Recently in Immigration Category

Not to rain on anyone's post-election parade, but the news on gay-rights related ballot initiatives is really grim. I'll admit that, seeing these results, it rings a little false for me that this election was supposedly all about hope and change, for all Americans. (I know I am being a bit melodramatic given Obama's landslide victory, but somehow that made this news even harder to take.) I was, however, thrilled to see the news that every radical anti-choice initiative failed.

As an update to my pre-election ballot initiatives post, here are the results: 

ANTI-GAY

Proposition 8 in California: Passed. This is such a crushing loss. I went to bed last night before the final results were in, and woke up to the news that the people of California actually approved the gay marriage ban. So devastating.

Amendment 2 in Florida: Passed. Yet another gay marriage ban. 

Proposition 102 in Arizona: Passed. As Dana noted previously, "Arizona became the first state in the nation to reject an anti-gay marriage amendment in 2006, but they're likely to pass the measure this year, now that it has been stripped of language that also denied domestic partnership benefits to hetero couples." Looks like that was the magic change to make bigotry palatable to Arizona voters.

Act 1 in Arkansas: Passed. Now gay couples are unable to adopt or foster-parent children. This from a state with 3700 children in the foster-care system, and only 1000 foster homes. Disgusting.

Question 1 in Connecticut: Failed! Lindsay at Female Impersonator explained earlier that this initiative would have allowed the state constitution to be changed -- essentially clearing the way for anti-gay and anti-choice amendments to be tacked onto it. Glad it didn't pass.

Amendment 48 in Colorado: Failed! By huge margins -- 73% voted against granting fertilized eggs full rights. I'm so glad voters saw this amendment for the radical piece of garbage it was.

Measure 11 in South Dakota: Failed! Voters rejected another radical abortion ban. 

Proposition 4 in California: Failed! Voters said no to a parental-notification requirement.

Measure 58 in Oregon: Failed! As Alas, a Blog summarized, it would have mandated "that school districts limit foreign-language instruction for non-English-speaking students to one or two years, depending on their age."

Amendment 46 in Colorado: They aren't calling this for either side yet -- it's neck-and-neck, with the "yes" side slightly ahead, unfortunately. The initiative would ban programs that work to eliminate the gaps between white dudes and everyone else. Let's hope the final reporting precincts swing the balance to "NO."

Initiative 424 in Nebraska: Passed. Voters said they're ok with re-writing the state constitution to eliminate equal-opportunity programs. Sigh.

I know we're all deeply, deeply caught up in the presidential race, but I want to take a moment and highlight the fact that a lot of ballot measures are going to be voted on tomorrow, too. Most are anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-immigrant. Basically, the ballot-initiative process allows voters in certain states to directly pass measures, bypassing the legislature. Miriam already linked to a great voter guide, and my colleague Dana Goldstein highlighted several initiatives to watch.

These measures are all important because, at a time when America seems likely to elect the most liberal president of my lifetime (not that that's saying much...) and there is an overall feeling of hope, the motivations behind these initiatives are truly backwards and bigoted. As Katha Pollitt put it recently, "The culture war may fail at the top of the ticket, but it still has enough juice to do damage further down."

Here's my own list of what to watch tomorrow, down the ticket. The way states vote on these measures will say as much about our country as whether or not we elect our first black president.

Back in May, Postville, Iowa -- a small town not far from where I grew up -- was the site of the largest immigration raid in U.S. history. Nearly 400 undocumented workers were rounded up and detained. Today, 28 women remain in custody as they apply for political asylum and special visas for victims of violence (many have suffered sexual assault and/or sexual harassment).

New America Media has video interviews with two of the women who are fighting deportation, María Laura Gómez and Maricruz Rodríguez. (I can't figure out how to embed the vid, so you'll have to click here to watch.)

In Rodríguez's case, she's applying for political asylum, seeking protection from her alcoholic, abusive ex-husband, who she immigrated with but separated from nearly three years ago, completing her divorce earlier this year. Because Mexican authorities have proven woefully inadequate in protecting domestic abuse victims, she can apply for asylum under U.S. law as a "member of a particular social group" that a foreign government isn't able to adequately shield from persecution, says Rachel Yamamoto, an Omaha attorney.

"From what she's told me, the husband would follow her back to Mexico," Yamamoto says, "and she's terrified. You can't go to the police, the police won't help in Mexico."

Other women are applying for a "U-visa," which allows victims of violence to remain in the U.S. while their cases are investigated. But according to Legal Momentum's Immigrant Women Program (which does great work), there's a catch:

Seriously, why? He hasn't seemed to care about international human rights violations in the past.

From USCIS:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today a revised list of vaccines required for applicants seeking to adjust status to become legal permanent residents. This revision follows guidance from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

CDC's revised Technical Instructions to Civil Surgeons for Vaccination Requirements require the following age-appropriate additional vaccinations to adjust status to legal permanent resident:

* Rotavirus
* Hepatitis A
* Meningococcal
* Human papillomavirus
* Zoster

The requirements for these new vaccines went into effect on July 1, 2008, however CDC approved a 30-day grace period for any medical exam conducted before August 1, 2008. At that time the new vaccinations, if appropriate, must be administered in order for USCIS to approve the applicant for adjustment of status.

Now this is kind of a curve ball. Jill hit on most of the important points here, about how ANOTHER barrier to citizenship status is the last thing we need, particularly when that barrier can cost upwards of $300. People tell me that this isn't particular action isn't actually a Merck ploy to get more people to get the vaccine, but rather a Bush administration immigration barrier. Like we need another one of those. Ironic, considering that conservatives were a big part of the campaign to block the vaccine mandates last year, for mostly anti-sex reasons. I guess they don't care about these things when it comes to immigrant women.

