Calling it the 'harshest of the Arizona copycat' laws, coalition files motion to block Ala.'s HB 56

“HB 56 seeks to drive all immigrants out of Alabama. The courts need to send a strong message that it is not permissible under the law.”

-- Sin Yen Ling, senior staff attorney with the Asian Law Caucus

“This law is not only anti-immigrant, it is anti-American. It will criminalize Alabamians for everyday interactions with people who are here without documents, such as driving someone to the grocery store or to church, and law enforcement officers will be required to violate the constitutional rights of citizens and non-citizens alike.”

-- Olivia Turner, executive director of the ACLU of Alabama

“By creating this law, which impacts not just undocumented immigrants but citizens and legal immigrants who might look ‘foreign’ or speak with an accent, Alabama makes all communities less safe.”

-- Erin Oshiro, senior staff attorney at the Asian American Justice Center

“Alabama has declared war on immigrants, primarily Latino immigrants. Every Latino in Alabama, regardless of status, is at risk.”

-- Juan Cartagena of LatinoJustice PRLDEF

“Not only is Alabama’s law blatantly unconstitutional, it flies in the face of American values by authorizing racial profiling, deterring children from going to school, and criminalizing those who lend a hand to individuals deemed by the state of Alabama to be ‘illegal.’”

-- Andre Segura, staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project

MONTGOMERY, ALA. ― The National Immigration Law Center and a coalition of other civil rights groups filed a motion July 21 asking a federal judge to block Alabama’s anti-immigrant law from taking effect Sept. 1.

The motion for preliminary injunction, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, follows a federal lawsuit the groups filed earlier this month that charged the law is unconstitutional on multiple grounds. Alabama’s law, which affects myriad aspects of daily life for countless Alabamians, is even more restrictive than Arizona’s infamous SB 1070, which has been blocked by the courts.

“This law flies in the face of the core rights and liberties our Constitution was designed to preserve,” said Linton Joaquin, general counsel of the National Immigration Law Center, “Alabamians, like all Americans, deserve better than to saddle local teachers, law enforcement officers, and business people with the additional responsibility of asking children, customers, and community members for their ‘papers.’ We are hopeful that the court will block this discriminatory and unconstitutional law before it takes effect and causes irreparable harms for countless Alabamians.”

The Alabama law was signed into law in June by Gov. Robert Bentley and is the harshest of the Arizona copycat state laws.

The lawsuit charges that HB 56:

• Chills children’s access to public schools by requiring school officials to verify the immigration status of children and their parents.

• Authorizes police to demand “papers” demonstrating citizenship or immigration status during traffic stops and criminalizes Alabamians for ordinary interactions with undocumented individuals.

• Unconstitutionally interferes with federal authority over immigration matters ― a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It also subjects Alabamians ― including U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents ― to unlawful search and seizure, a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Alabama is one of six states that have enacted a law emulating Arizona’s controversial SB 1070. Federal courts have been unanimous in blocking similar provisions in Arizona, Utah, Indiana and Georgia. The coalition has also vowed to challenge South Carolina’s anti-immigrant law.

“This law so undermines our core American values of fairness and equality that it is essential this be weighed before the law is allowed to go into effect,” said Mary Bauer, legal director for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). “When the Speaker of the House, who championed this law and guided it to passage, is acknowledging it has problems, it is clear we have a serious issue.”

The motion for and memorandum in support of preliminary injunction is available at http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/LocalLaw/HICA-v-Bentley-PImotion-2011-07-21.pdf

House Bill 934 heads to State Senate

This just in from the Pennsylvania Immigration and Citizenship Coalition:

"After state House leaders used a procedural tactic to shut down debate, the House voted 108-88 in favor of House Bill 934, legislation that would force citizens to show valid state-issued photo ID every time they attempt to vote. Rep. Daryl Metcalfe has used the same rhetoric that characterizes his AZ copycat legislation to justify this bill, which would really impact the most vulnerable citizens of our Commonwealth. Pennsylvanians who don't hold a valid state-issued photo ID will be disenfranchised-- disproportionately senior citizens, people with disabilities, the poor, students & young adults, and mass transit users who don't need a drivers license."

The bill is expected to be considered by the State Senate this fall.

Take action NOW to oppose E-Verify

From Justice for Immigrants:

Some in Congress are now calling for the mandatory expansion of E-Verify – a largely voluntary program which allows employers to electronically verify workers’ employment eligibility with Government databases. Only 250,000 some employers use the system today; some in Congress want to make its use mandatory by all 6 million U.S. employers.

