Monday, December 17, 2007
virginia businesses oppose new state employer sanctions
Virginia Employers for Sensible Immigration Policy was formed in anticipation of another flurry of legislation in the General Assembly seeking to crack down on undocumented residents and employers that hire them, business leaders said....Politicians seeking to get tough on illegal immigration have been targeting employers with increasing frequency, a tactic that critics have said allows them to appear responsive without being vulnerable to accusations of intolerance or meanness toward immigrants....
Monday, December 10, 2007
media thinks immigration's hot, voters do not
....When asked to name their top priorities, the Iraq War
still tops the list of issues for both Democrats and
Republicans. "It's raised twice as often as the next-
ranking issue, the economy," according to a recent USA
Today/Gallup poll (11/30/07-12/1/07).
Another recent poll (L.A. Times/Bloomberg,
11/30/07-12/3/07) found only 15 percent of Americans
ranking immigration as one of the top three issues of
concern to them. In fact, noted L.A. Times columnist Tim
Rutten (12/1/07), "more than nine out of 10 Americans
think something matters more than immigration in this
presidential election."
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Immigration Contractor Trims Wages
Workers who process visa and citizenship applications are getting a 10 to 20% wage cut as a new low-bid contractor takes over. What's that going to do to the backlog?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/us/02immig.html?ex=1354338000&en=5d64ab1b91d96060&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/us/02immig.html?ex=1354338000&en=5d64ab1b91d96060&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Friday, November 30, 2007
CIS's new report blames immigrants for health care crisis, etc
The newest study of immigration by the Center for Immigration Studies blames immigrants for our health care crisis, welfare costs, and overcrowding in public schools. Initial articles about the study on November 29 featured these headlines:
“Study: Uneducated immigrants hurt country” (USA Today)
“Immigrants, illegals use welfare more often” (Washington Times)
“Immigration at Record Level, Analysis Finds” (New York Times)
Here is CIS’s director Steven Camarota interpreting the article for the New York Times.
“Immigrants have had an enormous impact on the lack of health insurance,” Mr. Camarota said. “If we are going to have a debate about health insurance, we should recognize that most of the growth in the uninsured comes from recently arrived immigrants and their American-born kids.”
Mr. Camarota found that about one-third of immigrant families receive some kind of public assistance. The services were mainly food stamps and Medicaid associated with care for their American children, he found. The majority of children in immigrant families, whether the parents are legal or illegal, were born in the United States and so are American citizens.
“The welfare system is designed to help low-income workers with children,” Mr. Camarota said. “The study shows that it is very difficult not to have these public costs if you have low-skilled immigrants in large numbers.”
Mr. Camarota did not present evidence of large scale use of public benefits by illegal immigrants themselves.
You can read an initial critique of the study at http://diversityinc.com/public/2785.cfm (“'Sanctuary City'? More Immigrants, More Political Lunacy”) and the study itself at http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/back1007.html (“Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America’s Foreign-Born Population”).
“Study: Uneducated immigrants hurt country” (USA Today)
“Immigrants, illegals use welfare more often” (Washington Times)
“Immigration at Record Level, Analysis Finds” (New York Times)
Here is CIS’s director Steven Camarota interpreting the article for the New York Times.
“Immigrants have had an enormous impact on the lack of health insurance,” Mr. Camarota said. “If we are going to have a debate about health insurance, we should recognize that most of the growth in the uninsured comes from recently arrived immigrants and their American-born kids.”
Mr. Camarota found that about one-third of immigrant families receive some kind of public assistance. The services were mainly food stamps and Medicaid associated with care for their American children, he found. The majority of children in immigrant families, whether the parents are legal or illegal, were born in the United States and so are American citizens.
“The welfare system is designed to help low-income workers with children,” Mr. Camarota said. “The study shows that it is very difficult not to have these public costs if you have low-skilled immigrants in large numbers.”
Mr. Camarota did not present evidence of large scale use of public benefits by illegal immigrants themselves.
You can read an initial critique of the study at http://diversityinc.com/public/2785.cfm (“'Sanctuary City'? More Immigrants, More Political Lunacy”) and the study itself at http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/back1007.html (“Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America’s Foreign-Born Population”).