My main problem with this is that it adds another significant financial barrier for immigrant women, since the vaccine is seriously expensive and there is little funding for it. WOC PhD talks more about the history of medical abuses against women of color and her fears about the vaccine.

Thanks to Raquel for the links

My stomach turns everytime I see another one of these stories.

In another large-scale workplace immigration crackdown, federal officials raided a factory here on Monday, detaining at least 350 workers they said were in the country illegally.

Numerous agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement descended on a factory belonging to Howard Industries Inc., which manufactures electrical transformers, among other products.

The raid follows a similar large-scale immigration operation at a meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa, in May when nearly 400 workers were detained. That raid was a significant escalation of the Bush administration's enforcement practices because those detained were not simply deported, as in previous raids, but were imprisoned for months on criminal charges of using false documents.

See A Book Without a Cover for possible action you can take to stop these raids.

Ann mentioned this in her last PETA WTF? post, but I decided it needed more attention.

Just when you think PETA couldn't get any worse, they take their ad campaigns to another level.

Apparently PETA is petitioning to buy ad space on the fences that are being constructed along the US/Mexico border to display these racist and offensive ads. From PETA:

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals plans today to announce an unusual marketing pitch to the U.S. government: Rent us space on the fence for billboards warning illegal border crossers there is more to fear than the Border Patrol.

The billboards [pictured], in English and Spanish, would offer the caution: "If the Border Patrol Doesn't Get You, the Chicken and Burgers Will -- Go Vegan."

"We think that Mexicans and other immigrants should be warned if they cross into the U.S. they are putting their health at risk by leaving behind a healthier, staple diet of corn tortillas, beans, rice, fruits and vegetables," said Lindsay Rajt, assistant manager of PETA's vegan campaigns.

We already know they could use some help when it comes to objectifying women. But apparently they also need a serious race and class analysis check over at PETA. Stat. Without even getting into what's fucked up about the message they are trying to send about meat consumption and mexican vs american culture, let's begin with the images on the ad, which are borderline racist and definitely offensive to me. Then how about supporting the screwed up US immigration policy by BUYING ad space on these fences?

News flash PETA: promoting animal rights through misogyny, racism and the objectification of women is NOT the way to go.

Thanks to Cesarina for the link

Via The National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (full disclosure: that's my day job and I wrote this press release)

The Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday that some Latino citizens in the Rio Grande Valley on the US/Mexico border are being denied access to their citizenship rights based on documentation issues. Their citizenship is being called into question (despite years of residence and employment in the United States, and even successful background checks) due to their birth to midwives in private residences.

The National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health believes this is a racist and unfair practice, which leaves these individuals scrambling to prove citizenship with other documents, where for others a birth certificate is sufficient. This practice unfairly targets Latino citizens on the border and those who were born to parteras or midwives in private residences, a common practice among Latinos. Further, the fact that once additional documentation has been provided some individuals are still being denied makes it clear that the State Department is discriminating against these individuals along the border in Texas.

Join the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health in decrying this discriminatory practice, so we can ensure that all US citizens regardless of race, nationality or place of childbirth are granted access to their rights.

Full press release available here.

An Arizona radio shock-jock named Jon Justice (oh, the irony) recently targeted Pima Country Legal Defender Isabel Garcia with a truly disgusting hate-speech campaign. Pima helped organize a protest of Sheriff Joe Arpaio -- a man known for scores of immigration raids, blocking female inmates' access to abortion, and some stupid ideas about gender. (Read more from Jenny Dreadful.) And because Garcia dared to call attention to the fact that Arpaio is doing nothing but creating racial divisions with his "narrow-minded and ignorant policies," she drew the ire of local bigots.

Radio host Jon Justice, in particular, had a really disgusting response to Pima's critique of Arpaio:

...Jon Justice posted a few offensive videos of himself with a piñata with Isabel's likeness, caressing it and making comments about "wanting to take it home with me," among a few other comments about "chorizo" and "viva la raza." Mr. Justice has since removed the video, as well as the one that followed it, which we found to be even more offensive.

Maegan la Mala distills what's going on here:

They did what they do best, spout hate, targeting Garcia, her life (because let's be real this is about life not just making a living) and her body as a Latina woman. There were calls for her to be fired and a very clear message was sent that the body of a Latina woman is fair game.

I apologize for being late to posting about this. I really encourage you to read more from the bloggers who have been covering it from the start. There are comprehensive lists at the Sanctuary and Latino Politico.

Coalicion de Derechos Humanos, a Tucson group that Garcia works with, has posted a list of ways to take action on Garcia's behalf, against this sort of ugly hate-speech.

Colorlines reports:

BEHIND THE THICK GLASS THAT RUNS THE LENGTH of the Yuba County Jail's visitation corridor, Tatyana Mitrohina's eyes glisten, and then fill with tears as she recounts the last time she saw her son. "During the visit, he climbed into my arms and fell asleep with his head on my shoulder while I walked around with him," she remembers.

Two months after that visit, Mitrohina was sent to the Yuba County Jail in Marysville, California, hours away from her 2-year-old son, who is in foster care. She was convicted on charges that she had hit him. While she does not deny the charges, she does say she had expected to be released from jail and to get counseling and start to rebuild her life with her child. But with the increasing collaboration between local authorities and federal immigration officials, Mitrohina found that she would not get that second chance. The government had slated her to be deported to Russia, the country she left as a teenager.

Read the rest here.

Continuing on the theme from my post yesterday, check out this great op-ed in the NYTimes.