime with its own state-specific immigration policy ...." The complaint filed by the United States is here: (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM156_doj_az_immigration_lawsuit.html). In bringing this action, the United States has strengthened the claims of the various plaintiffs in the related actions that SB 1070 is unconstitutional because it invades the province of the federal government to regulate immigration. The United States agrees with the plaintiffs on this point.

Los federales have sued Arizona

2010-07-06T12:06:00.000-07:00

In a legal move that had been long awaited by immigrants' rights advocates and others who oppose S.B.1070, the Obama administration has sued Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and the state of Arizona, alleging that "S.B. 1070 unconstitutionally interferes with the federal government’s authority to set and enforce immigration policy, explaining that 'the Constitution and federal law do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.'”

The 25 page complaint, filed today in federal court in Arizona, further alleges that "a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and that [h]aving enacted its own immigration policy that conflicts with federal immigration law, Arizona 'crossed a constitutional line.'” The lawsuit requests an injunction and declaratory relief on the basis of violation of the Supremacy Clause, federal preemption and the Commerce Clause. The federal government also filed a 58 page brief in support of the motion for preliminary injunction. To read the pleadings, see http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/July/10-opa-776.html

TGH Preemption and An Unholy Alliance

2010-07-05T20:22:00.000-07:00

A recent post of mine on whether the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (TGH) applied to the current and extreme reactionary tactics of Arizona’s anti-immigration “law” drew some favorable and not so favorable comments. They therefore drive the intent of this post. Specifically the TGH post sought illustrating the preemption of federal law in specific situations.

I agree with one commentator and also add that the dominant legal discourse primarily rendered the TGH invisible. Further some of the comments against the framework of the current anti-immigrant rhetoric underscore the consequences of false legal norms. For example some Latinas/os support the anti-immigrant position for a number of vast and varied reasons but yet lack the requisite legal causation as to how state government actors breached federal law. The reason is part is because in innumerable situations legal educators have failed to include the wide diversity of the nation’s real history in training our youth.

Yet another reason remains. Until the entry of Latina/o law professors the Treaty’s legal story with very little exception thereby remained primarily the narrative of the Conqueror. This narrative reified false knowledge and left hidden the extent to which governmental actors employed law to dispossess the former Mexican citizens of their property interests.

Recent excursions in the historical record reveal a measure of how courts, attorneys and other government officials betrayed the supremacy clause and thus the Treaty’s intent.[1] That story however is beyond the limitations of this post but I’ve included a few examples of Latina/o law professors as well as a few others who have brought forth an alternative cuento that shows what occurs when the rule of law is ignored.

By analogy Arizona’s anti-immigration law highlights a realm of harmful consequences when governmental officials betray and violate federal law for their own personal gain.

A current example shows yet another instance of Arizona’s recalcitrance and insurgent actions where governmental actors fail to recognize the rule of law. In exchange violators of legal federalism guarantee chaos reins with arbitrary and unlawful costs foisted on those that demand accountability.

Specifically and drawing from an ABA Journal article the full title is provided because it speaks volumes —The Maricopa County Courthouse War, An Arizona Showdown Over Populist Politics, Abuse of Power and Pink Boxer Shorts in the ABA Journal — reports on a protest that took place in December 2009.[2] The protesters primarily lawyers had joined together at the Maricopa County courthouse with their posters declaring: “Rule of law!” and “Free Judges/Free People.” They “recited the oath they gave when joining the bar…” while emphasizing: “I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceeding that shall appear to me to be without merit or to be unjust.”

The lawyers were protesting the arbitrary and capricious actions of the local prosecutor who had brought charges of bribery without an indictment against a judge (although later dropped) without cause. The article further reported that “hardball politics overpower Maricopa courts,” and a host of overly intrusive governmental actions unite “totalitarianism” with the actions of Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his working arrangement with local prosecutor Andrew Thomas.

This unholy alliance has perpetuated a host of retaliatory actions for critics of Arpaio and Thomas that are steeped with “. . . . racism, cronyism, and widespread use of law enforcement and criminal prosecution to settle increasingly bitter political intrigues.” In essence brandishing a slew of retaliatory actions constituting “. . . normal political retribution… .” For daring to criticize Arpaio and Thomas extra-legal activities critics would face volatile retribution.

Even more astonishing (or perhaps not) is that for their protests critics against the arbitrariness of Arpaio and Thomas activities would in turn face indictments. In one instance one such critic faced 118 charges although they were finally dropped. Yet while later walking in a parking lot Arpaio’s deputies “perp-walked him before the media—without charges or warrant —citing probable cause.”

Other charges read as a horror story of retribution against those seeking the rule of law such as the arrest of individuals who had applauded upon hearing criticism of Arpaio at a public meeting. The list of abuse of power between the prosecutor and the sheriff is an endless litany of injury to those who dared to challenge the authority of both men. One such instance included a sheriff deputy who had removed an attorney’s work product while she was talking to the judge during a hearing. The deputy was held in contempt and jailed for refusing to apologize for his outrageous actions. Arpaio however defended the deputy by calling him a “political prisoner.”

The list is endless reading like a horror story of mind-blowing proportions. Jumping back to the Arizona’s anti-immigrant “law” it also gives one pause. Specifically the Governor rejects critics who remind her of the preemption of federal law and the attendant arbitrary and capricious actions that will result from innumerable law enforcement officials. With unmitigated restraint she declares that no racial profiling will take place by law enforcement officials in administrating its anti-immigrant measures. Ha! If you believe such a declaration I have a lead on a London bridge for sale.

In the interim, check out the article as a reminder of a concrete instance when government officials betray their oath of office (that obligates upholding federal and state law). The value of the article moreover shows what occurs when insurgent harmful laws breach federal preemption of a particular field such as the supremacy of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo over state driven measures. In sum, the article adds immeasurably to arguments against simplistic “get tough approaches” such as those adopted in Arizona and which in their recalcitrance ultimately deny the rule of law.

[1]The list would include the work of inter alia Professors George Martinez, Christopher Ruiz Cameron, Placido Gomez, Laura Gomez and the author of this post. Of course a debt is owed the Chicana/o historians that opened the door to studies on the Treaty and especially Malcolm Ebright and his work on the New Mexico land grants.

[2]Terry Carter, ABA Journal (April 2010).

American Bar Association Submits Brief in Support of the MALDEF/ACLU Motion for a Preliminary Injunction; Hearing Set for July 22, 2010

2010-07-04T20:10:00.000-07:00

In an extraordinary move, the American Bar Association has submitted an amicus brief in support of MALDEF's motion for a preliminary injunction to block the implementation of the new Arizona immigration statute. The ABA explained this unusual lower court intervention by stating that "while the ABA typically files amicus briefs only in the highest federal or state court that will consider a matter, the ABA believes the issues before this court are of such significance to the American people and the practice of law that they must be addressed at this stage of the proceeding." The ABA is particularly concerned that SB 1070 will lead to "the increased use of racial profiling in law enforcement," the "mandatory detention of citizens and noncitizens," an "increased burden on ... Arizona's indigent defense system," and an invasion of federal authority to regulate immigration. The ABA's amicus brief is here: (http://www.abanet.org/media/nosearch/friendly_house_v_whiting.pdf). Federal Judge Susan Bolton has set July 22, 2010 as the date for a hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction in the MALDEF case. (E.J. Montini, SB 1070 Injunction Hearing Set for July 22, The Arizona Republic, June 30, 2010).

Border Smokescreens

2010-07-01T16:13:00.000-07:00

Fear of encroaching drug violence from Northern Mexico increasingly provides cover for anti-immigrant measures and ramping up border enforcement—whether at the state level through malicious laws such as Arizona’s draconian immigration crimes, or federally through funding of enhanced border security. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer defended her state’s immigration law by contending outlandishly that most undocumented immigrants are drug mules. Media and xenophobes now routinely mention rampant violence in the drug trade as additional justification for constructing Mexican immigrants as a threat to local communities and even national security given the conflation of the international drug trade with the war on terror. The fact that Mexican traffickers supply about 65 percent of all narcotics sold in the United States is seen as further indictment of the Mexican character as criminal rather than of the insatiable U.S. demand for narcotics from suburban soccer moms to college fraternities.

Over the years, the drug trade has converged on Mexican smuggling routes. When U.S. enforcement impeded the 1970s French Connection funneling heroin through Turkey and France into the United States, the Mexican cartels filled the void. When Miami Vice-style enforcement found success in scuttling the cocaine trade from South America through Florida, the Mexican alternate route flourished. When the United States ramped up internal detection and eradication of marijuana growing operations, Mexican traffickers took up the slack. And when the U.S. began tightly regulating the core ingredient of methamphetamine, Mexicans imported mass quantities of pseudoephedrine (legally at first and now unlawfully) and took over that trade.

