Recently in Immigration Category

Good news from a coalition of women of color reproductive justice groups this weekend that the HPV vaccine requirement for immigrant women has been reversed.

National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF), the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH), and California Latinas for Reproductive Justice (CLRJ) commend the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for taking the critical final step in removing a mandatory vaccination requirement for immigrant women and girls to receive the HPV vaccine. Today, the CDC published a rule that finalizes a set of criteria for evaluating whether vaccinations recommended by the CDC's Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices should become automatic requirements for immigrants. Starting December 14, 2009, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine will no longer be a required vaccination for immigrant women and girls.

NAPAWF, NLIRH and CLRJ opposed the mandatory vaccination requirement when it took effect in July 2008, and worked together with national, state and local partners in the reproductive justice, women's health, immigrant rights, medical and public health movements to remove the mandate. Organizations from around the country sent letters to the CDC opposing the rule and submitted comments in support of the proposed criteria. This was an important victory for the reproductive justice movement and showcased the power of cross-movement building strategies to secure reproductive justice and bodily autonomy for the most vulnerable women and girls.

This is great news for immigration advocates, removing what was a large financial barrier for immigrant women already facing the financial hurdles of immigration and naturalization.

Related:
Immigration authorities add Gardasil to the list of required vaccines
Young woman rejects HPV vaccine and loses path to citizenship
No Gardasil, No Papers: Immigrant Women and the HPV vaccine (Feministing Community)

As of yesterday, Lou Dobbs no longer has a spot on the CNN airwaves.

This is a big win for the activists who have been rallying to get him off the air for a while now:

Over the years, Lou Dobbs has consistently used his CNN platform to spread hatred and fear. He played a critical role in skewing the immigration reform debate in 2006, leading to the derailment of that effort, and his obsession with the issue of immigration and with defeating immigration reform continues unabated. Adding to his repertoire of hate and fearmongering, he has recently aligned himself with the "birther" conspiracists and their racially tinged attack on the legitimacy of Barack Obama's presidency. From his CNN platform, he has bolstered the claims of those on the fringe by asserting repeatedly that President Obama has failed to produce adequate proof that he was born in the United States. His recent focus on the birth certificate conspiracy issue has reinforced what immigration reform proponents have long known -- that Dobbs has a long history of the worst kind of pandering by promoting hate and ethnic and racial division.

Later Lou!

This video is from a Colorlines special report, Torn Apart by Deportation.

Harsh immigration policy, compounded by systemic inequities built into the criminal justice system, might not be thwarting terrorists or making our country a whole lot safer. But the laws are doing a great job of breaking up another entity: families of color.

In an era of increased enforcement over immigration reform, this is a huge problem for so many immigrant families. You can read more from the report in three articles dedicated to the issue here.

About. Damn. Time.

Via The Advocate and Akimbo:

"The United States is one of a dozen countries that bar people with HIV from entering the country," Obama said as he announced the lifting of the U.S. policy banning travel and immigration to the U.S. by people who are HIV-positive.

"If we want to be the global leader in HIV, we need to act like it."

This should go a long way towards battling the seemingly ubiquitous stigma and discrimination HIV-positive people face worldwide. What a great way to end the week!

Last year I wrote about how Gardasil, the relatively new HPV vaccine, had been added to the list of required vaccines for people seeking to adjust their immigration statuses.

Numerous immigration groups came out in opposition to this requirement, stating that it posed a unfair financial barrier to immigrant women, who already take on a lengthy and costly process to become citizens.

Well now one of the first reported cases of a young woman losing her path to citizenship because of Gardasil, via ABC.

For the last near decade, Davis has embarked on a quest to get Simone U.S. citizenship.

Now 17 and an aspiring elementary school teacher and devout Christian, Simone has only one thing standing in the way of her goal -- the controversial vaccine Gardasil.

Immigration law mandates that Simone get the vaccine to protect against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus, which has been linked to cervical cancer.

