Pacific Progressive

Faith in Values: Where’s the Debate on Immigration Reform?

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Sally Steenland

If ever there were a dream team lineup, it’s the large and dazzling array of those who support immigration reform.

On the business side, everyone from Microsoft and the American Farm Bureau to the Small Business Majority and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is onboard. As for labor—a sector not usually allied with business but allied in this case because of immigration reform’s benefits to American workers—supporters include the AFL-CIO; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME; the Service Employees International Union, or SEIU;United Auto Workers, or UAW; the United Food and Commercial Workers, or UFCW; theNational Education Association, or NEA; the American Federation of Teachers; and more.

The lineup of religious supporters is perhaps the longest, stretching from the National Association of Evangelicals to the American Jewish Committee, with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Southern Baptist Convention, United Sikhs, Presbyterians, Mennonites,Mormons, and many others in between.

A huge thumbs-up from the American public adds to this hefty lineup. Nearly 9 in 10 Americanssupport immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship. More than 70 percent of Republican voters agree—provided that undocumented immigrants learn English, pay back taxes and a fine, and don’t cut to the front of the line when applying for citizenship.

Four Facts You Should Know About the California DREAM Act

This material was created by Campus Progress.

by Eddie Garcia

California Gov. Jerry Brown signed the second half of the state’s DREAM Act, just days before the end of the legislative session. The law, AB 131, will allow qualified, immigrant students to apply for state-based financial aid through the Cal Grant program. 

The legislation is a huge victory for youth organizers, education leaders, and immigrant rights advocates working in California to expand access to higher education for undocumented youth. Prior attempts to pass the bill were vetoed multiple times by the state’s former governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, despite overwhelming support in the state legislature. 

"The Dream Act benefits us all by giving top students a chance to improve their lives and the lives of all of us," Brown said in a statement. 

Concerns over the bill’s projected fiscal impact created a divisive narrative in the media that nearly prevented it from becoming law.

What exactly will the new law accomplish? Here’s what you need to know:

1. AB 131 allows for undocumented students at public colleges and universities to apply for and receive Cal Grants, the state’s financial aid program. While these awards would still be distributed with priority to U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents, undocumented youth would be offered aid after those requests are met. The law also opens access to California’s Board of Governor’s fee waiver program, designed to help low-income students pay for school, to undocumented youth. 

How Georgia’s Anti-Immigration Law Could Hurt the State’s (and the Nation’s) Economy

By Tom Baxter 

This material was published by the Center for American Progress.

Download this report (pdf)

Download the introduction and summary (pdf)

Read the report in your web browser (Scribd) 

In April, Georgia enacted H.B.87, an anti-immigration law that mirrors Arizona’s ill-fated 2010 law, S.B.1070. Like S.B. 1070, Georgia’s Illegal Immigration Reform and EnforcementAct makes it a crime to knowingly harbor or transport undocumented immigrants, imposes harsh penalties for providing false papers to an undocumented immigrant, and empowers law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone they reasonably suspect to be in the country illegally. In addition, Georgia’s law dramatically expands the requirement for employers to use the federal E-Verify system, which checks the work eligibility requirement of employees.

These laws do not operate in a vacuum, and states and localities that recently passed anti-immigrant bills have experienced significant negative economic consequences. In Arizona, for example, the losses from S.B. 1070 totaled $141 million in conference cancellations alone and $253 million in overall economic output with the potential for far more in the future. Cities that passed anti-immigrant ordinances also saw steep costs: Farmers Branch, Texas, spent $4 million in legal fees defending its laws, and Hazelton, Pennsylvania, will spend upwards of $5 million to defend its law.

NC Tobacco Workers Face Below-Minimum Wages and Abusive Working and Living Conditions

by Laura Clawson for Daily Kos Labor

Working and living conditions for workers on North Carolina tobacco farms are nothing short of appalling, as portrayed in a new report (PDF) by Oxfam America and the Farm Labor Organizing Committee. Interviewers visited more than 100 labor camps in 5 key North Carolina tobacco farming counties and conducted 86 full interviews with 103 people, speaking to hundreds more along the way. Additionally, they interviewed growers, government officials, and manufacturers.