Rather than serving as an indictment of the Mexican character, the preeminence of Mexican drug traffickers mostly reflects a combination of the absence of financial opportunity that breeds illicit economies, geographical proximity and, most important, exploiting the world’s busiest border. Without counting sometimes millions of crossings into the United States on foot outside the official ports of entry in bordertowns or U.S. arrivals by plane or boat, in one recent year the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics counted 4.23 million semi trucks, 7,774 trains containing 266,469 loaded rail cars, 88 million passenger vehicles, 319,087 buses with 3.7 million passengers, and 48,663,773 people crossing the U.S./Mexico border on foot. Border traffic of this magnitude offers cover to smuggling operations given the impracticality of methodically searching every person or vehicle, as proven by Nixon’s failed Operation Intercept that essentially shut down the border in 1969. The interconnectedness of the Mexican and United States economies and cultures increases over time, bolstering the appeal of illicit border crossings taking advantage of the incessant border traffic.

U.S. drug policies belong in the consideration of any comprehensive immigration/border reform. Until the United States confronts its own demand for cheap labor and illicit narcotics that pulls both Mexican labor and drug trafficking north, border solutions will be flawed and continue to emphasize security over reason at any cost.

Freemasons in Post Revolutionary Cuba

2010-06-30T19:37:00.000-07:00

My colleague, Jorge Romeu, has announced the circulation of three new works on freemasonry in Cuba.

Les informamos que el Analisis Demografico de la Masoneria Cubana, en la segunda mitad del Siglo XX, realizado para su presentacion en la Gran Logia de Cuba con datos suministrados por esta, y que aparecera en sus publicaciones a finales del verano, se encuentra en la red. [noting the availability of "Demographic Analysis of Cuban Masonry, in the second half of the twentieth century," which was presented in the Grand Lodge of Cuba, online.]

Comunicamos que el borrador final para comentarios, del trabajo sobre La Masoneria Cubana y su Contribucion a la Sociedad Civil , a presentarse en la 20 Conferencia Anual de ASCE (Asociacion para el Estudio de la Economia Cubana) en Miami, en Julio proximo, se encuentra en la red. [reporting that the final draft for comment of the work Freemasonry and its contribution to Cuban Civil Society, to be presented at the 20th Annual Conference of ASCE (Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy) in Miami in July, is on line.]

Por ultimo, el borrador final para comentarios, del trabajo Una Mirada Alternativa de la Sociedad Civil en Cuba, basado en la revision critica de esta literatura y realizada para apoyar las tesis del trabajo sobre la Masoneria en Cuba, tambien esta en la red. [Lastly, noting that the final draft of the Work, An Alternative Look at Civil Society in Cuba, based on a critical revision of the standard literature and testing the tesis of the role of freemasonry in Cuba, is also available online].

The Cuban Revolution has produced a substantial amount of irony. In its relationship with freemasonry, perhaps one can see the development of another. Consider Christopher Hodapp, Masonic Conflicts in Cuba, Freemasons for Dummies, May 29, 2010.

SB 1070 and the Latino/a Vote: Is Texas Turning Blue?

2010-06-28T07:36:00.000-07:00

Frank Valdes and Steven Ramirez have been arguing on this blog that SB 1070 is a product of Republicans and that Latinos/as should take note of this fact the next time they vote. There is now evidence that Latinos/as may be reaching the same conclusion. In a major political development, Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows that Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry is now tied with Democratic candidate Bill White in the race to become the governor of Texas. In February, Governor Perry was leading by six points according to PPP. What happened? PPP explains: "The race is tied now, and the movement since the previous poll has come completely with Hispanic voters." (Tom Jensen, Immigration Bill Fallout In Texas, Public Policy Polling, June 22, 2010).

Forum on SB 1070 at the University of Florida

2010-06-27T07:37:00.000-07:00

This is part of a report on a forum on SB 1070 sponsored by the Center for the Study of Race and Race Relations at the University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law, that was held on Wednesday, June 16, 2010. The complete report is available at:

http://www.law.ufl.edu/news/releases/2010/100618-csrrr-panel.shtml

[Professor Pedro] Malavet addressed the law and its implications from a standpoint of culture and race.

"Laws like this reflect a level of anti-Hispanic, anti-Latina/Latino sentiment that will have a most pernicious effect on citizens," he said.

Malavet, who was born in Puerto Rico, expressed concerns about racial profiling that will occur because of the law, based his own personal experiences and the experiences of other Latino and Latina citizens.

"Can any of you right now, right here prove that you’re a citizen of the United States?" he asked. "And the other question is 'why would you be asked to prove that you’re a citizen of the United States by a law enforcement officer?'"

Latinos and Latinas are often categorized or thought of as one race in the United States, even though they are a multi-racial ethnic group, but this leads to racism based on the outward appearance of being foreign, Malavet said.

"I think that one of the reasons why we see laws like SB 1070 is not really concern over immigration, legal or otherwise. I think it is about us; it is about Latina and Latino citizens and it is about the fact that we are going to be the largest identifiable group within the United States in the coming century."

The Latino and Latina population is estimated to have increased by over one-third between 2000 and 2009, he said.

Latinos and Latinas have always been viewed in the United States as racially inferior, Malavet said. Perceptions and stereotypes of Latinos and Latinas have even shifted during the history of the U.S. to uphold this viewpoint.

"We have been citizens of this country since before it was this country," Malavet said, "and if you think about it, the two largest Hispanic groups in the United States are Mexican-American and Puerto Ricans; not one of us came to the United States at the time our territories were first conquered by this country, the United States came to us."

"Everybody who values citizenship in this country needs to understand that we are the most successful multi-cultural democracy in the history of the planet, and we will continue to be only when we value that diversity and fight the racism that SB 1070 reflects," he said.

One Federal Judge to Hear All SB 1070 Cases

2010-06-25T19:25:00.000-07:00

United States District Judge, Susan Bolton, will preside over all the cases seeking to overturn the new Arizona immigration statute. Two of the cases were already pending in her court in Phoenix, AZ and on Friday she transferred the other three cases to herself. Judge Bolton was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton. (One Judge to Consider all Challenges To Arizona Law, AZcentral.com, June 25, 2010). The judge will have much work to do in this complex litigation as there are a number of motions to dismiss in the cases as well as the MALDEF/ACLU motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the implementation of the draconian immigration law pending a final decision on the merits. The judge will have to decide the motion for a preliminary injunction soon as the law--SB 1070-- is set to go into effect on July 29, 2010.

A Recent Interview...

2010-06-25T13:47:00.000-07:00

Below is a portion of an interview concening the legality of SB 1070 with EL Proceso, Mexico's leading politcal Magazine:

1. Is this law unconstitutional? Why?

The constitutional challenge to Arizona's SB 1070 will likely be that it is preempted by existing federal immigration law, and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution. While this question will likely be litigated for some considerable time, I believe the law is preempted by United States federal law.

The SB 1070's stated purpose is to assist in enforcement of federal laws against illegal immigration. The law apparently seeks to prevent successful preemption attacks by tracking federal definitions and placing state law enforcement officials in the service of enforcing federal law. However, most legal experts on immigration already believe and the federal government will likely take the position that Arizona's new law conflicts with and goes far beyond federal enforcement policy. The fact that Arizona tracks federal definitions makes it more likely that the law will be seen as unconstitutional for at least two reasons. As noted legal expert Professor Jack Balkin recently observed: "Arizona will not be able to justify the law on the grounds that it has only incidental effects on federal immigration policy;" and , "it will be more difficult for Arizona to argue that the scope of its new law is not already occupied by the federal scheme and that the law does not interfere with federal law's balancing of the relative costs and benefits of adopting particular enforcement policies."

Another related reason that the Arizona law will likely be struck down is that, while purporting to be helpful, it actually interferes with the federal government by engaging in over-zealous draconian measures. While purporting to be of assistance to federal immigration authorities, what appears to be at play is a political statement by the leaders of Arizona that evidently assert that " since the federal government is apparently not doing enough to address immigration, the state of Arizona will protect its own borders, irrespective of what the federal government thinks. If the above is in fact so and the law is seen to go beyond federal law, the more likely it will be seen to be in violation of federal law and unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. In other words, Arizona will more likely than not be seen as interfering with the supreme law of the land--Federal Immigration Law.