But Simone, who has taken a virginity pledge and is not sexually active, doesn't see why she should have to take the vaccine, especially since it's been under fire recently regarding its safety. And none of her American classmates is mandated by law to be vaccinated.

"I am only 17 years old and planning to go to college and not have sex anytime soon," said Simone. "There is no chance of getting cervical cancer, so there's no point in getting the shot."

A couple weeks ago The New York Times published a compelling and far too brief article titled Afghan Youths Seek a New Life in Europe. The focus is on "Afghan boys" immigrating to France.

Thousands of lone Afghan boys are making their way across Europe, a trend that has accelerated in the past two years as conditions for Afghan refugees become more difficult in countries like Iran and Pakistan. Although some are as young as 12, most are teenagers seeking an education and a future that is not possible in their own country, which is still struggling with poverty and violence eight years after the end of Taliban rule.

The boys pose a challenge for European countries, many of which have sent troops to fight in Afghanistan but whose publics question the rationale for the war. Though each country has an obligation under national and international law to provide for them, the cost of doing so is yet another problem for a continent already grappling with tens of thousands of migrants.

European nations have a much greater obligation than that created by national and international law. The article frames poverty and violence in Afghanistan as existing despite the war. In reality aggression from countries including the U.S. and European nations is productive of increased instability and refugee populations. The article discusses the experiences of "Afghan boys" now living in France but hardly addresses their reasons for leaving home in the first place.

Age and gender are obvious features of the population discussed in this article so it's strange they are not addressed directly. I am particularly interested in young men immigrating to France as a result of war given the country's history of gendered immigration.

I want to discuss the history of immigration to France from North Africa as I see a lot of potential parallels and think it will provide context. Knowledge of North African immigration should show how important it is to explore the reasons for young male immigration, why it is this particular part of the population that is moving to France and how this might impact individuals, families, and communities. It can give us hints as to how the country may treat this population and the potential for more people from Afghanistan to follow. France's history with immigrants who are understood as Muslim is a history of exploitation and marginalization that has led to extreme social and political exclusion and violence. So this current moment when similar or related patterns could occur deserves a historical perspective.

North Africa and Afghanistan are very different places, but both have populations understood as Muslim. I am interested in how these populations may be understood as similar, not claiming any inherent similarity or spreading the idea of the so-called Muslim World.

Ruthie Ackerman has written a lot of amazing work about Liberia--both past and present--as well as Liberian immigrants in the U.S. I had the good fortune of having coffee with her a month or two ago and was so struck by what a committed, courageous journalist she is, but even more, a truly incredible person. In her bio she explains:

It was following my second trip to Africa that I decided I had to do something. I could no longer just write and photograph people in communities far away from my own and then slip back into my comfortable life as if nothing ever happened. There had to be a way to show the world what I had seen, and that is when I made the decision to pursue a career in journalism. After one year in Cape Maclear and countless stories of adventures and hardships traveling in the region, I applied to New York University's Master's program in journalism and received a full scholarship. But before I left I promised myself that I would return to Cape Maclear someday to write stories that mattered about the women and people I encountered.

Ruthie has a sophisticated understanding of the complexity of telling others' stories (she and I hashed this out at length), and a real commitment to vivid reporting that reveals something about human nature, war, gender etc. She's actually in the process of working on a book about a group of Liberian immigrants in Staten Island, and meanwhile, is managing a really interesting blogging project that involves those folks--as well as a whole crew still in Liberia--to create their own content, use their own voices, tell their own stories. It's called Ceasefire Liberia.

It's exciting to see a forum where Liberians are speaking on their own behalf, instead of having their stories told through the lens of a white, Western journalist. I appreciate that while Ruthie is working on her own version of this story, she's inspiring her subjects to develop their own work as well. It's the kind of model I'm interested in following as journalism, as a field, starts to acknowledge the fallacy of objectivity and the intimacy (for so many) between writing or documentary work and activism.

Among the many promises and priorities of the Obama Administration was immigration reform. If you've been watching the national policy conversation you'd think that health care reform was trumping all other priorities, except maybe the economy and stimulus.