Friday, November 16, 2007
More presidential hopefuls go after "illegals"
Rudy Guiliani cashes in:
www.joinrudy2008.com/immigration
And Fred Thompson climbs on the bandwagon with a campaign video that says "secure our borders, and enforce the law. Giving up, by granting amnesty is not the answer:"
http://www.fred08.com/
It'll be more than interesting to see how all this moves the Democrats' positions.
www.joinrudy2008.com/immigration
And Fred Thompson climbs on the bandwagon with a campaign video that says "secure our borders, and enforce the law. Giving up, by granting amnesty is not the answer:"
http://www.fred08.com/
It'll be more than interesting to see how all this moves the Democrats' positions.
Spitzer drops driver's license plan
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/nyregion/14spitzer.html?th&emc=th
Guillermo Perez of NY LCLAA says:
The drivers license issue has become THE vehicle for attacking the governor and now he's backing down on his former pro-immigrant position because of pressure from Hillary Clinton's people. The biggest problem has been polls indicating that 70% of New Yorkers oppose the Governor's plan to allow some undocumented access to a drivers license. The attacks on "illegals" has reached a level I've not seen in my seven years of activism on this issue here in New York.
Guillermo Perez of NY LCLAA says:
The drivers license issue has become THE vehicle for attacking the governor and now he's backing down on his former pro-immigrant position because of pressure from Hillary Clinton's people. The biggest problem has been polls indicating that 70% of New Yorkers oppose the Governor's plan to allow some undocumented access to a drivers license. The attacks on "illegals" has reached a level I've not seen in my seven years of activism on this issue here in New York.
We desperately need a power point presentation with all the bells and whistles (graphics, audio, video, as well as pertinent stats) that we can use to start educating the people who should be our allies in this struggle -- e.g., union activists, people of faith, communities of color, etc. That this can happen in New York is especially disturbing.... Any chance we could get a group of labor educators to help produce this power point before the end of this year? Please feel free to circulate this to anyone and everyone who might be interested in contributing.
In Solidarity,
Guillermo Perez
President, Albany/Capital District LCLAA
518-257-1457
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Tancredo: immigrants = terrorists
The "immigration is this year's web issue" train is speeding up and the latest jolt of fuel is Tom Tancredo's campaign ad, which you can see at http://teamtancredo.org/. Just go to the site and you don't have to move a muscle, they'll play it for you. It's classic wedge politics -- a third-tier candidate hopes he can claw his way up by waving the bloody shirt or, failing that, make all the candidates talk about his issue. And it's working: yesterday Gov. Spitzer backed off of drivers' licenses for all.
Labor activists to AFL-CIO: "Give us materials on immigration!"
Yesterday national AFL-CIO staff led a "train-the-presenter" session for the AFL-CIO's new election-year economics package. The trainees -- New England union staff and educators -- repeatedly said that the main piece missing was immigration. They didn't have any doubt that immigration will be the wedge issue in the 2008 elections; they knew what that would do to labor and the electoral results; and they wanted ways to talk to people about the issues.
This could mean that:
-Locals, CLCs, and other labor bodies would use "immigration as a wedge issue" trainings if someone offered them.
-They'd incorporate talking points on immigration into door-knocking trainings and materials because door-knockers will be needing them and asking for them.
The labor educators' network in Massachusetts is developing an "immigration as a wedge issue" training and we'll post it as soon as. If you have thoughts for it or want to work on it (develop it, use it, ...) contact Michael_Prokosch@uml.edu or 978-934-3239.
This could mean that:
-Locals, CLCs, and other labor bodies would use "immigration as a wedge issue" trainings if someone offered them.
-They'd incorporate talking points on immigration into door-knocking trainings and materials because door-knockers will be needing them and asking for them.
The labor educators' network in Massachusetts is developing an "immigration as a wedge issue" training and we'll post it as soon as. If you have thoughts for it or want to work on it (develop it, use it, ...) contact Michael_Prokosch@uml.edu or 978-934-3239.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Solidarity Campaign vs No-Match letters and raids
Labor/immigrant rights activist David Bacon circulated this campaign proposal on October 31.
From: "david bacon" <dbacon@igc.org
To: <dbacon@igc.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:43 AM
Subject: outline for a solidarity campaign
Circulated among labor and immigrant rights activists in northern California.