Thus the key question is whether SB 1070 does in fact go beyond federal law and thus interferes with federal law or does it simply replicate and enforce federal immigration law?

As a recent study by Arizona law professors Gabriel J. Chin, Carissa Byrne Hessick, Toni Massaro, and Marc L. Miller noted, SB 1070 does not simply mandate the enforcement of federal criminal and civil immigration laws. It creates new state crimes with different elements than similar federal crimes, it creates mandatory penalties that are different than the discretionary penalties in the federal statute, and it appears to remove the policing and prosecutorial discretion that is inherent in federal immigration enforcement. Any mandatory directive to state law enforcement to enforce federal law would transfer discretion in federal immigration enforcement from federal actors to the state. This preemption concern is heightened by the creation of distinct state crimes and penalties aimed at the same or similar underlying act as the federal immigration provisions.

Certain crimes under SB 1070 do not exist at the federal level. They include section 5A, making it illegal for a driver to stop and attempt to hire or to hire and pick up passengers, if that action impedes traffic; for a person to get into someone’s vehicle in order to be hired; or for an illegal alien to apply for work or solicit work publicly in the state. Most of this is aimed at day laborers and those who hire them. Another example: Section 2H allows any citizen to sue an official or agency in the state who "adopts or implements a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law." And section 2B of the new law requires law enforcement officers to try to check the immigration status of anyone they lawfully stop if they have "reasonable suspicion" the person might be an unauthorized immigrant. (More on this provision later).

For the fairly exhaustive reasons stated above, SB 1070 is likely to be seen as interfering with federal immigration policy and not at all assisting it, and is therefore likely to be held unconstitutional under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.

2. What are the legal bases to challenge the SB 1070?

Please see my answer to question number one. I believe it is fairly exhaustive.

3. Is There any chance to stop this law before take effect?

The only real likelihood of this happening if a court in one of the several law suits challenging this law issues an order enjoining state officials of implementing this law. While I believe the law should and will be ultimately struck down, I believe an injunction stopping the state of Arizona is not likely to occur in the near future.

4. Do you think the White House will challenge this law?

I know from a variety of sources as well as public statements by Attorney General Holder, the federal government is researching the matter and may very well bring suit to stop Arizona's efforts. However, much like the suits that are already ongoing, this process, if commenced, will take considerable time in the court system. I wish they would contact some legal academics that have been examining this issue for some time now. We might be able to assist them in moving things along at a bit of a faster pace.

5. What are the technical aspects of the process (How long it’s going to take, etc).

Realistically, the only option, both politically and legally, are in the courts. This is a slow process--likely a year will pass, in the best case scenario, for an order enjoining Arizona. The other options would be federal legislation on the matter, but there does not seem to be the political will in the United States for such action. In fact, a contrary position is more likely to be politically acceptable--we are quick to build fences and less dedicated to protect civil and human rights of much needed undocumented workers.

The only other option would be an executive order by the President forbidding Arizona from taking this action. Such an order would be at best constitutionally problematic, though it would be the fastest solution. Thus, because an executive order will likely be successfully challenge this option is not viable.

6. If this law is unconstitutional, why are the leaders of Arizona doing this? Is just a

political statement?

As you and you readers may vey well know, the United States has had a somewhat schizophrenic relationship with immigration--when we believe they are needed, we welcome immigrants, when we believe we have reasons for concern--wars or the economy--we make them scapegoats. Thus, I believe we have a political statement is at play here. I actually believe some people misguidedly believe immigration is at the heart of America's problems. This belief however is not based on facts, as some of my own works have shown, many views of immigrants and their impact are based more on fear and ignorance rather than facts and actual economic data. It is easy to get votes and political clout when one has an easy target, and unfortunately there are very few targets more vulnerable than undocumented workers. Fortunately, we have organizations and individuals prepared to stand up and challenge these erroneous beliefs

What we need is a counter-political statement by both those in Mexico and within the United States. As the head of your state warned our Congress, Mexico is a nation-state that is economically important to the United States. Perhaps your country should use that power to have anti-immigrant officials pay--literally in their pockets-- for their positions. Here, Latinos and Latinas need to use their pocketbooks as well, but we also need to be heard in the polls. We need to respond to any anti-immigrant, anti-Latino laws with our votes! As the old Latin saying goes, we need to exclaim " Presente" and "Ya Basta" with hateful efforts.

Citizenship and Its Exclusions

2010-06-25T10:03:00.001-07:00

Congratulations to our prolific editor Ediberto Román for the release a few weeks ago of his latest book published by New York University Press. The press website is:

http://www.nyupress.org/books/Citizenship_and_Its_Exclusions-products_id-11233.html

Here are the flap cover details on this important new book:

Citizenship and Its Exclusions

A Classical, Constitutional, and Critical Race Critique

Ediberto Roman

Citizenship is generally viewed as the most desired legal status an individual can attain, invoking the belief that citizens hold full inclusion in a society, and can exercise and be protected by the Constitution. Yet this membership has historically been exclusive and illusive for many, and in Citizenship and Its Exclusions, Ediberto Román offers a sweeping, interdisciplinary analysis of citizenship’s contradictions.

Román offers an exploration of citizenship that spans from antiquity to the present, and crosses disciplines from history to political philosophy to law, including constitutional and critical race theories. Beginning with Greek and Roman writings on citizenship, he moves on to late-medieval and Renaissance Europe, then early Modern Western law, and culminates his analysis with an explanation of how past precedents have influenced U.S. law and policy regulating the citizenship status of indigenous and territorial island people, as well as how different levels of membership have created a de facto subordinate citizenship status for many members of American society, often lumped together as the “underclass.”

A Sustainable Puerto Rican Hobby and The BP Oil Spill

2010-06-24T10:06:00.000-07:00

The inestimable and unimaginable horror of the BP Oil Spill reminds the nation with unmitigated restraint several critical issues impacting the future and beyond. Specifically until the nation lessens its nightmarish and unholy addiction to oil and other resource depleting practices this generation fails not only the planet but also our children and their future. Against the backdrop of this mind numbing environmental disaster a recent news article nonetheless managed to shed a bit of light on an otherwise gloomy news day of the BP oil spill.

Each summer and every other Sunday in Chicago's Puerto Rican community a number of individuals and families constituting the Chicago Cruisers bike club wait for the “blast of a brass horn.” [1] Why? The horn initiates a bicycle trip to a Chicago landmark. The bikes however are beyond the simple and stripped down two tire bikes of my youth.

In contrast these bikes are customized with “sparkly or crushed-velvet banana seats; balloon tires; re-chromed handlebars with speedometers, side-view mirrors” and some even have attached boom boxes. Cruiser member Luis Maldonado for example customized his newer model with a 6 x 9 inch bass speaker, car stereo CD player and an iPod! From Maldonado’s bike crooned “salsa singer Victor Manuelle.”

Many of the bikes have both the U.S. and Puerto Rican flags and the name of their bike club. The owners of these works of art share a “passion for vintage bikes—mostly 26-inch Schwinns.” A partial scope of the Schwinn models includes “Phantoms, Typhoons and Apple or Orange Krates” with many members scouring flea markets or garage sales looking for bike component parts. My favorite are bikes with family histories such as ten-year-old Alejandra who inherited her Sting-Ray Orange Krate from her grandfather who rode the bike to grade school.

I found the above article encouraging because rather than add to the intensive and craziness of Chicago traffic the Cruisers pedal to area highlights and thus are not exploiting the limited natural resources mother earth offers. The Cruisers remind us that the nation has to disentangle itself from its over reliance on oil and gas and further allow a glimpse into the anti-bike norm that the U.S. promotes.

While Chicago has some bike paths, the high volume and pressures of urban traffic and addiction to the false norm that the road “belongs to automobiles” fails bike riders. When Lansing, Michigan, could have constructed a network of bike paths near MSU, area residents protested and in a city with huge massively wide roads, placed students at risk. In one instance for example a driver and vehicle killed a young MSU student while she was attempting to cross from one side of campus to the next.

In contrast, to the anti-bike norm other nations such as Sweden have constructed amazing bicycle paths that traverse urban and rural areas. On all my trips there I witnessed teachers and students heading for school outings and numerous others heading for work on their bikes in all sorts of inclement weather. Beyond the pro-bike culture Swedish towns are also heated collectively from steam that is fed from city steam plants. Thereby offering a sustainable approach away from oil and gas while also keeping costs down in heating area homes. The BP oil spill accordingly offers an opportunity.