The problem is that unless E-Verify's expansion is undertaken in the context of comprehensive immigration reform, it will hurt U.S. workers and our already weakened economy. Unless Congress legalizes unauthorized immigrants, mandatory E-Verify will begin with a handicap of 8 million unauthorized workers who will be driven further into the underground economy, hurting both the U.S. economy and workers by decreasing federal tax revenue by more than $17.3 billion over ten years, creating an unequal workplace, and lowering labor standards for all workers.

And, because of well-documented flaws in the government databases upon which it relies, E-Verify does not detect over half of the undocumented workers entered in the system, yet results in false positives for hundreds of thousands of American workers.

For these reasons, we urge you to let your senators and representatives know that unless and until the E-Verify program is improved and undertaken in the context of comprehensive immigration reform, you oppose its expansion and mandatory implementation.

Take Action NOW: Contact your Senators and Representative by e-mail, phone, FAX or U.S. Mail:

• Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121
• Or go to the Justice for Immigrants web site here, and send an e-mail to your representatives automatically.

Poets Responding to SB 1070

A new poem of mine is up on Poets Responding to SB 1070 page on facebook: http://on.fb.me/gonkFM

Go read, comment (or not), "like" the page. And be aware that 1070 copycat legislation is proposed for Pennsylvania. (See one of my previous blog posts for a list of anti-immigrant legislation introduced to the Pa. legislature this session.)

Is this Pennsylvania ... or Arizona?

It is increasingly hard to tell the difference between the two....
Below is a list of all the bills that have been introduced to the PA legislature this session relating to immigration:
HB 41: Requires applicants for a wide variety of public benefits to show government-issued ID to prove their legal status
HB 355: An omnibus bill including provisions prohibiting human trafficking, requiring local law enforcement and agencies distributing public benefits to confirm legal immigration status, and mandating participation in E-Verify for public employers
HB 361: Makes English the official language of Pennsylvania
HB 379: Mandates E-Verify for public works contractors
HB 380: Mandates E-Verify for construction industry employers
HB 439: Imposes sanctions on employers that employ unauthorized immigrants
HB 474: Creates a compact between states to issue a different birth certificate to children born here to undocumented immigrants, denying them birthright citizenship
HB 526: Imposes mandatory sentences for offenses committed by undocumented immigrants
HB 659: Amends the Public School Code to confirm that English is the sole language of Pennsylvania
HB 738: Requires local law enforcement to check immigration status and communicate its findings to ICE, requires agencies distributing public benefits to verify immigration status
HB 798: Requires law enforcement to check immigration status
HB 799: Provides for a memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to enforce immigration law
HB 801: Supports law enforcement authorities who detain people they believe to have questionable immigration status
HB 857: Defines citizens of Pennsylvania to exclude children born here to undocumented parents
HB 858: Mandates E-Verify for public contractors
HB 888: Makes English the official language of the Commonwealth
SB 9: Requires applicants for a wide variety of public benefits to show government-issued ID to prove their legal status
SB 515: Allows law enforcement officials to verify citizenship of arrestees
SB 637: Mandates E-Verify for public contractors

Opportunities for advocacy to block punitive and harmful anti-immigrant measures in our commonwealth: http://www.paimmigrant.org/programs/state-leg-advocacy-campaign

Anti-immigrant legislation introduced in PA Senate

This from the Pennsylvania Immigration and Citizenship Coalition:

There is no time to lose -- SB 9, a bill requiring government-issued ID in order to apply for a wide variety of public benefits, was approved by the Senate State Government Committee on Tuesday, and could come to a floor vote in the very near future. Several other dangerous bill have already been introduced this session, including provisions mandating the use of E-Verify and making English the official language of the Commonwealth.

You may say that we're DREAMers

But we're not the only ones ...