In early August President Obama told Latino journalists at the White House that he hopes to have legislation drafted by early 2010. This is later that many had hoped, and if the health care battle is any indication, it's not going to be an easy fight.

We've also been through this struggle before, albeit in a very different political climate. The failed immigration reform attempts in 2006 and 2007 have left a bitter taste in advocates mouths. The bills that were eventually negotiated left little to support and failed accordingly.

Meanwhile, New America Media reported yesterday that "the number of criminal prosecutions initiated by Immigration and Customs Enforcement rose during President Obama's first five months in office." In addition, the controversial immigration program 287g has been extended, which gives ICE authority to local police officers. E-verify was also extended, a program that allows employers to confirm employees immigration status, but advocates say it's a faulty system that is creating "false positives" and resulting in flagging documented workers.

It's hard to pit one priority against the next, but as our immigration system waits for a long overdue reform, immigrants in the US continue to suffer the consequences.

Sergia Santibañez, a Legal Permanent Resident in the U.S., was held in a Detention Center and then deported to Mexico, leaving behind her five children who are all U.S. citizens. The reasoning? She was driving in a car with people she did not know were undocumented immigrants. This short documentary reveals the impact of zero tolerance laws on one family.

For more information on deportation see Samhita's recent post.

h/t to Seth Wessler.

A must see video about the impact of deportation on two villages in Guatemala by Greg Brosnan and Jennifer Szymaszek.

The immigration debate is only discussed in terms of how this "problem" of epic proportions is hurting Americans. Proposals to allow day laborers, domestic workers and other types of service work are generally supported because they support the business and personal interests of the rich. A consideration of the suffering experienced by those that attempt to migrate goes under the radar. But a little investigation reveals the severity of the situation and racist claims by people like Michael Savage become that much more infuriating. This above mini-documentary video Miriam passed on to me speaks to this situation, from the risk of migrating to the amount of money owed to the person that transported you and the corresponding debt, along with the devastation of being deported. The situation is grim.

For some staggering statistics on ICE raids check out the report by the Cardoza Law School, Constitution on Ice: A Report on Immigrant Home Raid Operations.

And to stop the abuses and ensure effective immigration reform, watch the video below and sign the following petition.

Don't let this fall off the national agenda.

In this week's New Yorker there is a great profile of Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona. (Sorry, the full text isn't online.) Although it contained a lot of stuff I already knew about Arpaio -- that he's virulently racist, sexist, anti-immigrant; that he is dedicated to creating the most inhumane conditions possible in his jails; that he is a major attention whore -- it made a few unsettling points really hit home.

Arpaio is popular because he's hateful. He racially profiles Latinos, his ratings go up. He divides families and goes out of his way to deport peaceful people who are just here to make a living, his ratings go up. He treats jail inmates -- some of whom have not even been convicted of a crime -- as subhuman, his ratings go up. He sort of functions as a conduit for the worst impulses in our society.

The sheriff also raises a question I think about often: When do we call out hatemongers who are looking for attention, and when do we decide the best course of action is to ignore them? In Arpaio's case, I think it's important to call it out -- even though what he desires most in the world is more attention. And this is the reason:

Maricopa County is not a modest, out-of-the-way place. It includes Phoenix, covers more than nine thousand square miles, and has a population of nearly four million. Joe Arpaio has been sheriff there since 1993. He has four thousand employees, three thousand volunteer posse members, and an over-worked media-relations unit of five.

In other words, whether we like it or not, he's powerful. When it comes to the immigration issue, one federal policy that empowers him is the 287(g) provision, which essentially allows local police and sheriffs to act as national-security officials. It is this provision that has enabled Arpaio to turn his law-enforcement unit into a racial-profiling and immigrant-hunting unit. Even when this provision is wielded by non-crackpot sheriffs, Nezua points out,

It's simply not a good idea to give police, who are (in ideal) in existence to help the community, the powers to enforce the borders of the nation--a job that is normally in the province of the military

Many organizations have called for the repeal of 287(g). However, Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano recently announced she is actually expanding this program, despite some evidence that in 287(g) districts like Arpaio's, actual crime-fighting is suffering because of the focus on immigrant-hunting. Let's collectively smack our palms against our foreheads, shall we?