The North Carolina tobacco workforce is believed to include a higher proportion of undocumented workers than estimates of agricultural work nationally; in line with that, the vast majority of workers Oxfam and FLOC interviewed were undocumented; a few were working on H-2A visas or had permanent legal residency or citizenship.

These vulnerable workers face dangerous conditions on the job, disgusting and unsanitary conditions in their camps, and low wages.

• "Of the 103 interview participants, 22 (about 1 in 4) reported that they were paid less than the minimum wage, one as low as $6 per hour. 51 workers were paid at minimum wage, and only 11 were paid more than the minimum wage."
• For more than a third of workers interviewed, lunch was the only break they got during the work day; only a third reported having access to toilets while in the fields.
• "Sixty-one of the 86 workers interviewed said there was water in the field, but several said they were only allowed to drink it at certain times. Seven workers told interviewers that the water provided was dirty, hot, or often ran out during the day. Three workers said water was only provided sometimes, and three said water is not provided and they have to bring their own."
• Without adequate protective gear, workers are exposed to large amounts of nicotine absorbed through their skin—up to the equivalent of 36 cigarettes on a day when it has rained and the plants are wet. Many suffer green tobacco sickness. "Common symptoms they reported included nausea, vomiting, headaches,
  skin irritation, weakness, dizziness, fatigue, difficulty sleeping, hallucinations,
  and a feeling like being intoxicated."
• Workers were often exposed to pesticides and lacked adequate hand-washing facilities.
• In the living facilities provided by employers, workers faced inadequate toilet and shower facilities, inadequate or absent laundry and cooking facilities, lack of privacy, infestations of bugs and rodents, and worn out or missing mattresses.
• Child labor is common.

With such pervasive abuses, there needs to be in industry-wide reckoning with labor issues, and a dramatic increase in government oversight at both the state and federal levels. As we see time and time again, workers who are vulnerable for whatever reasons—immigrant status, language, race or ethnicity, gender, desperation—get exploited by employers and industries all too willing to take advantage of vulnerability. Giving workers more rights, including the right to organize into unions or gain a collective voice through non-union organizing, and enforcing the rights they have, are the only way to stop these abuses. Growers and manufacturers and other employers aren't going to do it just out of the goodness of their hearts.

(h/t AFL-CIO Now)

 

 

 

All Immigration Is Local - Receiving Communities and Their Role in Successful Immigrant Integration

This material was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Michael Jones-Correa

Download this report (pdf)

Download the introduction and summary (pdf)

Read the full report in your web browser (Scribd)

Historically, immigrant integration has focused on immigrants—on changing immigrant behavior to facilitate their incorporation into the host society by encouraging language learning or naturalization, for example. Accordingly, service providers working with immigrants typically emphasize programs for English language acquisition, citizenship preparation, or integration of immigrants into the workplace.

But positive community relations require the concerted action of both immigrant and native-born residents. How can we expect immigrants to integrate successfully if they feel unwelcome or if their neighbors are not prepared to accept them? And how can we expect their neighbors to welcome them if no effort is made to manage the confusion, fear, and anxiety these neighbors feel about the changing nature of community life? Receiving communities—the places, along with their residents, in which newcomers settle—must be engaged before we can expect them to embrace immigrants.

The 10 Numbers You Need to Know About E-Verify - What It Will Cost Employers, Employees, and Taxpayers

This material was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Philip E. Wolgin 

E-Verify is an immigration enforcement tool. It is the federal government’s Internet-based system that allows employers to check whether prospective employees are legally authorized to work in the United States. Currently, only 4 percent of all American businesses use the system, but House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) has introduced the Legal Workforce Act of 2011, H.R. 2164, to make E-Verify mandatory for all employers across the country.

This mandate would cost Americans their jobs and crush small businesses. And an important point that appears to be lost in Rep. Smith’s proposal is that E-Verify does not even work at catching unauthorized workers—precisely what it is designed to do. The real solution is to pair E-Verify with a program that ensures a full legal workforce and to phase it in gradually to allow the government to make it error proof.