DREAM Act Panel Discussion
Wednesday, Nov. 17
7:30 - 8:30 p.m.
Barton Hall Classrooms, Room 109, at Temple University

The DREAM Act is bipartisan legislation that would legalize the status of thousands of undocumented youth in the United States. The bill would apply to students in both public and private schools, including Catholic schools. Young persons would become eligible for permanent legal status upon completion of two years of college or two years of honorable service in the military. Approximately 65,000 youth per year would benefit from the DREAM Act.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops supports the DREAM Act:

"On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), I write to express our support for S. 729, the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act). This legislation would make a difference in the lives of undocumented youth who were brought to the United States by their parents and now, because of their lack of legal status, face obstacles to their future. By removing such barriers, the DREAM Act permits immigrant students to pursue a promising future through college education or military service."
-- USCCB letter to legislators, April 6, 2009

H.R. 5748, The End Racial Profiling Act of 2010

H.R. 5748 would eliminate racial profiling by law enforcement.
Latest Major Action: 7/15/2010: Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Read the full text of the bill here.

Face the Truth: Racial Profiling Across America from Breakthrough on Vimeo.

I'll have a cheesesteak with that racial profiling bill, please

Philadelphia's renowned Geno's Steaks was the site of a 4-hour radio fundraiser in support of Arizona's SB1070 law. Organized by Geno's owner, Joey Vento, the event was broadcast by WPHT radio's Dom Giordano.

Citizens, people of faith, comprehensive immigration reform advocates and members of several Catholic religious congregations and organizations gathered across the street from the eatery to protest the Arizona law - which human and civil rights advocates (as well as many Latino citizens) say will institutionalize racial profiling and adversely affect people of Hispanic heritage regardless of documentation status.

A bill modeled after Arizona's has been introduced in Pennsylvania by Rep. Daryl Metcalfe. Like its Arizona counterpart HB2479 states that law enforcement shall verify the immigration status of any person the officer has stopped, arrested or detained and "who is or should reasonably be suspected of being unlawfully present in the state." One of the co-sponsors of the bill, Rep. Tom Creighton said in an interview in Lancaster's Intelligencer Journal that what amounts to reasonable suspicion would be "a real subjective decision by that officer."

Earlier on the 14th, Tucson's Bishop Gerald Kicanas testified before Congress (the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law) on the ethical imperative for reform of the U.S. immigration system.

Immigration is ultimately a humanitarian issue, the bishop said, since it impacts the rights and dignity of millions of persons and their families. "As such it has moral implications." he said. "We cannot accept the toil and taxes of immigrants without providing them the protection of law."

The bishop, whose diocese runs along the whole of the Arizona-Mexico border, said he witnesses every day "the human consequences of our broken immigration system."

Photos of the rally across the street from Geno's Steaks by Sarah Webb for the CS&T.

HB2479 - Et tu, Pennsylvania?

Per the Pennsylvania Immigration and Citizenship Coalition:

"This morning, Representative Metcalfe (R-Butler) held a press conference to announce his intention to introduce Arizona-style legislation here in Pennsylvania. More information is available in his press release.

"Pennsylvania and America can do better. Polices that encourage racial profiling and create fear of police turn back the clock on the advances of the civil rights struggle and are counter to our values as Americans. Until we enact workable solutions at the federal level, local communities will continue to struggle with the impact of our broken system instead of moving forward together to rebuild our economy and secure our future.

"The Arizona law requires law enforcement to stop and question anyone whom they have 'reasonable suspicion' to believe is undocumented, requires immigrants to carry proof of their immigration status or else face fines and criminal penalties, and a provision that allows private citizens to sue law enforcement or other state and local government agencies over the issue. The Arizona law has raised concerns from law enforcement officers trying to focus scarce resources on their real job of protecting all of our communities, concerns about racial profiling and civil rights violations, and public condemnation from a wide range of elected officials. A number of organizations have announced their intention to bring a legal challenge."

Take Action:

1. Join people from faith, labor and immigrant communities this Thursday as they speak out against the Arizona law and any similar legislation here in PA, calling on the Senate to take action on reform at the federal level.

Thursday May 6, 10 AM
In front of Senator Casey's office in Philadelphia at 20th and Market. Followed by a procession down Market Street to Love Park (at 16th and JFK), to join people from all faith communities and participate in the Mayor's office of Faith Initiatives Day of Prayer. Faith leaders who are interested in offering prayers while at Love Park can contact Rev. Malcolm Byrd at the Mayor's Office of Faith Initiatives.

2. Call Senator Casey
Tell him: We need a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the Senate.
Toll Free Numbers: English 866-877-5552 Spanish 866-901-3139

3. Contact the White House and call on President Obama to put an end to policies like 287(g) and secure communities, which promote racial profiling and undermine police community relationships. 202-456-1111

Flagging Arizona

I’ve spent time in Arizona. In fact, a good 40 years ago, my parents thought about purchasing property there. They considered it seriously enough to begin plotting out the design of the house they would build in the environs of Sedona (in those days, completely undeveloped). I remember hoping they’d change their minds. Used to the lush green of Guatemala, Arizona’s beauty eluded me. It simply seemed a harsh and inhospitable place.

