Pacific Progressive

China, Bracero Program and Burdens on Working Families at UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment Winter Colloquia Series

IRLE's annual colloquia series brings a number of distinguished scholars to UCLA. This quarter, we are pleased to welcome researchers from China, Brazil, and France in addition to scholars from around the United States and the campus community.   We hope you and your colleagues will join us for these upcoming talks and we encourage you to download the winter colloquia flier and to visit our website for a complete list of  this year's colloquia. You can also stay up-to-date on IRLE activities through our new Facebook  and Twitter   accounts!

Download Flyer

 

January 19: Tamar Kremer-Sadlik, UCLA Center on  Everyday Lives of Families "Work-Family Conflict: A Parent's Problem" 12:30 pm,  Public Affairs 3333 Co-sponsored by the UCLA Center on the Everyday Lives of Families, the UCLA Center for the Study of Women and the UCLA Department of Anthropology.

January 28: Film Screening & Discussion "Harvest of Loneliness: The Bracero Program" Presented by Gilbert Gonzalez, UC Irvine and Vivian Price, CSU Dominguez Hills   12:00 pm, Haines 279 Presented with the UCLA Migration Study Group

February 7: Jian Qiao, Chinese Institute of Industrial Relations  "Toward a Tripartite Labor Relations System with Chinese Characteristics" 12:30 pm, Royce 306 Co-sponsored by the UCLA Center for Chinese Studies, UCLA International Development Studies Program and the Anderson School Center for International Business Education and Research (CIBER)

February 23 •Sim Sang-Jong, New Progressive Party of Korea• “The South Korean Labor Movement: Recent Struggles and the Challenges of ‘Marginal’ Workers” 12:30 - 2:00pm, Public Affairs 3333 Co-sponsored with the UCLA Center for Korean Studies and the UCLA Department of Political Science

March 15 •David Weil, Boston University• ”New National Approaches to Regulating Labor Standards: Implications for Global Labor Standards Systems” Time TBD, UCLA School of Law (Room TBD) Presented with the UCLA Global Labor Standards Program

March 16 •Panel: “Labor Law Enforcement” Andrew Elmore, New York State Office of the Attorney General; Julia Figueira-McDonough, Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney; David Weil, Boston University 12:10 - 1:30pm, UCLA School of Law (Room TBD)  Presented with the UCLA School of Law Public Interest Program

 

Arizona Bans Ethnic Studies and, Along With it, Reason and Justice

by: Randall Amster J.D., Ph.D., t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

Ceremonial sounding of the conch shell to welcome participants to the Tucson conference organized by Professor Roberto Rodriquez at the University of Arizona December 2-4, 2010, devoted to addressing issues related to Combating Hate, Censorship and Forbidden Curriculum. (Photo: Leslie Thatcher)

While much condemnation has rightly been expressed toward Arizona's anti-immigrant law, SB 1070, a less-reported and potentially more sinister measure is set to take effect on January 1, 2011. This new law, which was passed by the conservative state legislature at the behest of then-School Superintendent (and now Attorney General-elect) Tom Horne, is designated HB 2281 and is colloquially referred to as a measure to ban ethnic studies programs in the state. As with SB 1070, the implications of this law are problematic, wide-ranging and decidedly hate filled.

Whereas SB 1070 focused primarily on the ostensible control of bodies, HB 2281 is predominantly about controlling minds. In this sense, it is the software counterpart of Arizona's race-based politicking, paired with the hardware embodied in SB 1070's "show us your papers" logic of "attrition through enforcement," which has already resulted in tens of thousands of people leaving the state. With HB 2281, the intention is not so much to expel or harass as it is to inculcate a deep-seated, second-class status by denying people the right to explore their own histories and cultures. It is, in effect, about the eradication of ethnic identity among young people in the state's already-floundering school system, which now ranks near the bottom in the nation.