The 10 numbers below illustrate the drastic effects of an E-Verify mandate on all Americans.

1. $17.3 billion: The amount of federal revenue that will be lost over 10 years with mandatory E-Verify as undocumented workers move off the books and into the cash economy where the government cannot collect taxes.

The Progress Report - Sept 16 - WWJD? Not Let The Uninsured Die

By ThinkProgress War Room

This material was created for the Progress Report, the daily e-mail publication of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Click here to subscribe

Conservative Christians Rebuke Tea Party Extremists

ThinkProgress traveled to Liberty University, one of the most conservative Christian universities in the country,  earlier this week to cover a speech by Texas Governor Rick Perry. Following Perry’s speech, we asked students to comment on the shocking moment during this week’s GOP presidential debate when the Tea Party crowd cheered for the death of an uninsured man.

Check out the video from ThinkProgress’ Scott Keyes:

The Progress Report - Sep 13 - Let Him Die?, HPV Vaccine, Asian Exclusion Act, Big Oil

Let Him Die?

By Josh Dorner on Sep 13, 2011

This material was created for the Progress Report, the daily e-mail publication of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Click here to subscribe

Will the 2012 Candidates Maintain Their Silence About Tea Party Extremists?

If you watched last night’s GOP presidential debate, you were treated to the shocking spectacle of the Tea Party crowd cheering on the death of someone who didn’t have health insurance but required intensive care for six months. Watch the shocking video:

Farmworkers Take to the Streets for New Gains

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

On March 5, 2011, supporters marched and protested in Tampa, Florida in support of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers “Do the Right Thing” campaign. (Photo: National Farm Worker Ministry)

The Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW), an organization fighting for the rights of farmworkers in the large agricultural community of Southern Florida, has launched its first major mobilization in the Northeast to pressure the food retailers Ahold and Publix to address human rights violations in their production supply chain.

The “Border Security First” Argument: A Red Herring Undermining Real Security: Assessing DHS Progress and Looking Forward

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Marshall Fitz , Angela Maria Kelley, Ann Garcia |

Download this brief (pdf)

Download to mobile devices and e-readers from Scribd

Opponents of comprehensive immigration reform argue that we need a fully secure border before we can systemically overhaul our immigration laws. Ironically, the “border security first” mantra is actually thwarting progress on border security.

The argument to delay broader immigration reforms until the border is secure relies on the following dubious assumptions:

• Congress’s current “operational control” standard—implying absolute control of the border—is realistic and achievable.
• The American public will reject practical legislative reforms unless and until the border is fully secured.
• The administration has failed to demonstrate adequate commitment to border enforcement to justify broader reforms.

If at First You Don't Secede ...

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

Progressive eyes rightly have been transfixed on Wisconsin of late, with the en masse display of "people power" directly confronting attempts to erode public infrastructure and eviscerate the leverage of collective bargaining that so many have struggled for over the decades. Coming on the heels of popular uprisings in Egypt and across the region, and with the potential for an ensuing general strike in the offing if austerity measures persist, the "Whisky Rebellion" has captured the imagination of workers and activists, spawning solidarity actions around America and inspiring people in other states to push back against comparable right-wing machinations.

Arizona has been no exception, as hundreds gathered in Phoenix recently to show their support for protesters in Wisconsin and to voice their displeasure at similar policies in their midst. If there's another state in the union with a competing claim to be the frontline of reactionary politics gone haywire, it is surely Arizona. Beset by invidious legislation and a decimated economy, among other issues, the nascent "failed state" ethos that has taken hold in the desert is escalating even as the leading edge of a people's movement begins to push back half a continent away. While Phoenix bears little overt resemblance to Madison, either geographically or politically, the national assault on sane governance compels us to explore the linkage.

The High Costs of Immigration Enforcement: State and Local Laws Are Unconstitutional and Discriminatory

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Philippe Nassif 

Léalo en español

A handful of communities across the country have attempted to and in many cases successfully enacted a series of immigration controls that stoke fear in Latino and immigrant communities. But a report from the Center for American Progress found that these communities spend millions of dollars defending these unconstitutional statutes in court. This drains strained budgets, depresses local economies, and divides communities along racial and ethnic lines.