In the ensuing years I’ve learned to delight in the spectacular colors and starkly stunning landscapes of the American Southwest. But it turns out that my child self was right after all. Arizona, after the signing into law of SB1070 yesterday, is truly a harsh and inhospitable place.

Soon, it will be impossible in Arizona to drive someone to the hospital or emergency room without first ascertaining whether their documents are in order. If you do so – either because you don’t think to ask about their documents or because your humanitarian instincts compel you to provide help anyway -- you can kiss your car goodbye (because it will be impounded) and you may face further sanctions.

Soon, if you look like you could possibly be an undocumented immigrant in Arizona, the police will have the law-backed right to stop you, wherever and whenever, and ask you to prove you are fully documented. And, if you think a social security card will be enough proof, think again.

Soon, even transiting through Arizona while looking like you might, conceivably, be undocumented will be a crime. And in Arizona -- as in the rest of the rest of the United States since immigration has become a hot button topic -- you look “illegal” if you look “Latino.”

Set aside for a moment that there are Latinos of all colors and “looks” (I have Guatemalan cousins who are amazons closer to 6-ft. than 5, and crowned with heads of hair nearer to auburn than dark brown or black), there are plenty of citizens and permanent residents and fully documented folks who fit the bill of what those Arizonan police officers will be looking to pull over.

There’s been a lot of effort expended by proponents of the bill-which-is-now-law to explain that passage of this law is not a form of sanctioned racial profiling. If you clicked the link on my last blog post you know that spokespeople are claiming that there is a whole arsenal of “indicators” besides skin-tone or accented English for determining potential “illegal” status – including the type of clothing and shoes you wear.

Oh, good, that makes it so much better.

Is this new? Of course not. African-Americans, particularly young men, have been routinely stopped because the police find it suspicious that they are where they are at any given moment. My college friend Cary was taken aside and questioned by police at the Bronxville train station just because he was young and African American and the police assumed he wasn’t a student at Sarah Lawrence College because of that. My older brother stopped wearing his black leather jacket when he was a grad student at Yale because whenever he did the New Haven cops would stop him, thinking no Latino who looked and dressed like him could possibly have been rightfully registered at that august institution of higher learning.

So, of course, racial profiling takes place, daily, in states other than Arizona. It’s just that as of yesterday, Arizona is flying its racial profiling as a flag to be saluted.

This sad and horrifying law should raise concern beyond those who might fear being stopped. Remember, this law criminalizes Good Samaritan action -- don’t stop to give that stranded motorist a lift to the nearest gas station or telephone box. It potentially criminalizes friendship --how many times do you ask your friends or acquaintances or coworkers to prove their legal status before they get into your car? It criminalizes the pastoral care priests and religious leaders provide for their congregations when they provide vans and buses to bring them to church or catechism classes. It criminalizes the ways we are a human family and so help each other out.

The Catholic bishops and other religious leaders of the region have roundly condemned this law as immoral (see here and here and here). A broad coalition of organizations is protesting and drawing attention to the injustice the law institutionalizes and the dangerous precedents it sets (see here and here and here). A boycott has been called (see here and here).

I have to say I’m pretty proud of the individuals and organizations that are willing to stand and protest a law this unjust. As for me, I don’t take losses of civil liberties or institutionalized prejudice lightly. I plan to keep writing about it and nagging the president and all of those legislators whose self-interest has eclipsed common good and common sense in this matter.

I hope that as a reader of this blog you join me in this. Let’s lower Arizona’s racial profiling flag and fly a different one, okay? One that acknowledges that at some point we all wore immigrant shoes and clothes and skin -- and that it never was a good enough reason to be pulled over. Or left stranded.

Image of antique map of the Americas from the Vintage Moth.

Catholic bishops announce nationwide action alert, postcard campaign in support of comprehensive immigration reform

Yesterday afternoon:

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- As the Catholic Church observed National
Migration Week Jan. 3-9, support for legislative efforts took the
forefront amid various other steps to bring attention to the concerns
of migrants and refugees.