Stop the Conference: The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Conference Cancellations Due to Arizona's SB 1070

By Marshall Fitz , Angela Maria Kelley 

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

Download this report (pdf)

Download the executive summary (pdf)

Download the report to e-readers and mobile devices from Scribd

Video: Ask the Expert: Angela Kelley on the Economic Effects of Arizona's Immigration Law

Arizona’s enactment of harsh, anti-immigrant legislation—S.B. 1070—sparked an incendiary national debate over the role of states in making and enforcing immigration policy. Some states and localities rushed to copy Arizona’s draconian approach; others adopted resolutions condemning Arizona’s intolerance. But all states would be wise to consider the practical implications of their decisions before following Arizona any further down the proverbial garden path.

Passage of the Arizona legislation triggered a fierce, national public-opinion backlash against the state and led many national organizations and opinion leaders to call for economic boycotts. Arizona’s business community, especially those in the tourism industry, anticipated and feared this type of response to S.B. 1070. And the convention industry felt the effects of this backlash immediately when major groups and associations started canceling events and conventions in the state. Arizona’s Hotel and Lodging Association publicly reported a combined loss of $15 million in lodging revenue due to meeting cancellations just four months after the bill’s passage.

Myth vs. Fact: The DREAM Act - No More Excuses on This Bill

By Marshall Fitz 

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

Download this memo (pdf)

Download the report to mobile devices and e-readers from Scribd

The arguments mustered in opposition to the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, or DREAM Act, have never been particularly persuasive. It’s hard to make a straight-faced argument against providing kids who lack immigration status through no fault of their own an opportunity to go to college or serve the country through military service. The current broadsides levied to block consideration of the bill plainly expose the moral callousness of the opponents.

Still, it’s important to expose the flaws in DREAM Act opponents’ most common arguments against the bill. It should be clear that there is no good reason not to pass it.

Myth: America can’t afford the DREAM Act.

Fact: America can’t afford not to pass the DREAM Act.

One of the most baseless excuses for opposing the bill is fiscal. Opponents of the bill have tried to throw a series of sensational and utterly unsupported cost figures into the debate, hoping something will stick. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, did the analysis and concluded that the DREAM Act would reduce the deficit by $1.4 billionover the next 10 years.

DREAM-eligible youths would not be eligible for health care subsidies, including Medicaid, or other federal means-tested benefits like food stamps or Pell grants. More importantly, the alternative of removing the 1.1 million eligible kids would cost taxpayers $25.5 billion over five years.

The far stronger argument is: “America can’t afford not to pass the DREAM Act.”

From a "Green Farce" to a Green Future: Refuting False Claims About Immigrants and the Environment

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Jorge Madrid

Read the full report (pdf)

Download the executive summary (pdf)

Download to mobile devices and e-readers from Scribd

Combating climate change and reforming our broken immigration system are two of the greatest challenges facing Congress and the Obama administration. Legislation to address these issues has come up short thus far. Both have been fiercely debated throughout the country and many Americans demand solutions.

In the midst of these debates anti-immigrant groups are revamping their efforts to play these issues against each other using misinformation. These voices have long argued that immigrants destroy the environment, accelerate climate change, and undermine U.S. efforts to transition to a clean and green future.

Nativist organizations and hate groups are attempting to drive their political agenda using environmental concerns as a cover. And conservative lawmakers and opponents of clean energy and climate legislation who use phony environmental arguments as a political wedge are promoting these groups’ talking points.

Speaking in Tongues: Bilingual Education and Immigrant Communities

by: Yana Kunichoff, t r u t h o u t | Report

"America has evolved for the better. She will pretty much meet you on your terms. In fact, I think she has finally come to the conclusion that Blacks, Mexicans, Indians, etc. are here to stay. And the only way to perceive them is to accept them and their existence as valid. Acceptance, that's really the key word. America is accepting all the people, as one people, the way it was meant to be. Today, at least, you can afford to be yourself."

- Maria, a Hispanic social worker, quoted in Rachel F. Moran's 1987 California Law Review article

"We have room for but one language here and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as American, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house."

- Theodore Roosevelt

These two vastly differing quotes show the divisive nature of bilingual education in our society - is it the natural representation of the functional and celebrated diversity of America, or is it an insidious wedge guaranteed only to sow rancor?

The recent swipes at education by Arizona's legislature - including a planto remove all ethnic studies programs by 2011 - came on the heels of its restrictive immigration bill, SB1070, and many advocate say this is no coincidence.