What the New Yorker profile underscored for me is that Arpaio is more than your average Fred Phelps or Pat Buchanan-style hatemonger. He is one of the most popular politicians in Arizona. And, disgustingly, he has built that popularity by doing everything he can to push people who are on the margins of society even further out. Those of us who are fortunate enough to be closer to the center should be doing everything we can to disempower him.

The Obama Administration took a step in the right direction this week regarding immigration reform and domestic violence in attempts to reverse Bush's policy (or lack thereof) concerning DV survivors seeking asylum in the U.S.

The action was taken due to the revisiting of the landmark case of Rodi Alvarado (trigger warning), a Guatemalan woman who sought asylum in the U.S. because she feared for her life; her common law husband (who was really more her captor than anything) consistently beat her and raped her at gunpoint, including tried to burn her alive when he found out she was pregnant. Because there was no U.S. asylum law specifying for the protection of DV survivors, she wasn't granted asylum and was forced to leave her children in Guatemala when fleeing to the U.S.

Even as recently as last year, the case was addressed where Bush administration lawyers argued that Alvarado and other survivors could not meet the standards of U.S. asylum. According to the Times:

Any applicant for asylum or refugee status in the United States must demonstrate a "well-founded fear of persecution" because of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or "membership in a particular social group." The extended legal argument has been whether abused women could be part of any social group that would be eligible under those terms.

And Alvarado wasn't a part of any "persecuted group." Right.

Now the administration has submitted an immigration appeals court filing, requesting that Alvarado's case be further reviewed. While this may be a good sign of how Obama plans to handle immigration reform and undocumented women's rights, there are still strict requirements for asylum:

[A]bused women will need to show that they are treated by their abuser as subordinates and little better than property, according to an immigration court filing by the administration, and that domestic abuse is widely tolerated in their country. They must show that they could not find protection from institutions at home or by moving to another place within their own country.

Not to mention the issue of women seeking asylum from genital mutilation is not included in the new policy. But while these "requirements" aren't leaving me with a huge feeling of victory, it's certainly the right step moving forward.

Every once in awhile, as a writer, you read a book that raises that bar in your own mind about what is possible in your profession. Enrique's Journey is such a book. In it, Pulitzer Prize winner Sonia Nazario, follows the journey of a 17-year-old boy from Honduras as he tries to make his way to America to be reunited with his mother--who left when he was a small boy to pursue the American dream. As he rides on top of trains, tries to avoid gangsters and police, begs for food, sleeps in graveyards and abandon homes, struggles with drug addiction etc., I got the most lucid, gripping portrait into the journey of the child immigrant that I've ever been exposed to.

Nazario's reporting bowled me over. Her story originated as a Los Angeles Times feature, and continued to expand from there. She's spent months retracing Enrique's journey, exhaustively reporting all of those who he met along the way, in addition to the various members of his own family. This dedication allowed her to make the journey really come alive--from the smell of the mangoes thrown onto the train by rare, generous poor folks living along the tracks to the local politics in a tiny church in Nuevo Laredo.

Enrique and his mother, Lourdes', story is not uncommon. From the book:

In Los Angeles, a University of Southern California study showed, 82 percent of live-in nannies and one in four housecleaners are mothers who still have at least one child in their home country. A Harvard University study showed that 85 percent of all immigrant children who eventually end up in the United States spend at least some time separated from a parent in the course of migrating to the United States.

I simply can't recommend this incredible book enough. Especially at this moment, when the news is filled with headlines about both immigration and Honduras, this book sheds light on the real lives being affected. Enrique's Journey not only engages your heart, but fills your mind with ideas about the power of tenacious storytelling.