Specifically the U.S. must fundamentally re-examine current federal leasing of public lands. Yet it must go beyond harmful leases with defects that permit ad hoc exploitation, injury to wildlife and which jeopardize the livelihood of area communities. At a core level the nation must adopt bona fide policies and practices and incentives to promote if not accelerate sustainability. For a start it could turn to indigenous customary practices in areas of scarce natural resources that allowed their survival into the present.[2] Finally while cars serve a purpose in certain situations, the “car as king of the road culture” must not only shift but also promote sustainable and alternative practices.

In sum this author sends mil gracias to the Chicago Cruisers for their addiction to Schwinn bikes with a Puerto Rican cultural twist. Honestly how can our antepasados who witnessed the exploitation of the natural resources of their communities not help but shine blessings on the Cruisers for a hobby that also reaches beyond an addiction to vintage bikes.

[1]This blog drives from a much appreciated news article. See Serena Maria Daniels, Tricked-out Classic Schwinns Inspire Nostalgia and Respect While Bringing Together Parents and Kids In A Hobby for The Ages, Chicago Trib. June 16, 2010, at 1.

[2]In the past as in the present indigenous communities continue confronting harm that endangers area resources and thus their survival. For a couple of examples reference the acequias of New Mexico that distance indigenous custom and practice from the industrialization of rural communities, or the ongoing systemic housing development of huge mansions in rural areas that threaten the cultural survival of Indian nations.

Mexico Enters SB 1070 Litigation

2010-06-22T16:41:00.000-07:00

In an indication that the Arizona immigration statute has done serious damage to our nation's international relations, Mexico has submitted an amicus brief in the MALDEF/ACLU case, opposing SB 1070. Asserting that Mexico has a right to protect its citizens, Mexico contends that "SB 1070 creates an imminent threat of state sanctioned bias or discrimination, resulting not only in individual injury, but also in broader social and economic harms to its citizens, undermining Mexico-U.S. relations." Among other things, Mexico argues that SB 1070 will result in unconstitutional "racial profiling reminiscent of African-American discrimination." Mexico's amicus brief in support of plaintiffs is here: (http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/files/pdf/062210_mexico1070brief.pdf).

Experts Prepare to Act...

2010-06-22T12:42:00.000-07:00

SAVE THE DATE! SAVE THE DATE! SAVE THE DATE!
>
> The Rebellious Lawyering Institute
> September 23-25 2010/Bishop?s Lodge, Santa Fe, New Mexico
>
> On every front, Arizona presents major challenges: how do we influence public perceptions? litigate effectively? lobby to avoid similar laws or to enact better ones? organize communities? learn and teach about law enforcement practices? assess the wisdom of and ways to implement boycotts? Not surprisingly, no one group or no single strategic scheme dominates current thinking about and action in Arizona ? much less across the United States or in other countries. Instead an often heated and fractured debate shapes compatible and divergent paths.
>
> Because of the significance of this crisis, the Rebellious Lawyering Institute has specially designed a training focusing on (1) how we can best stand up to Arizona and (2) what the Arizona experience can teach us about preparing for and avoiding the copycat actions of anti-immigrant and racist forces in other states. In designing this special training, we have drawn on the wisdom of many and look forward to working with you in Santa Fe.
>
> A Big Heads-Up about Hotel Reservations:
> New Mexico?s beautiful fall attracts lots of events and guests to Santa Fe, so please do book early. If you book a room at Bishop?s Lodge on or before July 15, 2010, you can secure a special conference rate (mention Rebellious Lawyering-
> Hotel=219&Chain=6361&template=GC&shell=TL&arrive=9/22/2010&depart=9/25/2010&adult=1&child=0&group=1009REBELL)
> From July 15 forward, you may still reserve a room at Bishop?s Lodge but only if rooms are available and only at the regular rate. Or of course you may book your stay elsewhere in Santa Fe. Please do book early, though.
>
> See you in September,
> Kip Bobroff, Tara Ford, Bill Ong Hing, Gerald P. L?pez, Shauna Marshall ? and the many close friends and allies who will be with us in Santa Fe.
>
>
> SAVE THE DATE! SAVE THE DATE! SAVE THE DATE!

Nebraska Town Making Immigration Policy..

2010-06-22T12:40:00.000-07:00

Arizona isn’t the only jurisdiction taking the fight against illegal immigration into its own hands.

Fremont, Nebraska–a place most of you have probably never heard of–voted yesterday to ban illegal immigrants from renting property or landing a job in the 25,000-person town, the AP reports. The law requires town officials to evaluate the citizenship status of any person renting property, while employers must check the status of would-be hires using a federal database.

The vote could make the Cornhusker state meatpacking town the latest battleground in a national fight over immigration ignited in April by an Arizona law that would allow law enforcement officials to stop people they think might be in the country illegally.

The ACLU has already vowed a court challenge to the Fremont law, with the head of the group’s Nebraska branch decrying the measure as a violation of federal law. The Fremont ordinance, she said, is “completely out of step with American values of fairness and equality.”

Some town residents interviewed by the AP had a different take. “I don’t think it’s right to be able to rent to [illegal immigrants] or hire them,” said Trevor McClurg. “They shouldn’t be here in the first place.”

But if past experience is any guide, McClurg may be out of luck. Federal courts have a track record of rejecting similar ordinances, including a Hazleton, Pennsylvania provision that would have penalized landlords and businesses for dealing with illegal immigrants, according to the AP. And a federal judge also rejected a Farmers Branch, Texas ban on renting to those in the country illegally.

By Clifford M. Marks

Arizona Governor's Brief In support of Motion to Dismiss MALDEF/ACLU Complaint

2010-06-22T07:54:00.000-07:00

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's brief in support of her motion to dismiss the MALDEF/ACLU complaint is now available here: (http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/FriendlyHouseMotiontoDismiss.pdf ). In it, the governor continues to argue, among other things, that plaintiffs lack standing to assert their constitutional claims because their fears that they will be subjected to racial profiling under SB 1070 are too speculative. In addition, the governor argues that SB 1070 is not preempted by federal law because it does not regulate "who should or should not be admitted to the country." The governor's brief does not specifically address the finding and analysis by four Arizona law professors that the text of SB 1070 authorizes and may require racial profiling (http://ssrn.com/abstract=1617440).

Legal Experts Are reactng to SB 1070 ...

2010-06-22T06:28:00.000-07:00

The Organizing Committee of the Association for the Study of Law, Culture, and the Humanities recently voted to relocate our March 2011 conference from Tempe, Arizona to Las Vegas, Nevada. We did so in response to Arizona's recent immigration law, SB 1070, and out of concern for our membership, should the law be in force next spring. We wish to thank Dean Paul Berman and those at ASU law school who welcomed and supported us in planning the conference, and who have been very understanding of our decision to relocate it. We also wish to thank Dean White of UNLV law school and Jay Mootz, who have graciously and generously facilitated our last-minute relocation. We hope to see you all in Las Vegas, March 11-12, 2011.

A Call for Participation in the 2011 conference soon will be posted here and distributed to the ASLCH listserv.

We have also located our next two conferences, though we have not yet set dates. We will convene at Texas Wesleyan School of Law in Fort Worth for our 2012 conference, and we will convene at Birkbeck University of London for our 2013 conference. Many thanks to all those at Texas Wesleyan and Birkbeck for agreeing to host us!

Hierarchical Identity in the Americas Explored in New Book

2010-06-21T09:36:00.000-07:00

Professor Tanya K. Hernandez, a professor of law at Fordham University School of Law, where she teaches Comparative Employment Discrimination, Critical Race Theory, and Trusts & Estates, has written a new book with Professor Robert J. Cottrol, a professor of law at George Washington University Law School, where he teaches constitutional and criminal law. The new book is entitled, The Long Lingering Shadow: Law, Liberalism and Cultures of Racial Hierarchy and Identity in the Americas(UNC Press, 2010). Professor Hernandez and Cottrol collaborated on the book because although they teach in relatively different areas of the law their research focuses on the influence of legal institutions and social processes on race relations in the United States and Latin America.

I had the opportunity to hear excerpts and commentaries regarding The Long Lingering Shadow at an Author Meets Reader Session at the recent Law & Society Association Annual Meeting, as a side bar, our very own Professor Laura E. Gomez, University of New Mexico is President of Law Society for the next two years (viva Laura!). The readers commented on the relevant, and important contribution that The Long Lingering Shadow will make to the existing body of legal, sociological, and historical literature. The readers were Professors Raymond T. Diamond, Louisiana State University, Paul Finkelman, Albany Law School, Seth Racusen, Anna Maria College, and D. Wendy Greene, Samford University.