In a teleconference Jan. 6, Bishop John C. Wester of Salt Lake
City, chairman of the bishops' Committee on Migration, described
severalsteps being undertaken by the U.S. bishops, including a new Web site,
a nationwide action alert and a previously announced postcard campaign
toencourage members of Congress to support comprehensive reform. The Web
site is a revamped version of www.justiceforimmigrants.org.

"The American public, including the Catholic and other faith
communities, want a humane and comprehensive solution to the problems
which beset our immigration system, and they want Congress to address
this issue," Bishop Wester said.

(...)

Read the full story by Patricia Zapor of Catholic News Service: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1000047.htm

Who’s counting?

Unbelievably, I started blogging exactly one year ago. Just in time for the Hispanic Heritage Mass then and now. This year’s Mass will take place at 2:30 p.m. on Oct. 11 at the Cathedral Basilica of SS. Peter and Paul in Philadelphia. Cardinal Justin Rigali will be the celebrant, and as in past years, he’ll be joined by many priests from across the Archdiocese that minister to the Latino community.

And a growing community it is.

Pennsylvania is one of 16 states with at least a half-million Hispanic residents, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. (The others are Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Washington.)

The estimated Hispanic population of the United States as of July 1, 2008 is 46.9 million, making people of Hispanic origin the largest ethnic or race minority in the nation, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Hispanics are 15 percent of the nation’s total population.

And to these totals you can add the 4 million residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (which is included in the U.S. Census report’s “national summary” data, but not in its “national totals”).

The Hispanic population in the U.S. is younger than the population as a whole. Hispanics comprise 22 percent of children younger than 18 in the nation, 25 percent of children younger than 5. The U. S. Census Bureau projects that by July 1, 2050, the Hispanic population of the United States will reach 132.8 million, and be 30 percent of the nation’s total population.

There were 1.6 million Hispanic-owned businesses in 2002, and the rate of growth of these businesses between the census of 1997 and 2002 was 31 percent. The national average rate of growth for all businesses during the same time period was 10 percent. Hispanic owned businesses generated revenues of $222 billion in 2002, according to census sources, up 19 percent from 1997.

Still, if you read my blog, or other Latino blogs, you already know that the violence, hate and animosity toward Latinos has increased markedly in recent years. The FBI reported a 35 percent increase in hate crimes against Latinos from 2003 to 2006 and a 3.3 percent increase in 2007 alone. Certain communities (Suffolk, N.Y., for example) have become something like hunting grounds where gangs of ruffians target their Latino neighbors for death, and juries and elected officials look the other way. Mainstream Latino advocacy organizations such as the NCLR have been vilified, and the first Latina Supreme Court justice was lampooned with openly racist caricatures during the period preceding her confirmation.

The vitriol in the immigration reform debate has contributed greatly to anti-Latino sentiment.

It is faulty logic to presume that all immigrants are Latino and all Latinos are immigrants, but nativists and commentators with nativist sympathies have reinforced this spurious syllogism. Ongoing air time devoted to the “invasion of America” (commentator Pat Buchanan) by hordes of “primitives” and “women with mustaches” (radio host Jay Severin) who are “changing the complexion of America” (Bill O’Reilly) and are “invaders” and carriers of “leprosy and tuberculosis” (Lou Dobbs) has had its effect on people’s ideas about Latinos and immigrants.

Even those who don’t wholeheartedly buy into anti-immigrant and anti-Latino rhetoric express irritation at Spanish-language phone options, or celebrations and parades wherein flags of Latin American countries are flown alongside the U.S. flag. Would the same level of irritation be manifest if the language option were German, say, or Polish? Do the St. Patrick’s and Columbus Day parades with their Irish and Italian flags proudly flown generate the same animus? Clearly not.

Much of current anti-immigrant rhetoric centers around the differences between new waves of immigration and historic ones – but the differences are largely myth.

Earlier immigrant groups also initially settled in mono-ethnic neighborhoods, spoke their own languages, went to church at personal parishes where Mass was celebrated in their native languages and set up businesses that not only served their fellow immigrants but contributed to the growth of the U.S. economy. They eventually learned English, became naturalized citizens, gave birth to U. S. citizens and grew to be integral to the weave of contemporary America.

It has been said that new immigrants don’t want to learn English, yet demand for English as a Second Language classes for adult learners far exceeds supply. With classes or without, more than 75 percent of current immigrants learn to speak English proficiently within 10 years of emigrating.