In a historic move the Department of Health and Human Services has issued regulations that will start the process to lift the HIV travel and immigration ban. The ban is from the 80's and has stigmatized and restricted the movement of people with HIV. The ban is based on discrimination, hate and fear. Andrew Sullivan writes,

Once the ban is lifted, the US will be able to become a venue for AIDS and HIV research conferences again (the US has been unable to host such events because of the ban for years), and leave behind the tiny number of countries - from Yemen to Saudi Arabia - that still actively stigmatize and penalize people with HIV in travel. It will remove a measure that discourages honesty about HIV, and promotes a stigma around the disease that makes effective prevention and treatment much harder. It will save lives. It will save relationships and marriages. It will place America where it belongs - at the forefront of global AIDS and HIV leadership. And because all immigrants have to prove they will not be a public charge and have private health insurance, and because a fee was added to the visa application to pay for the costs of enforcement, the fiscal effect is minimal - and offset by taxes legal immigrants like yours truly will continue to pay.

This is great news.

*Trigger warning--This will make you really mad*

This is hate speech, it is for the purpose of inciting violence against immigrants and to fuel racial tension. He must be stopped. Furthermore, despite all statistical evidence to the contrary, Michael Savage is so paranoid and afraid of people of color, he continues to insist that immigrants are not the working base of California but the ones that are clogging the system, even though as Think Progress discuss, they make up 1/3 of the working population in California and contribute greatly through taxes.

And while Savage might like to think that most of California's immigrant population is busy robbing grandmas and pushing baby carriages all day long, immigrants -- both legal and illegal -- make up more than 1/3 of California's labor force. In fact, according to economist Giovanni Peri of the University of California, immigrant workers complement native-born California workers and most native-born Californians have experienced wage gains as a result. While there is a cost associated with immigrants and their children -- as there is with any individual who lives and goes to school in the United States -- California's immigrants pay roughly $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, and $4.6 billion in sales taxes each year.

I imagine the people listening to and agreeing with Michael Savage and I feel sick to my stomach.

An update on this story:

From the Bangor Daily News:

A pregnant, HIV-positive African woman will give birth in a Portland hospital rather than a federal prison after a U.S. District judge on Monday ordered that she be released on personal recognizance bail while her appeal to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is pending in Boston.

U.S. District Judge John Woodcock last month sentenced Quinta Layin Tuleh, 28, of Cameroon to 238 days in prison -- twice as long as the recommended sentence of 114 days -- for having false documents.

The National Advocates for Pregnant Women has more about the case on their blog.

Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, gave a two-year reprieve on Tuesday to immigrants whose applications for permanent residency have been denied because their American spouses died during the application process.

Two important race scholars, Ron Takaki and Ivan Van Sertima, passed away this week.

Ivan Van Sertima was an anthropologist, linguist, literary critic, and the author of They Came Before Columbus (on Africans in ancient America) and Black Women in Antiquity, a history of real and mythical images of black women, from goddesses to queens to madonnas, presented in a powerful and respectful way. Watch Van Sertima discuss one of the themes that underlines his work:

Key quote: Human beings are equal. What makes human beings unequal is they can for example be forced to believe they are unequal. And then they start acting unequal. They could be forced into certain economic disadvantages that don't make the fullest use of their capacity. Or they could be made to think they are inferior, therefore they behave inferior, they begin to think inferior. But those are passing things. As they begin to become aware of their capacity, that they are equal to all human beings, changes occur dramatically.

Van Sertima played a major role in the process of changing how we understand human beings' equal capacity. His passing is a huge loss.