I was particularly intrigued by Professor Finkelman’s comment. He stated that the law governing slavery in the Americas altered from the British common law by designating that the race of a child would be determined by the race of the mother not the father. This legal change resulted in a denigration and objectification of a dark woman’s body, and it removed any legal consequence from a white man engaging in sexual relations, consensual or otherwise with a dark woman. The result of such a legal definitional change was that--there would be no ramification for the use or misuse of a dark woman’s body. Professor Finkelman believes that unfortunately, remnants of this socio-legal paradigm are still in existence today. The Long Lingering Shadow addresses many of the socio-legal paradigms that are remnants of colonial power in the Americas. However, according to Professor Cottrol, the book does not discuss the gender power dynamics that is endemic within the Latin American culture, and to a large extent, the American culture, but perhaps that is a topic for a different book.

Lydie Nadia Cabrera Pierre-Louis

Bye-Bye Betty

2010-06-19T10:15:00.000-07:00

After four years on the air, the unprecedented television show Ugly Betty disappeared from the small screen earlier this year, causing Latinas/os, sexual minorities and smart consumers of popular culture to lament the loss. Reflecting a general view, the Associated Press recently described the lead character as “an educated, hard-working and family-oriented Latina, who was ambitious and career-driven.” But Betty was not a stereotype. On the contrary, Betty’s life on the show depicted the gritty realities and human aspirations that made this series edgier and livelier than most. Betty comes from a working-class Mexican immigrant family, whose father confesses to his American-born children that he, himself, is undocumented...a wildly relevant storyline. In addition, Betty’s life also reflected the role of sexual minorities in this society, including gay and transgendered characters depicted in substantive, non-stereotypical ways. Betty’s life on the show featured the rich diversity and complexity of contemporary Latina/o lives and communities in these United States.

Over the years, Betty’s work in the world of high fashion fueled her aspirations of personal glamour, a destination that she incrementally but finally achieved at the end of the series. By then, the quintessential underdog had become a self-confident and radiant woman. This non-stereotyped Latina and her family and friends became a cross-over hit precisely because they depicted life as we live it.

In return, corporate masters played with the scheduling of the show, disrupting viewer habits and leading to declining ratings that resulted in this cancellation over the objection of many fans who argued for more of Betty. But don’t give up just yet. I’ll bet you that bye-bye Betty is only for now...keep a look-out when she comes back and let’s welcome her right when she does!

Links:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katherine-fung/the-secret-to-iugly-betty_b_537863.html

'Betty' big on issues for gays, Latinos

'Betty' is sweetly entertaining to the end

By Frank Valdes

Governor Brewer Moves to Dismiss MALDEF/ACLU Complaint

2010-06-19T09:01:00.001-07:00

Even as the United States is on the verge of entering the complex SB 1070 litigation (Randal C. Archibold and Mark Landler, Justice Dept. Will Fight Arizona On Immigration, The New York Times, June 18, 2010), Arizona Governor Jan Brewer moved to dismiss the MALDEF/ACLU complaint, Friendly House v. Whiting, in the Arizona immigration litigation. The governor appears to be following the same legal strategy that she took in the two earlier motions to dismiss. The governor argues that plaintiffs lack standing to assert their claims because they have failed to show that they will suffer harm and that federal law does not preempt the Arizona immigration statute. (Deborah Stocks, abc15.com, June 18, 2010). Meanwhile, the Arizona political structure continues to show signs of stress as Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard has withdrawn from representing the State of Arizona in the SB 1070 litigation. Governor Brewer had objected to his representing the State because Goddard has said that he opposes the new immigration legislation. (Ginger Rough, Goddard Withdraws as Lawyer in Immigration Suits, The Arizona Republic, June 19, 2010).

Pluri-National States and Poly-Legalism in Bolivia--Indigenous Justice, Lynching and Constitutional Order

2010-06-18T23:56:00.000-07:00

In 2009 Bolivia adopted a new constitution. The Bolivian Constitution can be accessed here in the original Spanish. English version HERE

On February 7th, 2009, Morales inaugurated the new constitutional era in Bolivian by enacting the New Bolivian Constitution, proclaiming the initiation of a new socialist communitarian state in Bolivia and celebrating the change of a political system that was inherited from the Spanish empire. Today, 36 indigenous communities and groups have the right to territory, language and their own communitarian justice. The new Bolivian Constitution also allows Morales to seek a second term of 5 years as President of Bolivia.

The Constitution of the Plurinational State of Bolivia,The New Bolivian Constitution Grants More Rights to the Previously Forgotten Indigenous Citizens, Oct. 12, 2009. The Constitution includes a number of important innovations generally overlooked by a global elite academy. See, e.g. Larry Catá Backer,Democracy Part VII: Constitutionalism and Indigenous Peoples in the Bolivian Constitution, Law at the End of the Day, December 9, 2007; Larry Catá Backer, An Apartheid for All Seasons: Bolivia and its Autonomy Movements, Law at the End of the Day, May 3, 2008.

One of the more interesting changes introduced by the Bolivian constitution wad the creation of autonomous and constitutional status based not on territory but on membership in ethnic or racial communities. Beyond the recognition of constitutional personality, the 2009 Constitution recognizes the legitimacy of justice systems traditional to these constitutional communities--especially those of indigenous communities. But like all pluralist efforts that are enshrined within hierarchical legal systems--like that essential to notions of constitutionalism--the moment comes when autonomy comes into conflict with the superior legal order. That appears to be happening now in Bolivia as legislators try to mediate tensions between notions of indigenous justice and the basic protections accorded under the Bolivian constitution itslef under the superior guidance of the national legislature.

Recently those tensions reached a boiling point. The issue was, depending on one's perspective, either one of the expression of the power of indigenous peoples to execute offenders in accordance with their traditions, or lynching. Mabel Azcui, Fears Grow of Dual Justice System as Bolivian Clans Take Law Into Own Hands, El País (English Version), June 16, 2010.

The Bolivian Congress last Friday approved legislation further empowering indigenous communities by recognizing their right to administer traditional laws and punishments. The move cam after a series of lynchings were reported in the media in recent weeks raising concerns that the country was effectively sanctioning a parallel system for Indian groups.

Id. But the law raises more jurisdictional questions than provides answers. The most recent set of incidents have highlighted these issues. They involve the executions by Indian communities of several police officials accused of corruption and of another person accused of sexual crimes. Id. In the later case, "the Indians took [the accused] from his home, whipped and beat him to death in front of a school and later buried him." Id. The bodies of the police officials were returned only on a promise that the State would not initiate criminal prosecutions nuder Bolivian law for the actions taken under Indigenous law. Id. But, that has not prevented the families of the slain officers from seeking justice through the invocation of their own law systems. And it is in that effort that the great clash of law systems within Bolivia is likely to take place.

Last week, the families decided to initiate legal action against the Indian communities and said they were considering filing charges against government officials and police commanders for dereliction of duty. The Indians of Uncia say that the lynching is part of the Indigenous justice system, but the government rejects the argument.

Id. The political opposition in Bolivia has taken up the issue. Norma Piérola, an opposition lawmaker has sought to limit indigenous jurisdiction. She is especially concerned that Indigenous law decisions be subject to judicial review within the court system of the state. In any case, the "government says that indigenous representatives must now outline their justice system, and submit it to Congress. It adds that lynching would not be recognized as part of the indigenous justice system." Id. But that, of course, begs two questions--(1) what is lynching ; and (2) who gets to decide the issue. Beyond that, Bolivia provides an interesting constitutional wrinkle on the problems of multi-jurisdiction, now applied not to territorial but to cultural, racial or other groups recognized as constitutionally distinct.

Secretary of State: U.S. To Intervene in SB 1070 Case

2010-06-17T15:46:00.000-07:00

Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, says that the United States will intervene in the SB 1070 litigation to challenge the new Arizona immigration statute. (E.J Montini, Hillary Says Feds Will Sue Arizona over SB 1070, The Arizona Republic, June 17, 2010). If this is the case, the United States had better act soon as the cases seem to be moving quickly with a motion for a preliminary injunction pending as well as two motions to dismiss. If the U.S. intervenes, this would seem to strengthen plaintiffs' claims especially the claim that the State of Arizona is unconstitutionally invading the federal government's power to regulate immigration.

Is Michigan Following Arizona?