We’ve also heard that the new immigrants, unlike their predecessors, don’t want to become citizens. But according to U.S. Census Bureau and Bureaus of Citizenship and Immigration Services data, more than 33 percent of immigrants become naturalized citizens. This, of course, can’t begin to reflect the number of immigrants who might want to become citizens if a path to legal residency and citizenship were open to them.

The percentage of the U.S. population that is foreign-born stands at 11.5 percent currently. In the early 20th century, it stood at 15 percent. Immigrants in those days also dealt with anti-immigrant fears about the number of them coming to America, and the same derogatory attitudes about people “without papers” -- the genesis of at least one ethnic slur.

Myth has it that most immigrants today are undocumented. But the Immigration and Naturalization Services statistical yearbook records that 75 percent of current immigrants have legal permanent visas. And they pay U.S. taxes – between $90 and $140 billion a year. (Even undocumented immigrants pay taxes – as evidenced by the Social Security Administration’s “suspense file” -- taxes that cannot be matched to workers’ names and social security numbers -- which drew $20 billion between 1990 and 1998.)

Current immigrants, like their predecessors, contribute to the U.S. economy through their consumer spending and through the income generated by the businesses they set up. According to the Cato Institute and the Inter-American Development Bank, consumer spending of immigrant households and business contribute $162 billion in tax revenue to U.S. federal, state and local governments.

And Alan Greenspan, while he headed the Federal Reserve, pointed out that 70 percent of immigrants arrive to the U.S, in prime working years. As part of our workforce they will contribute $500 billion toward our social security system over the next 20 years.

An enduring myth about current immigrants is that they emigrate to receive public benefits. There is data from the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the Urban Institute that shows that immigrant tax payments total $20 to $30 billion more than the amount of government services they receive.

Recent surveys have shown that new immigrants are actually much healthier than longtime immigrants (who in turn are healthier than native citizens). Which is lucky because legal immigrants are restricted from accessing any public health benefits for the first five years of their residence in the United States. Undocumented immigrants are precluded from accessing any public benefits at all.

It is hard to believe that any of us want to see our fellow human beings ill and suffering and barred from receiving any medical treatment; just as it is hard to believe any of us want to see people dying while trying to be reunited with their families, or while trying to escape violence or poverty. And yet, existing health care legislation and immigration policies compound these problems while offering no solutions.

Fortunately, we are heirs to a system of governance that permits us to challenge standing legislation. We can pass better laws. Laws that create a path to citizenship for people who desperately want to be here. Laws that ensure that U.S. citizen children aren’t separated from their undocumented parents. Laws that reflect compassion for our brothers and sisters in need, and that open to hope rather than a wall.

In the year I’ve been writing this blog, I’ve shown you signs that read “Hispanics keep out” and “Speak English.” I’ve posted videos that portray immigrants the same way blacks were depicted in early minstrel shows, and have referenced news about a teen who endured ethnic taunts while being dragged with a noose around his neck. I’ve written about a young man who was snatched right off a train platform on the basis of his Spanish accent, and linked you to horrifying stories about hate-crimes against Ecuadorian and Mexican immigrants in this and adjoining states.

But I’ve also written about people who stand for more and better.

Peter Pedemonti and his cohorts at the Catholic Worker house and in the New Sanctuary Movement in Philadelphia who believe they are “entertaining angels” when they welcome the stranger.

Msgr. Hugh Shields. Anna Vega, Tim O’Connell, Sister Lorena and countless other unnamed religious folk and laypeople who believe we are all one family under God and so extend to immigrants the love we usually reserve for blood family.

Robert Nix, who journeyed to Shenendoah, Pa. after Luis Ramirez was killed to publicly urge community reconciliation.

I’ve pointed you to El Diario/La Prensa, which reports stories about immigrants and Latinos the mainstream media doesn’t even venture to cover.

And I’ve quoted the words of the U.S. Bishops, including our own Cardinal Justin Rigali, who have consistently sought to remind us that, in the words of Christ, “whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.”

Going into my second year of writing this, I’m not sure what effect, if any, blogs can have in our thinking about issues as complex as immigration or the upswing in anti-Latino sentiment in the nation. Particularly blogs like this one, with a small readership that, in all likelihood, already recognizes popular immigration myths for what they are and finds the words of the nativists and anti-immigrant commentators as repugnant as I do.

But I have to think it’s worth it.