Ron Takaki was an activist and scholar who pioneered the field of ethnic studies. Did you talk about multiculturalism in your college classroom? Chances are you have Takaki to thank. Oiyan at the APAP blog (via Angry Asian Man) has a powerful personal take on the impact of Takaki's work:

I first encountered his book Strangers from a Different Shore at the local public library in Springfield, Massachusetts. It had just been published, and I was 16. I'm not sure how I came across the book, but I found myself feeling like I needed to hide as I read the book. Each chapter detailed Asian American history, which until that point, I had no idea existed. With each chapter read, I began feeling more and more power. The knowledge the book presented almost felt illicit. Having grown up in a provincial, all-white, lower-middle class, mostly immigrant community, and being told over and over by the society in which I was growing up that my experience did not matter, the book was electrifying. I remember checking the book out, going straight home, and sitting in the corner of my bedroom on the floor, door closed, and the book lit by my desk lamp I had brought with me to the floor. I'm not sure why I read it like that, but I remember shaking as I devoured the book. You have to understand that in my experience, true relevant knowledge was made out to be illicit and dangerous. When I was 13, I wasn't allowed to do a book report on the Autobiography of Malcolm X. Maybe that's why I hid in a corner to read Takaki's book when I was 16. I do remember that the book was critical in helping me make sense of the violently racist experiences I had and the historical contexts for these experiences, and my relationship to the rest of the world around me, as an Asian American. It was the first time I realized I was Asian American, and I began to develop a voice.

Both Van Sertima's and Takaki's scholarly contributions -- their writing of the unwritten histories of people of color and of race in America -- are testament to the idea that knowledge is a deeply powerful and often radical thing. I love this anecdote:

Takaki was hired and in 1967 taught the university's first African American history class.

When the young Japanese American, sporting a crew cut, walked into the classroom for the first time, the students, some wearing Afros and dashikis, fell silent. One student finally spoke up.

"Well, Prof. Takaki," the student said in a challenging tone, "what revolutionary tools are we going to learn in this course?" Takaki replied: "We're going to study the history of the U.S. as it relates to African Americans. We're going to strengthen our critical-thinking skills and our writing skills. These can be revolutionary tools if we make them so.' "

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the best way to remember these scholars is to continue to use writing and critical thinking as revolutionary tools.

Hyphen has info on where to send memorial donations for Takaki. There is also a more informal memorial on Takaki's Facebook page. No official word yet on memorials for Van Sertima.

And this report tells us why. Some interesting tidbits via New America Media,

The result shows that women immigrants' main challenges are helping their children succeed and keeping their families together. The obstacles are formidable. 79% of Latin Americans, 73% of Vietnamese, 70% of Korean and 63% of Chinese acknowledged speaking little or no English. They also confront anti-immigrant discrimination, lack of health care and low-paying employment.

Bendixen said that this is something that shakes the perception that immigration is always about economics and dollars. In fact, many of the women start out in low-paying jobs even though they may have held professional positions in their home countries. In the United States they might work as a hotel maid, waitress, house cleaner and textile worker.

These results indicate that women may be putting devotion to the well-being of their families ahead of personal job status and pride in choosing to emigrate.

Also, on the racist assumption that women immigrants are somehow submissive, not only to the men in their families but also in the work environment,

Among other findings the poll showed that their roles change within their households. The overwhelming majority--Latin American (81%), Chinese (71%), Vietnamese (68%), African (66%) and Arabic (53%)--said they had become more assertive at home and in public after coming to the United States.

"We cannot assume that they are submissive back in their countries. They come from smaller towns where you are very close to your family, they want to make sure everyone is okay. And when they get here, they also want to make sure they have a better living. Sometimes they face domestic violence, but that also happens here in the United States," said Silvia Henriquez, Executive Director for the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health.

There was no question that the immigration detention facilities and policies in this country are dehumanizing, but the latest news out of Arizona underscores it. The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) jail is being called out for human rights abuses against female detainees. From the Inter Press Agency:

MCSO is currently under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department over alleged abuses of a section of immigration law known as 287(g) that allows the federal government to deputize local police to enforce immigration law.

"The abuse of these powers within the jails is worse than in the street," said Salvador Reza, an organizer with the pro-immigrant group Puente that has been monitoring the alleged mistreatment. "If we were able to stop torture in Guantanamo Bay, we should be able to do that in Maricopa County," he added.