2010-06-15T10:04:00.000-07:00

Michigan HB 6256 - Copycat Bill of Arizona's SB 1070

06929'10 DRM HOUSE BILL No. 6256
HOUSE BILL No. 6256
HOUSE BILL No. 6256
June 10, 2010, Introduced by Reps. Meltzer, Marleau, Lund, Walsh, Knollenberg, Haines,
Rogers, Kowall, Rick Jones, Proos, Ball, Calley, Kurtz, Crawford, Horn, Daley, Moore
and Haveman and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
A bill to provide for the determination of the immigration
status of persons present in this state under certain
circumstances; to allow for the enforcement of immigration laws in
this state and the detaining and transportation of persons
unlawfully present in the United States; to allow for certain civil
actions; and to provide for certain civil fines and criminal
penalties.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
Sec. 1. This act shall 1 be known and may be cited as the
2 "immigration law enforcement act".
3 Sec. 2. (1) An officer or agency of this state or a political
4 subdivision of this state shall not limit or restrict the
5 enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full
6 extent permitted by federal law.
2
06929'10 DRM
(2) For any lawful stop, detention, 1 or arrest made by a law
2 enforcement officer or law enforcement agency of this state or a
3 law enforcement officer or law enforcement agency of a political
4 subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other state law
5 or local ordinance, where reasonable suspicion exists that the
6 person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States,
7 the law enforcement officer or agency shall make a reasonable
8 attempt, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of
9 the person unless the determination may hinder or obstruct an
10 investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have his or her
11 immigration status determined before the person is released. The
12 person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal
13 government pursuant to 8 USC 1373(c). A law enforcement officer or
14 law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement officer
15 or law enforcement agency of a political subdivision of this state
16 may not solely consider race, color, or national origin in
17 implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the
18 extent permitted by the constitution of the United States or the
19 state constitution of 1963. A person is presumed to not be an alien
20 who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person
21 provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the
22 following:
23 (a) A valid Michigan operator's or chauffeur's license.
24 (b) A valid Michigan state personal identification card.
25 (c) A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal
26 identification.
27 (d) Any other valid United States, state, or local government
3
06929'10 DRM
issued identification if the issuing entity 1 requires proof of legal
2 presence in the United States before issuance.
3 (3) If an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States
4 is convicted of a violation of state or local law, the United
5 States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States
6 customs and border protection shall be immediately notified when
7 the alien is discharged from imprisonment or is assessed a fine for
8 the violation.
9 (4) A law enforcement agency may securely transport an alien
10 who the agency has received verification is unlawfully present in
11 the United States and who is in the agency's custody to a federal
12 facility in this state or to any other point of transfer into
13 federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law
14 enforcement agency. A law enforcement agency shall obtain judicial
15 authorization before securely transporting an alien who is
16 unlawfully present in the United States to a point of transfer that
17 is outside of this state.
18 (5) In the implementation of this section, an alien's
19 immigration status may be determined by either of the following:
20 (a) A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal
21 government to verify or ascertain an alien's immigration status.
22 (b) The United States immigration and customs enforcement or
23 the United States customs and border protection pursuant to 8 USC
24 1373(c).
25 (6) Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies
26 of this state or political subdivisions of this state shall not be
27 prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving, or
4
06929'10 DRM
maintaining information relating to the 1 immigration status of any
2 individual or exchanging that information with any other federal,
3 state, or local governmental entity for the following official
4 purposes:
5 (a) Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service,
6 or license provided by any federal, state, local, or other
7 political subdivision of this state.
8 (b) Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if
9 determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws
10 of this state or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or
11 criminal proceeding in this state.
12 (c) If the person is an alien, determining whether the person
13 is in compliance with the federal registration laws prescribed by
14 title II, chapter 7 of the federal immigration and nationality act.
15 (d) Pursuant to 8 USC section 1373 and 8 USC section 1644.
16 (7) A person who is a legal resident of this state may bring
17 an action in circuit court to challenge any official or agency of
18 this state or a political subdivision of this state that adopts or
19 implements a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of
20 federal immigration laws, including 8 USC 1373 and 1644, to less
21 than the full extent permitted by federal law. If there is a
22 judicial finding that an entity has violated this section, the
23 court shall order that the entity pay a civil penalty of not less
24 than $500.00 and not more than $5,000.00 for each day that the
25 policy has remained in effect after the filing of an action
26 pursuant to this subsection.
27 (8) The court may award court costs and reasonable attorney
5
06929'10 DRM
fees to any person or any official or agency 1 of this state or a
2 political subdivision of this state that prevails by an
3 adjudication on the merits in a proceeding brought pursuant to this
4 section.
5 (9) Except in relation to matters in which the officer is
6 adjudged to have acted in bad faith, a law enforcement officer is
7 indemnified by the law enforcement officer's agency against
8 reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by
9 the officer in connection with any action, suit, or proceeding
10 brought pursuant to this section in which the officer may be a
11 defendant by reason of the officer being or having been a member of
12 the law enforcement agency.
13 (10) This section shall be implemented in a manner consistent
14 with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil
15 rights of all persons, and respecting the privileges and immunities
16 of United States citizens.
17 Sec. 3. (1) In addition to any violation of federal law, a
18 person is guilty of willful failure to complete or carry an alien
19 registration document if the person is in violation of 8 USC
20 1304(e) or 1306(a).
21 (2) In the enforcement of this section, the final
22 determination of an alien's immigration status shall be determined
23 by 1 of the following:
24 (a) A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal
25 government to verify or ascertain an alien's immigration status.
26 (b) A law enforcement officer or agency communicating with the
27 United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United
6
06929'10 Final Page DRM
States border protection 1 pursuant to 8 USC 1373(c).
2 (3) A law enforcement officer or agency of this state or a
3 political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color,
4 or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the
5 extent permitted by the constitution of the United States or the
6 state constitution of 1963.
7 (4) This section does not apply to a person who maintains
8 authorization from the federal government to remain in the United
9 States.
10 (5) Any record that relates to the immigration status of a
11 person is admissible in any court without further foundation or
12 testimony from a custodian of records if the record is certified as
13 authentic by the government agency that is responsible for
14 maintaining the record.
15 (6) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor punishable as
16 follows:
17 (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), by imprisonment for
18 not more than 20 days or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.
19 (b) For a second or subsequent violation, by imprisonment for
20 not more than 30 days or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.

Arizona Governor Moves to Dismiss Two SB 1070 Cases

2010-06-14T19:04:00.000-07:00

Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer, represented by one of Arizona's largest private law firms, has moved to dismiss two complaints in the SB 1070 litigation: (1) Frisancho v. Brewer, brought by an American citizen who lives in Washington D.C., who is not represented by an attorney, and who alleges that he will suffer injury when he travels to Arizona in the Fall of 2010 because he will likely be racially profiled and asked for documents which would establish that he is in the country legally and ( 2) Salgado v. Brewer, brought by a Phoenix police officer. The Governor takes a similar legal strategy in each case. As to the Frisancho case, the plaintiff Roberto Frisancho alleges that he will be coming to Arizona to do research on the "Chandler Roundup" which he alleges involved an operation by Arizona authorities to apprehend undocumented immigrants which ended up costing "the City of Chandler $400, 000 for the settlement of lawsuits in which plaintiffs alleged that they were stopped and questioned based solely on their apparent Mexican descent." Despite this, Governor Brewer contends that his complaint should be dismissed because the plaintiff Frisancho lacks standing to bring the claims in the complaint inasmuch as he will not "suffer, an actual, imminent injury" as a result of SB 1070. Governor Brewer argues that the plaintiff's fear of injury is too speculative and merely conjectural because SB 1070 and Supreme Court case law do not permit him to be reasonably suspected of being in the country illegally solely on the basis of his Latino appearance. Similarly, Governor Brewer moves to dismiss the Salgado complaint on the ground that the plaintiff police officer, David Salgado, lacks standing because he has failed to allege facts showing that he will suffer an actual injury. In addition, Governor Brewer argues that federal law does not preempt SB 1070 because "SB 1070 does not regulate the terms upon which aliens may enter and remain in the country"and "does not intrude upon the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration."

For the brief in support of the Governor's motion to dismiss in the Frisancho case see: http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0611brewer-motion.pdf

For the brief in support of the Governor's motion to dismiss in the Salgado case see: http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0611brewer-salgado-motion.pdf

Eighth Annual LatCrit-SALT Junior Faculty Development Workshop

2010-06-14T09:56:00.000-07:00

LatCrit, Inc. (LatCrit) and the Society of American Law Teachers (SALT) are pleased to invite you to the Eighth Annual Junior Faculty Development Workshop (FDW), immediately preceding the LatCrit XV program. This annual workshop is designed for critical, progressive, and social justice oriented pre-tenure professors, including clinicians and legal writing professors, as well as those who may be contemplating a teaching career. More senior members of the profession, are welcomed and encouraged to
attend, share their experience, and serve as resources and mentors.