There are local voices here that are too quiet to be heard in the nasty national debate. There are voices of local immigrants, and the voices of local people of faith who walk with them. There are voices of those who have overcome unbearable hardship and the voices of those who have taken up their advocacy. Not all of those voices are in the blog posts – some are in the comments, both public and private, made in response to the posts.

And despite the bad news and bad feelings I sometimes point to in my posts, it is the wonder and awe of knowing there are good people out there -- willing to protect and love and do for their fellow human beings -- that really keeps me writing.

Bishops ask for calls

This just in from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB):

During the week of July 6-10, the U.S. Senate considered amendments to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations bill. During the debate, the Senate considered and adopted several immigration enforcement amendments which continue the enforcement-only approach to immigration reform. An amendment offered by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) enhancing the U.S.-Mexico border fence was particularly disturbing.

DeMint Amendment #1399: This amendment would require the completion of at least 700 miles of double fencing along the Southwest border by December 31, 2010, as well as require double barriers along portions of the fence.

USCCB Position: The USCCB has opposed the construction of a border fence, arguing that it will not stem, overall, illegal immigration, and could lead migrants to undertake more dangerous journeys into the United States. It also would force them to rely on expensive and dangerous human smuggling operations.
The Senate also adopted an amendment to extend the employment verification program, offered by Senator Sessions, and two other immigration enforcement amendments by voice vote (not roll call).
Notwithstanding the substance of the amendments, a vote in favor demonstrates that enforcement-only approaches to immigration reform are still supported by the majority of the Senate. Using the border fence vote as an example, we must communicate to our Senators that enforcement-only legislation is wrongheaded and ineffective and that only comprehensive immigration reform will help repair a badly broken immigration system.

Action and Targets: Clicking on this link will bring you to two separate letters, one which thanks your Senator for voting in opposition to the DeMint amendment and one expressing disappointment for their vote on the DeMint Amendment. Below, please find the roll call vote for the DeMint Amendment, with a "Yea" voting for the fence and a "Nay" voting against the fence.
Please send the appropriate letters to your Senator. It is just as important to thank your Senator for the right vote as it is expressing disappointment for a wrong vote. You can also use the letters as talking points if you wish to contact them via phone at 202-224-3121.

Specific Targets: While it is important that all Senators receive letters or calls, there are specific target Senators important to the comprehensive immigration reform debate (and who should support CIR) who should hear from us:
Target Senators who voted the wrong way on the DeMint amendment: Democrats: Baucus, Bayh, Boxer, Feinstein, Klobuchar, Landreiu, Lincoln, McCaskill, Merkley, Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Pryor, Rockefeller, Schumer, Specter, Stabenow, Tester, Webb, and Wyden. Republicans: Bennett, Brownback, Hatch, Graham, Gregg, McCain, Snowe.

For more information, please contact: Antonio Cube at acube@usccb.org or Chris West at CWest@crs.org

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 1st Session as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Question: On the Amendment (DeMint Amdt. No. 1399 )
Vote Number: 220
Vote Date: July 8, 2009, 11:34 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2
Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 1399 to S.Amdt. 1373 to H.R. 2892 (Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010)
Statement of Purpose: To require the completion of at least 700 miles of reinforced fencing along the southwest border by December 31, 2010.
Vote Counts: YEAs 54 NAYs 44 Not Voting 2

Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Begich (D-AK), Nay Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California: Boxer (D-CA), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado: Bennet (D-CO), Nay Udall (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
Delaware: Carper (D-DE), Nay Kaufman (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Nay Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Crapo (R-ID), Yea Risch (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Burris (D-IL), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Nay Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Minnesota: Franken (D-MN), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Nay Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Yea
Nebraska: Johanns (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Nay Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Udall (D-NM), Nay
New York: Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Hagan (D-NC), Nay
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Merkley (D-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (D-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Nay Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (D-VA), Nay Webb (D-VA), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Murray (D-WA), Nay

Senate vote taking place now

This just in from the Pennsylvania Immigration & Citizenship Coalition:

Senate Amendment Fight

Two amendments passed earlier in the day yesterday:

1. Sessions Amendment 1371 making E-verify permanent and requiring its use by federal contractors and subcontractors. Both Senator Specter and Senator Casey voted for a motion to table the amendment (against the amendment). Once the motion to table failed, the amendment was accepted by voice vote.

2. DeMint 1399 expanding the wall and adding a deadline for completion. Senator Specter voted for the amendment, Senator Casey voted against it.