A Solidarity Campaign in Response to No-Match Letters
In the late 1980s, when anti-immigrant racism began to rise in Europe, the French labor movement and leftwing political activists responded with a campaign called "touch pas mon pot" (pardon my terrible French), which means "dont touch my pal." We can use this idea as an inspiration for getting our own members involved in solidarity and mutual support, and strengthen our unions and organizations.
The problem with the way we've dealt with the threat of no-match letters and immigration raids in our workplaces and unions so far is that we've concentrated on a "know your rights" approach. There's no question that it's important for workers to know their rights, but limiting our activity to this has two big problems:
1. We don't have a lot of rights. This isn't a very effective way for our members to protect themselves and each other.
2. We're saying, by implication, that the threat of firings and raids is the problem of those people who would be directly affected -- immigrants themselves. We're not looking at how they affect the whole workplace and union, or asking members to stick up for each other. That is, after all, why we have a union in the first place.
I suggest instead that we begin by trying to find ways that our members and workers can stick up for each other. While our primary goal here is to help defend immigrant workers, this kind of campaign will encourage members to defend each other on other issues as well. That will help strengthen our unions and workers centers.
This campaign could involve, as a series of steps in which each builds on the one before:
1. A pledge, like the Jobs with Justice pledge, that says if any of us is fired unfairly or threatened with a raid, that we will treat it as an action against all of us. We could have cards like the JwJ pledge cards that say "an injury to one is an injury to all." The idea here is to get our members thinking about the danger, and how we should respond, before something actually happens.
2. We could have a ribbon or button campaign, that makes that support visible in the workplace. That would have a very good effect on the morale of immigrants, and make everyone feel like we have a real union.
3. We could organize a delegation to the employer, saying that we will oppose any firings based on no-match letters, and demanding that they consult with us immediately if they're approached by ICE demanding records. In the case of workplaces like those in Local 2 where the contract already offers this kind of protection, these delegations could make that contract language well-known among workers, and warn employers that we intend to enforce it. For unions without that language, this could inspire including it in future negotiations, especially if we have model language.
4. We can ask our members to take action outside their workplaces. At the minimum level, this can be the circulation of postcards by stewards, asking members to sign, that demand that the no-match regulation be rescinded, and that elected officials support that demand. As members become more educated and active around this issue, it can involve coming out to rallies and marches.
5. Unions can organize their own public demonstrations of opposition to the no-match letters and immigrant bashing. For example, unions with a lot of Filipino healthcare workers, like CNA or SEIU-UHW, could organize public protest over the racist and anti-immigrant "joke" on Desperate Housewives, denigrating the degrees received by health care professionals at Philippine universities. That's a real hot issue right now in the Filipino community.
To make this campaign work, we'd need an education program to go with it. We need printed materials, written in the language our members feel comfortable with, that explains what no-match letters and immigration raids are, and how they're used to harm all workers.
We need to train workers themselves to speak about this. If we have a core of active, educated workers, they can go with union staff to worksite meetings at lunchtime, for instance, to explain the campaign. As it begins to gather momentum, they can also talk about success stories in differnt workplaces. These workers can speak in public events, from rallies to hearings before city councils or supervisors.
I have not included worksite actions, like stoppages in the event of raids or firings, not because I don't think they're possible or desireable, but to concentrate on a campaign that gets members active where they are, and that starts from the education and commitment level that actually exists. If our members and workers can do most of the things outlined above, they're certainly capable of carrying out worksite actions if required.
From: "david bacon" <dbacon@igc.org
To: <dbacon@igc.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:43 AM
Subject: outline for a solidarity campaign
Circulated among labor and immigrant rights activists in northern California.
A Solidarity Campaign in Response to No-Match Letters
In the late 1980s, when anti-immigrant racism began to rise in Europe, the French labor movement and leftwing political activists responded with a campaign called "touch pas mon pot" (pardon my terrible French), which means "dont touch my pal." We can use this idea as an inspiration for getting our own members involved in solidarity and mutual support, and strengthen our unions and organizations.
The problem with the way we've dealt with the threat of no-match letters and immigration raids in our workplaces and unions so far is that we've concentrated on a "know your rights" approach. There's no question that it's important for workers to know their rights, but limiting our activity to this has two big problems:
1. We don't have a lot of rights. This isn't a very effective way for our members to protect themselves and each other.
2. We're saying, by implication, that the threat of firings and raids is the problem of those people who would be directly affected -- immigrants themselves. We're not looking at how they affect the whole workplace and union, or asking members to stick up for each other. That is, after all, why we have a union in the first place.