On May 2, Reza's group organized a six-mile march to protest this situation from the offices of the sheriff in downtown Phoenix to the Estrella jail, a detention facility for women.

The march was in response to claims of abuse by an immigrant woman whose arm was allegedly broken by sheriff's office guards, and a letter by 13 others who also denounced mistreatment within the same jail. At the protest, 43 women inmates launched a hunger strike to make their point.

"Please help us, we're in a tunnel without end, treated like dogs," reads the letter obtained by Respect/Respet, a local organization that documents human and civil rights abuses. Among the signatories is an immigrant woman who claims the sheriff's deputies broke her jaw during a workplace raid.

I've written about this issue in the past. Not only is this whole thing a gross violation of human rights and a moral black mark on us all, but there is a giant business behind it that few are aware of. While this is a government jail, many women are being detained in private prisons (the biggest being in Texas) that make big money off of imprisoning innocent immigrants (including children).

I'm so glad to see people protesting this issues and trying to organize others to join them. Check out Grassroots Leadership if you want to learn more, especially about family detention. Here's a video they made:

Thanks to the Women's Media Center for the heads up.

We are happy to announce the launch of ¡PRESENTE! an online organizing effort to support and make powerful voices of the Latin@ community. From their introduction letter,

Our goal is to create a broad-based online community of Latinos and our allies strong enough to make the United States honor its promises and protect our people. We're starting with immigration, but we won't stop there--we'll provide you with ongoing opportunities to make change on the issues that most affect our communities.

Get more information here and retweet and re-post widely.

via Nezua.

Immigration reform is back in the news. I asked Christine Neumann-Ortiz, founding executive director of Voces de la Frontera based in Wisconsin, to help explain the latest developments.

Here's Christine...

I've heard a lot of bad things about Sheriff Joe Arpaio over the years. He has done a lot of harm in Maricopa County, Arizona.

The Right's Working group is heading up this campaign to remove cancel Arpaio's contract.

As a part of Rights Working Group's National Week of Action to Hold DHS Accountable, Call on Secretary Napolitano to immediately terminate Sheriff Arpaio's 287(g) contract.

In recent months, the hard work of many has raised the profile of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the most infamous Sheriff since Bull Connor, as the ugliest face of the failed national 287(g) program. The Sheriff's march of migrant inmates in a chain gang the New York Times described as"ritual humiliation" revealed the racial profiling and terror he's carried out on Maricopa County, and made urgent the need for federal intervention.

Arpaio deputizes vigilante posses to set up check points, dispatches uniformed officers to roam the streets in ski masks, chases janitors with attack dogs and assault weapons, and directs his law enforcement resources at the request of known white supremacists.

40,000 people recently signed petitions condemning his actions. 5,000 people marched peacefully in Phoenix on February 28 demanding federal intervention. And on April 2, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings on the racial profiling inherent in the 287(g) program.

Take action here and send Secretary Napolitano an email urging her to cancel Arpaio's contract.

More about Arpaio here and here.

This is horrible. Up to 12 people have been killed in a shooting at the American Civic Association, an immigration center in Binghamton, NY that helps undocumented folk and refugees with citizenship issues and personal counseling.

Between 20 and 40 people were taken hostage until around noon, when two gunmen were taken into custody. (With a potential third suspect being chased.) The Albany Project has more.

I've always found that the dominant anti-immigrant narrative in this country -- despite paens to the great mythical "melting pot" I read in my grade-school social studies textbooks -- is that immigrants take. They come here to take our jobs. They take up social services. They take formerly pristine street corners and make them look dirty by standing around looking for work. They take the money they earn back home rather than keep it in the local community. These are the things I hear repeated on crap cable shows like Glenn Beck's, or when I sit down to dinner with my conservative relatives.