The FDW is designed to familiarize critical, progressive, and social justice oriented junior faculty with LatCrit and SALT principles and values and support them in the scholarship, teaching, and service aspects of professional success. In addition, the FDW seeks to foster scholarship in progressive, social justice, and critical outsider jurisprudence, including LatCrit theory, among new and junior faculty, students, and practitioners.

The FDW aims to cultivate a community of scholars interested in the continuation of this and similar projects over the years. Please inform your progressive and critical colleagues who are interested in making social justice central to their teaching, scholarship, and activism about this event. To facilitate community building through shared experiences and the exchange of ideas, it is hoped that all participants will attend the entire workshop. The Junior Faculty Development Workshop will be held on October 7-8, 2010 at University of Denver-Sturm College of Law, immediately preceding LatCrit XV Conference, October 8-10, 2010.

For further information regarding the Junior Faculty Development workshop, please click here. For further information regarding the LatCrit XV Conference, please click here.

Obama is No Kennedy?

2010-06-11T09:09:00.000-07:00

As I write this my “Latinos for Obama” button sits on my desk gathering dust. Recent Gallup polling reveals a spiraling decline in President Obama’s once substantial support among Latino/as, particularly those interviewed in Spanish and likely to be immigrants. http://www.gallup.com/poll/139379/hispanics-approval-obama-drops-2010.aspx. That decline seems directly linked to Obama’s tepid support of comprehensive immigration reform in a year when most Latino/as expected a strong push for change. Instead, the legislative headline of the year has been Arizona’s foray into racial profiling.

Latino/a dissatisfaction with a Democratic president is nothing new. Fifty years ago, Latino/as voted in concert to a degree not seen since the 1960s, giving John Kennedy 85 percent of the Mexican American vote in 1960. Four years later, Lyndon Johnson garnered 90 percent of that vote. Despite the affection of the Latino/a community for Kennedy, his administration ultimately frustrated many Latino/a leaders who campaigned for him and expected more Latino/a appointments and more involvement in formulating Latin American policy. Johnson, too, disappointed the Latino/a community when his hawkish and expensive military policies starved his other war, on poverty. These seeds of discontent grew into the separatist La Raza Unida Party in the late 1960s and 1970s, which viewed the two political parties as “a monster with two heads [Republican and Democrat] that feed from the same trough.” Candidates from that outsider party never entered the political mainstream, meaning our choices, particularly at the national level, will continue to be candidates who ultimately frustrate the ideals of the Latino/a community.

Are MALDEF, the ACLU and Other Groups Likely to Win In Lawsuit Against SB 1070?

2010-06-09T12:22:00.000-07:00

As discussed in a previous posting on this blog, MALDEF and other plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the implementation of SB 1070 pending a final decision by the federal court on their claims. In order to secure a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs must show a likelihood of success on the merits of their case. As a result, a decision by the federal court on this motion will give us an indication as to how the federal court views the plaintiffs' chances of winning the case. As part of their effort to show that plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claim that the Arizona law is unconstitutional, plaintiffs' brief in support of the motion for a preliminary injunction offers a key opening argument:

"First, SB 1070 is a brazen and improper usurpation of the federal government's constitutional role in immigration regulation. Section 1 of SB 1070 makes that intent plain: "the legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona." "Attrition through enforcement" is an immigration policy that some advocates have urged the federal government to adopt, but it is not federal policy. SB 1070's provisions "are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens ...." Governor Brewer further asserted at its signing that SB 1070 addresses a problem that "the federal government has refused to fix."...Indeed, SB 1070 does not even purport to target an area of local concern separate from immigration policy, but instead openly seeks to implement Arizona's immigration policy choices because of disagreement or disappointment with the federal government. This is plainly unconstitutional: in our federal system, Arizona may not overrule the federal government's immigration policy or unilaterally correct its perceived failures."

The brief may be found here (http:// www.aclu.org/files/assets/AsFiledBrief_0.pdf).

Is Plyler v. Doe in danger of being overturned?

2010-06-09T08:15:00.001-07:00

From immigration profs blog:

Russell Pearce Wants to Take On Plyler v. Doe
Even though the Supreme Court held in 1982 that a state cannot discriminate against undocument children in public school education (Plyler v. Doe) and in 1889 that the children of undocumented immigrants born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens (Wong Kim Ark), Arizona State Senator, Russell Pearce, wants to take on the Supreme Court apparently. Pearce is the author of SB 1070. Further proof that Pearce is an evil man.

Michael Sheridan writes for the NY Daily News:

First, Arizona targeted undocumented immigrants. Now the state's eyeing their children.

A state senator is looking to draft legislation that would keep children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally from becoming citizens, as well as making them pay tuition to attend public schools.

"My issue is protecting the taxpayers. You can't come here illegally and not be a legal resident and expect the taxpayers to pick up your tab," State Sen. Russell Pearce told the Arizona Capitol Times.

The Arizona Republican is looking to draft legislation that will target the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which states that, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Pearce called this "policy" from the Constitution "a magnet that attracts illegal immigrants."

Separately, the senator wants children whose parents are in the United States illegally to pay tuition to attend public schoools.

By Professor Bill Hing

First Official Blog post....

2010-06-07T09:01:00.001-07:00

Nuestras Voces would like to welcome Professor Pedro Malavet, a law professor at the University of Florida. He is a prolific author and an engaging writer. Here is his first post as one of our editors:

Why I Always Carry my Passport

I just got back to my home in Gainesville, Florida, after almost three weeks traveling to Uruguay and Argentina via Brazil. Naturally, I had to carry my United States passport during this trip and presented it whenever I crossed an international border at an airport or seaport. But my passport remained in the hotel room safe when I was not in transit.

In the United States, however, my passport is almost always with me. I have been carrying it whenever I travel internally and at most times on a daily basis since September 11, 2001, when I realized that racial profiling would become rampant, especially during travel.

Do I “look” Arab, Middle-Eastern, Mexican, Puerto Rican? Can you tell the difference? More importantly, how will any random U.S. law enforcement official classify me for whatever subjective purpose he or she might have?

Defenders of Arizona’s SB 1070 say that it is not about racially-profiling Latinas/os generally, especially Latina/o citizens of the United States. I do not believe these claims, and actual conduct makes me even more skeptical. Take the case of Eduardo Caraballo. Like me, he was born in the United States territory of Puerto Rico has thus been a citizen of the United States from the moment of his birth. He has spent most of his life in Illinois. He was arrested in a Chicago suburb because local police found a stolen car in a storage facility at his place of work. While he maintains that he did not know the car was stolen, the arrest appears to be a legitimate initial intervention by law enforcement of the type required by the Arizona law, and his guilt or innocence on the stolen car matter will be determined in due course.

But when his mother came to post his bail, she was told that he could not be released because he was subject to an “immigration hold” and to possible deportation as an undocumented immigrant. The police had “reasonable suspicion” that he was an undocumented immigrant and referred the matter to federal immigration authorities. Again, just as required by the Arizona law. Caraballo’s mother presented authorities with his identification and his birth certificate issued by Puerto Rican authorities. He was then interrogated by federal immigration authorities about Puerto Rico —a place he had left as a toddler and had little memory of— apparently in order to determine the bona fides of the documents. The paperwork was apparently not enough for the authorities, the answers to the questions were unconvincing to the interrogators. All of these subjective judgments by local and federal authorities, in spite of the kind of identification that is generally described as acceptable for anyone else, led to the detention of Mr. Caraballo. It was not until his congressman intervened that he was released from the immigration hold.

Can you prove that you are a U.S. citizen, right here, and right now? I am not taking any chances.

MALDEF and Other Civil Rights Groups Seek Preliminary Injunction Against SB 1070

2010-06-05T17:59:00.000-07:00

MALDEF, the ACLU and a coalition of civil rights groups continue to apply pressure in the historic litigation against the new Arizona immigration statute. On Friday, the groups filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the Phoenix federal court seeking to enjoin the implementation of SB 1070 pending a final decision by the court on the constitutionality of the new immigration law. The groups argue that such an extraordinary remedy is necessary in order to prevent persons of color in Arizona from being terrorized through racial profiling and incarceration. The groups also contend that such an injunction can help head off other states from enacting similar draconian immigration statutes. (Sheryl Kornman, MALDEF Asks Federal Court to Block SB 1070, KGUN9-TV, June 5, 2010; Dustin Gardiner, Civil Rights Groups Ask Court to Block Immigration Law, The Arizona Republic, June 5, 2010).