I suggest instead that we begin by trying to find ways that our members and workers can stick up for each other. While our primary goal here is to help defend immigrant workers, this kind of campaign will encourage members to defend each other on other issues as well. That will help strengthen our unions and workers centers.
This campaign could involve, as a series of steps in which each builds on the one before:
1. A pledge, like the Jobs with Justice pledge, that says if any of us is fired unfairly or threatened with a raid, that we will treat it as an action against all of us. We could have cards like the JwJ pledge cards that say "an injury to one is an injury to all." The idea here is to get our members thinking about the danger, and how we should respond, before something actually happens.
2. We could have a ribbon or button campaign, that makes that support visible in the workplace. That would have a very good effect on the morale of immigrants, and make everyone feel like we have a real union.
3. We could organize a delegation to the employer, saying that we will oppose any firings based on no-match letters, and demanding that they consult with us immediately if they're approached by ICE demanding records. In the case of workplaces like those in Local 2 where the contract already offers this kind of protection, these delegations could make that contract language well-known among workers, and warn employers that we intend to enforce it. For unions without that language, this could inspire including it in future negotiations, especially if we have model language.
4. We can ask our members to take action outside their workplaces. At the minimum level, this can be the circulation of postcards by stewards, asking members to sign, that demand that the no-match regulation be rescinded, and that elected officials support that demand. As members become more educated and active around this issue, it can involve coming out to rallies and marches.
5. Unions can organize their own public demonstrations of opposition to the no-match letters and immigrant bashing. For example, unions with a lot of Filipino healthcare workers, like CNA or SEIU-UHW, could organize public protest over the racist and anti-immigrant "joke" on Desperate Housewives, denigrating the degrees received by health care professionals at Philippine universities. That's a real hot issue right now in the Filipino community.
To make this campaign work, we'd need an education program to go with it. We need printed materials, written in the language our members feel comfortable with, that explains what no-match letters and immigration raids are, and how they're used to harm all workers.
We need to train workers themselves to speak about this. If we have a core of active, educated workers, they can go with union staff to worksite meetings at lunchtime, for instance, to explain the campaign. As it begins to gather momentum, they can also talk about success stories in differnt workplaces. These workers can speak in public events, from rallies to hearings before city councils or supervisors.
I have not included worksite actions, like stoppages in the event of raids or firings, not because I don't think they're possible or desireable, but to concentrate on a campaign that gets members active where they are, and that starts from the education and commitment level that actually exists. If our members and workers can do most of the things outlined above, they're certainly capable of carrying out worksite actions if required.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Welcome to the UALEITF blog
Hi UALE Immigration Task Force members and friends,
We are setting up this blog to be a space where we can share information about what is going on in the immigration scene, especially as it intersects with labor.
Immigration as the new Gay Marriage
As we enter another election year, it seems to many of us that Immigration may be the big wedge issue that the right wing uses against progressives this time around. How can we, as labor educators, combat this divisive tactic?
We are hoping that you and other ITF members and friends will post articles you have found interesting (from all sides of the debate) as well as your thoughts on the subject.
To get this thing rolling, here are two articles from today's Boston Globe (assuming I've figured out how to do this correctly):
So, blog on, everyone!
We are setting up this blog to be a space where we can share information about what is going on in the immigration scene, especially as it intersects with labor.
Immigration as the new Gay Marriage
As we enter another election year, it seems to many of us that Immigration may be the big wedge issue that the right wing uses against progressives this time around. How can we, as labor educators, combat this divisive tactic?
We are hoping that you and other ITF members and friends will post articles you have found interesting (from all sides of the debate) as well as your thoughts on the subject.
To get this thing rolling, here are two articles from today's Boston Globe (assuming I've figured out how to do this correctly):
- An op ed by Anita Hill about how anti-affirmative action crusader Ward Connerly is using anti-immigrant sentiment to ban affirmative action in 5 states
- A news article about how John McCain has dropped his stand for immigration reform and is now just focusing on border control
So, blog on, everyone!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)