It's also a theme that popped up a lot when I was doing some reporting several years ago in a small town -- Milan, Missouri -- where more than 50% of the 1,000 or so residents were Latino immigrants, due to the opening of a pork processing plant. The fascinating thing about Milan (pronounced MY-lan, not Mi-LAN like the city in Italy) was that, prior to the pork plant opening and the influx of immigrants, the town was basically dead. A small chicken processor was there, providing jobs for a few hundred residents, but the town was clearly in decline. And while it was by no means a seamless transition from a town of 500 mostly white folks to a town of 1,000 that was half white long-time residents and half Latino immigrants, it was undeniable that Milan was more alive and more vibrant because of its new residents -- despite what some of the white folks said about the immigrants "taking" resources from their community.

This narrative wasn't in the forefront of my mind as I watched the news unfold about the immigration raids in Postville, Iowa last May. But an article in my hometown paper, as well as this recent article from Mother Jones, on Postville nearly one year later, make really clear how screwed up the "immigrants take from our communities" narrative really is.

This is good news and will ensure coverage for immigrant children. Previously, these children have been denied adequate healthcare and had to wait 5 years to get any medical coverage. Bush had vetoed the expansion to the bill.

Senate Democrats moved one step closer to handing President Barack Obama an early health care victory Thursday, passing a bill extending government-sponsored health insurance coverage to about 4 million uninsured children.

The bill, which was approved 66-32, authorizes an additional $32.8 billion over the next 4 1/2 years for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The House plans to take up the same measure next week.

Even with the added spending, an estimated 5 million children still would be without health insurance. During his election campaign, Obama called for requiring all children to have health coverage.

"When President Obama signs this bill, the real victory will belong not to politicians, but to kids," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.

Wow, a step in the right direction. I don't know what is going on, what does the government exist to ensure the health of its people? I forgot about that.

via AP.

Rinku Sen's new book The Accidental American: Immigration and Citizenship in the Age of Globalization is an amazing feat of intersectional analysis. She takes one man's story (her co-author, Fekkak Mamdough) and uses it as the narrative vehicle for an analysis of the ways in which immigration, nationalism, racism, globalization, September 11th, worker's rights, community organizing, gender dynamics are threaded together in an inseparable knot. Overwhelmed already? Don't be. The impressive thing about Sen's writing is that, despite the fact that she is juggling so many story lines, themes, and transnational issues, she manages to keep the language very clear and the structure very simple.

She argues that the current framing of the immigration debate--keep "them" out or let "them" in so they can provide much-needed labor--is limited and, in essence, immoral. Her key thesis is this:

Captive to the rhetorical status quo, both sides have decided, for various tactical reasons, to ignore three important realities. First, globalization is incomplete, creating a situation in which corporations are free to move jobs, operations, and capital anywhere they wish, while workers' mobility is limited by borders and immigration laws. Second, a permanent, unchanging American identity is neither possible nor desirable; the culture of the United States has changed many times over the course of its history, and further transformations are always already in motion. Finally, the current debate posits immigrants and U.S. residents as foes, when in fact our destinies are closely tied together. Without focusing attention on these three blind spots, we cannot gather enough information to make rational, innovative choices.

In large part, this book serves to expand these three realities--looking at each through the real life experiences of Mamdouh, an immigrant from Morocco who once worked in the World Trade Center's restaurant Windows. But even more profoundly, it argues for and serves as a model of humanizing the immigrant in a very deep way. She writes, "The dominant frames of crime and work, which in turn influenced the actual policies being debated, didn't allow immigrants to claim a fuller humanity that would entitle them not just to come to the U.S. and work, but also to come and be."

Sen's contributions with The Accidental American are many. She's given us a primer on the nitty gritty, day-in-day-out of community organizing. She's brought a fresh big picture perspective on the national conversation about immigration, pre and post September 11th. But her biggest gift with this book is the way in which she's brought fragile, real, tender humanity to this hot button political issue. She writes, "Without a frame that emphasized their full humanity, immigrants couldn't effectively counter the argument that their interests were fundamentally opposed to those of Americans." Sen has offered the frame, and in so doing, opened a window into a kinder, more just future for all Americans.

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.