Defense Contractor Money Fueling Push to Militarize the US-Mexico Border

 

by: Mike Ludwig, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

 

After months of prodding from anti-immigration politicians, the entire US-Mexico border is now being watched by the Predator B unmanned surveillance aircraft commonly known as Predator drones. The news may comfort residents of border states where the details of Mexico's brutal drug war continue to make headlines, but here's some more comforting news: violent crime in US border states has decreased during the past decade, and some big border cities are the safest in the nation.

Here's some uncomfortable news: several of the politicians who pushed to bring more Predator drones to the border have received campaign contributions from military contractors that make drone aircraft and parts.

But, on the bright side, the downward trend of violent crime in border states coupled with the $600 million President Barack Obama recently approved in spending on security technology like Predator drones and the deployment of 1,200 additional National Guard troops to the border indicates that the region is secure, really, really secure.

Even Homeland Security Secretary Jane Napolitano said the border is safer than ever as she briefed the press on the new Predator drones and the arrival of National Guard troops, according to The New York Times.

"Numbers don't lie," Napolitano added.

Assimilation Today: New Evidence Shows the Latest Immigrants to America Are Following in Our History's Footsteps

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Dowell Myers, John Pitkin

Read the report (pdf)

Download the executive summary (pdf)

Download "fast facts" on America's lastest immigrants (pdf)

Descargue los “datos rápidos” en español (pdf)

Download the report to mobile devices and e-readers

The story of immigrants in our nation is about newcomers integrating into our society and then strengthening our culture and especially our economy. The longer immigrants have lived in the United States, the more “they” become “us.” Pasta, salsa, sausage, and egg rolls are now as common place on American dinner tables as corn, pumpkin, and turkey. Soccer is now a national pastime, at least among youth, and millions of sports fans cheer the hundreds of immigrants who are members of Major League Baseball.

Nonetheless, opposition to immigration today is whipped up by conservatives who claim that assimilation is not occurring and that instead most immigrants are a burden on our society. But our history tells us otherwise. Immigrants to our shores today are following closely in the path of their predecessors, assimilating rapidly just like they did in the past—as most Americans witness every day in one way or another.

In this paper we use the most comprehensive U.S. Census Bureau survey data to investigate how well the process is working for today’s immigrants. Replacing the misleading rhetoric of immigration opponents with firm data, this study shows that assimilation is happening across our nation. The illusion of nonassimilation is created by looking only at newcomers who have not had time yet to assimilate as fully as earlier arrivers. But once we examine immigrants’ advancement over time—in this study from 1990 to the present—we discover that the longer immigrants are here the more they advance and the better they are integrated into our society.

Race and Beyond: Whistling Dixie

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Sam Fulwood III

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour just can’t let his old South memories wither and die without a fight for redemption.

Barbour, who is considered a leading contender for the Republican Party’s 2012 presidential nomination, said in a recent interview with the conservative magazine and website Human Events that it wasn’t people like him who fostered opposition to school desegregation. No, it was all those “old Democrats” in the South who stood in the door to prevent blacks from attending public schools across Dixie.

“By my time, people realized that was the past, it was indefensible, it wasn’t going to be that way anymore,” said Barbour, who at 62 is old and politically astute enough to know better than to say something so clearly inaccurate. “And so the people who really changed the South from Democrat to Republican was a different generation from those who fought integration.”

Horsefeathers! They were the same people. Conservative white Southerners began fleeing the Democratic Party in 1948 with Strom Thurmond’s short-lived Dixiecrat Party to eventually find a warm embrace within the GOP some two decades later, just as legal segregation began to lose its grip on the South’s throat. This political evolution is well-established history. So well documented, in fact, that it has its own moniker: The “Southern Strategy,” which inflamed racial fears to persuade a majority of white Southerners to vote for Republican presidents Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I and II.

Millions Were Misspent by Arizona Sheriff's Office Facing Federal Lawsuit, Officials Say

by Marian Wang ProPublica

The office of the Arizona sheriff who was sued by the Justice Department earlier this month was this week accused by Maricopa County budget officials of misspending millions in taxpayer dollars over five years, according to The Arizona Republic.