Congrats are in order...

2010-06-05T13:23:00.000-07:00

While the bloggers at Nuestras Voces often focus on challenges facing the Latina and Latino community, today we want to say a huge "Felicidades" to the new Dean at UCLA Law School!!! Not unlike many of the bloggers here, Dean Moran has long written on social justice issues and has mentored many Latina and Latino academics. She is among the first wave of Latina/o Law Professors,and continues to achieve great hieghts.We are so proud of our mentor, and we honor and celebrate her today!!! Here is more about her latest achievement:

Rachel F. Moran appointed dean of UCLA School of Law

Rachel F. Moran, the Robert D. and Leslie-Kay Raven Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, has been selected as the eighth dean of UCLA School of Law. Moran will be the first Latina dean of a top-ranked U.S. law school.

"I'm very pleased to welcome Rachel Moran to the UCLA community. As a long-standing University of California faculty member, she is well acquainted with the university's unique role in higher education," said UCLA Chancellor Gene Block. "Her record of scholarship has earned her the highest regard among her peers, and I am confident the School of Law will continue to thrive with her visionary leadership and commitment to academic excellence."

"It is an honor and a privilege to serve as dean of UCLA School of Law," Moran said. "This is a very special place with an outstanding faculty, talented students, dedicated staff, distinguished alumni and generous benefactors."

Moran, who teaches torts, education law, and race and the law, will assume the role of dean and professor of law on Oct. 15.

"UCLA Law is a great law school and, just as importantly, a great public law school," Moran said. "Long-standing traditions of access, innovation, excellence and service are a critically important part of the institution's mission. I look forward to working with the UCLA Law community and campus leadership to preserve these core commitments as we build upon the school's many strengths and accomplishments. Together, we can prepare a new generation of lawyers with the knowledge, skills and ethical compass to make a difference."

Moran, who joined the Berkeley Law faculty in 1983, received a distinguished teaching award from the Berkeley campus in 1995. From 1993 to 1996, she served as chair of the Chicano/Latino Policy Project, and from 2003 to 2008, she was director of the Institute for the Study of Social Change. Moran served as president of the Association of American Law Schools in 2009.

Moran has published and lectured extensively on education law and policy, family law, and civil rights and anti-discrimination law. She is the author of "Interracial Intimacy: The Regulation of Race and Romance" (2001), co-author of the fourth edition of "Educational Policy and the Law" (2002) and co-editor of "Race Law Stories" (2008). Her most recent publications include "Let Freedom Ring: Making Grutter Matter in School Desegregation Cases" (63 University of Miami Law Review 475; 2009) and "Terms of Belonging" in "The Constitution in 2020" (Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, eds.; 2009).

Following her undergraduate education at Stanford and law school at Yale, Moran clerked for Chief Judge Wilfred Feinberg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and worked for the San Francisco firm of Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe. In addition to her position at Berkeley, she was a founding faculty member at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law, and she has served as a visiting professor at UCLA Law (2002, 1988), Stanford Law School (1989), New York University School of Law (1996), the University of Miami Law School (1997) and the University of Texas (2000).

"The selection of Rachel Moran as the next dean of UCLA School of Law is a great triumph for our law school. Rachel Moran is a respected and accomplished legal scholar, an excellent and dedicated teacher and a terrific institution builder," said Stephen C. Yeazell, UCLA Law's interim dean. "I am confident that under her leadership UCLA School of Law will reach the next level of excellence."

Moran, who was born in Kansas City, Mo., and raised in Yuma, Ariz., succeeds Michael H. Schill, who served as dean of UCLA Law from 2004 to 2009. Yeazell will return to his full-time position on the UCLA Law faculty.

The UCLA School of Law, founded in 1949, is the youngest major law school in the nation and has established a tradition of innovation in its approach to teaching, research and scholarship. With approximately 100 faculty and 970 students, the school pioneered clinical teaching, is a leader in interdisciplinary research and training, and is at the forefront of efforts to link research to its effects on society and the legal profession.

By Lauri Gavel June 04, 2010 Category: Campus News

Bipartisan Dreams of Immigration Reform

2010-06-04T17:20:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I attended an all-day meeting as a commissioner with the Oregon Commission on Hispanic Affairs, a legislative-created organization seeking equality for Oregon Latino/as. Our guests included a teleconference with a Washington D.C. political strategist who discussed the dismal prospects for comprehensive immigration reform in the coming months unless the Gulf oil leak subsides. She stressed the need for bipartisan support for any reform to move forward. I remarked that if I had a t-shirt it would read “We had bipartisan support for comprehensive reform with the Kennedy/McCain coalition and all we got was a lousy Secure Fence Act.” I then queried whether Latino/as instead should pursue piecemeal reform. In other words, chase the DREAM Act and the AgJobs Act to at least give some relief to undocumented farm workers and college students, or those who dream of college. The strategist’s response was pragmatic and persuasive—having garnered bipartisan support in the past these alluring pieces might successfully pass, leaving the vegetable on the plate of the more challenging question of the status of millions of undocumented immigrants. As the argument goes, the only incentive to get what Latino/a families deserve and want is to hold hostage the issues more appealing to the conservative base—helping farmers save their crops with a ready supply of cheap labor, and helping keep the most educated young immigrants in our country.

But I am pessimistic about the prospects for a comprehensive package passing anytime soon. As reform drags on through the years, reform proposals become even more enforcement-oriented and the most challenging piece Latino/as desire—a pathway to citizenship, becomes more tortuous. I wonder if, a bit like game theory, by choosing this option we may end up with the worst case scenario—a country that increasingly fractures as Arizona did and where public opinion turns even more against any prospect of citizenship for undocumented immigrants under the flawed reasoning this somehow rewards unlawful behavior. Both the DREAM and the AgJobs Act eventually would fall victim. We would be left with piecemeal enforcement legislation of the Secure Fence variety at the federal level, while states in turn would respond to the futility of such enforcement-only models by following Arizona’s lead of mean-spirited local laws. While the country fractured, farm laborers supplying our food and undocumented Latino/a youth dreaming an American dream would fall victim to the aspiration of a bipartisan comprehensive strategy to supposedly fix immigration for the long-term.

Piecemeal reform may be less than desirable and less than what Latino/a immigrants and this country deserve, but this draconian alternative awaits.

Here they (Republicans) Go Again!

2010-06-04T06:54:00.000-07:00

By now, no doubt, everybody knows about Arizona’s racial profiling law, SB1070, signed by the governor into law in late April. But some key take-away points are being lost in the ensuing controversy. Among these is the political bottom line for Latinas/os in the United States today and in the future.

Since the early 1980’s, Republicans have pretended to woo Latina/o communities as a counterpoint to black support for the Democratic Party locally, both and nationally. This wooing worked oftentimes because Republicans appealed to the “traditional” beliefs and “family values” that many Latina/o communities in the United States share based on home country cultures: a product of Spanish colonialism, most Latina/o homelands are Hispanized former colonies marked with a high degree of religiosity and related social attitudes, like patriarchy and heterosexism. Targeting “wedge issues” like these, which emphasize “culture war” conflicts about “social” agendas, Republicans figured they had found a nifty way of seducing Latina/o voters into voting against their broader interests on national issues, as illustrated by the poltics of immigration policymaking. Yet, in 2008, after years of disaster and deception, Latina/o voters sided with the Democrats by a substantial margin. But who knows what will happen later this year in the mid-term elections, much less in 2012 during the next Presidential electoral cycle. What is happening in Arizona today should clarify the minds of confused Latinas/os.

Here is what I mean: the Arizona law was introduced by state Senator Russell Pearce, a Republican...all 35 Republicans in the Lower House voted for the bill...in the Senate, all (but one) of the Republicans voted for it...in both houses, Democrats unanimously refused to support the bill...finally, Republican Governor Jan Brewer took the final step in unleashing racist nativism yet again in this country. This entire process was split right down party lines: with the exception of one rational Senate Republican (Sen. Carolyn Allen), every Republican in the House, Senate and Governor’s Mansion rammed this bill down their people’s throat—to use a phrase from the moment—while the Democrats consistently opposed this reinstitutionalization of racism. Clearly, this partisan law is an all-Republican affair. Remember that every other November, and vote accordingly!

Link:

http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=28910

By Frank Valdes