A combination of factors have left immigrants as vulnerable scapegoats and spurred several communities to take federal immigration law into their own hands, including the fallout from the economic crisis and ensuing unemployment rates as well as inaction at the federal level on immigration reform.

The report makes clear that these local enforcement measures come with substantial costs that quickly add up. Arizona will see a loss of $388 million in economic output due to lost conferences and business meetings over the next two to three years due to its immigration law, S.B. 1070. The state is expected to lose $133 million in lost wages over the next two to three years due to the law. Farmers Branch, Texas has incurred more than $4 million since 2006 in legal fees to defend its anti-immigration statute, and Hazelton, Pennsylvania has spent $2.8 million defending its immigration control ordinance.

Hypocrisy Unmasked: Continuing Resolution Exposes Conservatives as Pro-Politics and Anti-Solutions

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Marshall Fitz , Angela Maria Kelley 

The continuing resolution, or CR, proposal unveiled by House Republicans brings in to sharp focus the conservative strategy on immigration: use the issue as a political cudgel to excite their restrictionist base while blocking all efforts to fix the system.

Conservatives have blocked progress on immigration reform for years with calls to “just enforce the law” and “secure the border first.” But the border and interior enforcement budgets have exploded and the government’s sustained commitment to immigration enforcement can no longer reasonably be questioned.

Now, by substantially cutting border security funding in their CR proposal, conservatives demonstrate that their seemingly insatiable desire for more immigration enforcement was always about politics, never about solutions. If they truly believed that more enforcement resources alone would do the trick, we suspect they would have found the money by defunding more programs that benefit women and children.

There’s no doubt that dramatic, exponential increases in resources focused on ending illegal immigration over the last 20 years have enhanced our enforcement capacities at the border and in the interior in important ways. Our southern border is far more fortified and secure—shrill claims to the contrary notwithstanding—and we currently deport more unauthorized immigrants than ever before.

Unconstitutional and Costly: The High Price of Local Immigration Enforcement

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Gebe Martinez

Read the full report (pdf)

Download the executive summary (pdf)

Download to mobile devices and e-readers from Scribd

A handful of local communities across our nation enacted unconstitutional, discriminatory, and costly immigration controls in recent years in an effort to chase away undocumented immigrants and their families and friends, many of whom are American citizens. This growing backlash against Hispanic immigrants in particular was driven by fear, economic uncertainty, and cultural differences in these localities: small towns in New Jersey, Nebraska, Pennsylvania and Texas, and one county in Virginia.

Against the backdrop of a slowly recovering economy, high unemployment, falling state and local tax revenues due to the Great Recession, and a host of problems ranging from crime to overcrowded schools, Hispanic immigrants proved to be handy scapegoats for the white majority of citizens in these communities. Never mind that these immigrants—legal and undocumented—are neither the root cause of any of these problems nor a major factor in any of them.

The Pitfalls of Using Immigration as a Labor Supply System for Employers

by: David Bacon, t r u t h o u t | Report

San Jose Campostela, Mindanao, Philippines - Benedicto Hijara ties a banana tree to an overhead cable to keep it from falling over on a plantation  which sells  bananas to Dole.  Hijara has been working since he was 13. (Photo: David Bacon)

A political alliance is developing between countries with a labor export policy and the corporations who use that labor in the Global North. Many countries sending migrants to the developed world depend on remittances to finance social services and keep the lid on social discontent over poverty and joblessness while continuing to make huge debt payments. Corporations using that displaced labor share a growing interest with those countries' governments in regulating the system that supplies it.

Increasingly, the mechanisms for regulating that flow of people are contract labor programs - called "guest worker" or "temporary worker" programs in the US, or "managed migration" in the UK and much of the EU. With or without these programs, migration to the US and other industrial countries is a fact of life. But does that mean that US immigration policy should be used to increase corporate profits by supplying labor to industry at a price it wants to pay?