The office of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is famous for his hard line on immigration as well as his controversial tactics, misspent between $60 million and $80 million in funds, according to county officials.

Money from a voter-approved tax restricted for use on jails, for instance, was spent on salaries for deputies and put to other unintended purposes.

Even the Sheriff2019s Office isn't sure how much money from this fund was improperly spent, the sheriff's interim chief deputy, Jerry Sheridan, told the Republic, but he called the county's $80 million figure "pure hyperbole" and 2"a vicious attempt to make Sheriff Arpaio look like he's a poor manager." More from the Republic:

As legal, political and administrative disputes have embroiled the nation's fourth-most-populous county in recent years, county officials said the Sheriff's Office refused to let auditors examine their books on a number of matters.

[Deputy County Manager Sandi] Wilson maintained her office's estimates of misspending are accurate, but said county officials need additional records from the Sheriff's Office to pin down an exact figure.

Fighting Back Against Copycat Immigration Laws Like Arizona's: Helpful Materials for Opposing Similar Legislation

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Henry Fernandez

Download this memo (pdf)

Since the passage of Arizona’s SB1070 law similar laws have been proposed in other states around the country. These laws have generally been found to be unconstitutional because they are preempted by federal law, as the federal court noted in Arizona last month. They are also problematic because they encourage racial profiling by requiring law enforcement officials to seek identification papers from anyone who looks like an immigrant. And they can cost states lots of money in legal fees and economic losses.

The following materials can be helpful in pushing back against such proposed laws.

Who’s behind these laws?

The Immigration Reform Law Institute, or IRLI, the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, drafted the Arizona law and most of the copycat bills. The Southern Poverty Law Center designated FAIR a hate group because of its founder’s writings, its repeated participation with white nationalist groups, and its receipt of major funding from a racist organization.

Copycat laws frequently rely on the work of attorney Kris Kobach, who works for IRLI. Kobach’s lawyering has cost localities who have hired him millions of dollars while the laws have been found unconstitutional. The Arizona law was brought forth by State Senator Russell Pearce, who the Arizona press has described as having a history of associating with neo-Nazis and sending anti-Semitic emails.

Sources:

• Mark Potok, “FAIR: Crossing the Rubicon of Hate” (Montgomery: Southern Poverty Law Center, 2007).
• Melinda Warner, “Meet Kris Kobach: Lawyer For The Anti-Immigrant Movement,” Political Correction, July 15, 2010.
• David Neiwert, “Profiling Arizona legislator Russell Pearce: Author of immigration law is pals with noted neo-Nazi,” Crooks and Liars, April 27, 2010.
• Mike Sunnucks, “State lawmaker under fire for citing neo-Nazi article in e-mail,”Phoenix Business Journal, October 10, 2006.

These laws are generally unconstitutional

Obama's Latino Strategy Faces Voting Barriers in Swing States

by: Art Levine, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

This week could help decide the fate of the mid-term elections.

Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid - facing a close re-election fight in Nevada - brought  to the Senate floor the long-delayed DREAM Actthat offers a path to citizenship for young, illegal, immigrant students if they graduate college or complete military service. The bill's chances were dealt a major setback  Tuesday when Democrats couldn't beat a Senate Republican-led filibuster to block the defense authorization bill that contained that immigration bill along with a repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" military policy for gays. The DREAM Act is now almost certainly doomed for this year. It has faced unyielding opposition from Republicans, who have been playing on anti-immigrant fears to mobilize their base and who also say it shouldn't have been attached as a rider to a defense spending bill.

But, even so, Democrats are hoping that even the fight for the DREAM Act's passage - and the demonizing of the GOP opposition among Latinos - will help energize a previously disaffected Hispanic community that voted in record numbers for President Obama in 2008. Obama endorsed the measure and immigration reform in an impassioned speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus last week.

Democrats are now counting on Hispanics for a strong turnout in November to counter fading public support for Obama, an energized Tea Party-driven GOP and an "enthusiasm gap" among liberals and union members. Senator Reid is among those most in need of Latino voters, as they make up a quarter of the state's population and nearly 12 percent of the voters.

What State Officials Don't Want Arizona School Children to Know

by: Dr. Roberto Cintli Rodriguez, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

For the next few months, the world will be focusing on Arizona's SB 1070 - the state's new racial profiling law - as it works its way through the appeals process. However, in this insane asylum known as Arizona, where conservatives have concocted one reactionary scheme after another, another law in particular stands out for its embrace of Dark Ages-era censorship - the 2010 anti-ethnic studies HB 2281 - a law that seeks to codify the "triumph" of Western Civilization with its emphasis on Greco-Roman culture. 
Unless it is blocked, HB 2281 - which creates an inquisitorial mechanism that will determine which books and curricula are acceptable in the state - will go into effect on January 1, 2011. Books such as "Occupied America" by Rodolfo Acuña and "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" by Paulo Freire, have already been singled out as being un-American and preaching the violent overthrow of the US government.

Both laws are genocidal: one law attacks the physical presence of red-brown peoples; the other one, our minds and spirits.

Lost in the tumultuous debate regarding what can be taught in the state's schools is the topic of what actually constitutes ethnic/Raza studies.

Busy schedule? Click here to keep up with Truthout with free email updates.

In general, the philosophical foundation for Raza studies are several indigenous concepts, including: In Lak Ech, Panche Be and Hunab Ku. Over the past generation, the first two concepts have become fairly well known in the Mexican/Chicana/Chicano communities of the United States. The third concept, Hunab Ku, is relatively less well known, though it actually forms the foundation for In Lak Ech - "Tu eres mi otro yo - You are my other self" and Panche Be - "to seek the root of the truth" or "to find the truth in the roots." As explained by Maya scholar, Domingo Martínez Paredez, Hunab Ku is the name the Maya gave in their language to the equivalence of the Supreme Being or the Grand Architect of the Universe (Hunab Ku, 1970). Such concept is an understanding of how the universe functions.

Birthright Lunacy: Separating Fact from Fiction in the 14th Amendment Debate

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Angela Maria Kelley, Marshall Fitz

Download this memo (pdf)

Some conservatives in Congress, many of who were once leaders of immigration reform efforts, have recently begun to raise a radical notion of amending the U.S. Constitution to deny citizenship to the children of some immigrant parents.

The ugly and inflammatory language of “anchor babies” and “drop and leave” may play well on right-wing TV, but it does nothing to stop illegal immigration, and instead undermines American values while imposing significant legal and administrative burdens on every American. It’s time to debunk these false claims once and for all.

Myth: The Constitution’s citizenship provisions are vague and open to interpretation.

Fact: The text of the Constitution and a succession of Supreme Court decisions could not be more clear.

The Constitution is a foundational document, not a blog for political editors. The United States adopted the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 to ensure due process and equal protection of the laws to all persons regardless of race, color, or ancestry. Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the first sentence of the amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Legislative history shows that Congress intended to give citizenship upon birth to all children, including the children of immigrants. Only two classes of children were explicitlyexcluded: the children of diplomats and children of some Native American tribes who maintained quasi-sovereign status in 1868. Amendments to the Constitution have historically sought to enhance civil rights. Yet an amendment repealing birthright citizenship would mark the first time the Constitution was amended to roll back fundamental rights. A movement in that direction cannot be justified by the political advancement of a handful of politicians.

Administration Takes Steps That Will Reduce Deportation Risk for Many Undocumented Immigrants

by Marcus Stern ProPublica, Sep. 9, 9:40 p.m.

Sep. 13: This post has been corrected.

A version of this story was published in USA Today.

The Obama administration has changed the nation's immigration enforcement strategy in ways that will reduce the threat of deportation for millions of undocumented immigrants and will likely blunt the impact of any state laws designed to deport vast numbers of people.

The changes are the little-discussed byproducts of the administration's well-publicized decision to focus its deportation efforts on immigrants who have committed serious crimes.

To remove the "worst of the worst," the administration reasons, it can't allow the nation's immigration courts and detention centers to remain clogged with generally law-abiding immigrants who have lived in the country for a long time and probably would be legalized under comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

The administration's strategy has been revealed in recent months through internal memos, testimony and new guidelines that direct deportation officers to generally refrain from deporting certain groups of immigrants.