Today, amendment voting is expected to begin at shortly after 11:00 am

• Vitter Amendment 1375 prohibiting the administration from changing the no-match and e-verify regulations. This is an attempt to override the Obama administration’s announcement about ending the no-match program.

• Grassley Amendment 1415 requiring all employers to re-verify current employees through e-verify, not just new hires. Currently, they are prohibited by law from doing this. Given the high error rates of the e-verify system, employees that have worked for a company for years could have erroneous non-confirmations in the system. Additionally, many individuals may not have the Photo ID that is required under the system.

Take action: Call Sen. Specter at 202-224-4254

Call Sen. Casey at 202-224-6324

To oppose the Vitter Amendement (#1375) overriding President Obama's decision to rescind the flawed Bush administration SSA No Match rule.

To oppose the Grassley amendment (#1415) which jeopardizes U.S. workers and could shut millions of U.S. citizen and lawful immigrant workers out of jobs.

To support having a real debate about immigration issues and only way for that to happen is by starting comprehensive immigration reform this year, not hurting U.S. workers.

Thank Sen. Casey for his vote against the DeMint Amendment (#1399) yesterday.

More details on SSA No-Match and E-Verify Policy Decisions -

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano announced the administration’s intention to rescind the Social Security Administration's (SSA) No-Match rule, issued under the Bush administration. The rule had never been implemented due to a lawsuit; the system was not set up to verify employment eligibility and would have caused the termination of countless thousands of American citizens and work-authorized immigrants.

Instead, they are supporting a regulation for E-verify for federal contractors and subcontractors, to go into effect September 8, 2009. This policy decision was originally made under the Bush administration and has been delayed several times, under the Bush administration and again under the Obama administration. Numerous concerns remain about the quality of data used for employment verification under these systems. From the DHS statement, “The federal contractor rule extends use of the E-Verify system to covered federal contractors and subcontractors, including those who receive American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. After a careful review, the Administration will push ahead with full implementation of the rule, which will apply to federal solicitations and contract awards Government-wide starting on September 8, 2009.”

The full Department of Homeland Security statement on these policy points is available at: http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1247063976814.shtm

Great information about these programs and the numerous problems with them is available from the National Immigration Law Center at the following links.

"Facts about E-Verify: http://www.nilc.org/immsemplymnt/ircaempverif/e-verify-facts-about-2008-10.pdf

Basic Pilot/E-Verify: Why Mandatory Employment Verification will Hurt Workers, Businesses, and the Struggling U.S. Economy: http://www.nilc.org/immsemplymnt/ircaempverif/e-verify-facts-2009-01-29.pdf

Facts about Social Security "No Match" Letter: http://www.nilc.org/immsemplymnt/SSA-NM_Toolkit/factsaboutno-matchletter_2008-03-26.pdf

Health Care Alert from NILC

Health Care Reform Update:

Tell Congress This Week to Include in Health Care Reform the Health Equity and Accountability Act of 2009
(H.R. 3090)

On June 26, 2009, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced the Health Equity and Accountability Act of 2009 (H.R. 3090) on behalf of the Tri-Caucus which also includes the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC). H.R. 3090 focuses on addressing health disparities in coverage and access and aims to create an equitable health care system that works for everyone in the U.S.
The House will be reviewing H.R. 3090 this week. Because the Health Equity and Accountability Act of 2009 (H.R. 3090) addresses many of the barriers faced by low-income immigrants in seeking health care (see below) which have not yet been addressed by any of the other current health care reform legislation, Congress must include H.R. 3090 as part of health care reform to address the inequities of our health care system and to achieve real reform.
Please contact the Members in the House listed below IMMEDIATELY to let them know you support H.R. 3090 and that it must be included in any comprehensive, health care reform legislation.
Suggested Message:
"[My organization and state] supports H.R. 3090 which provides equity in coverage and access in the health care system that is needed for real health care reform. We urge you to include H.R. 3090 in any final health care reform legislation that Congress passes this year."
Key Provisions of the Act that will address the needs of low-income immigrants include:
Restoring Medicaid and CHIP to otherwise eligible, lawfully present immigrants without a waiting period and sponsor-related barriers;
Ensuring that otherwise eligible, lawfully present immigrants can buy into Medicare and can qualify for the Medicare Savings Programs (administered under Medicaid);
Ensuring that ALL children, regardless of status, can receive Medicaid or CHIP (if otherwise eligible);
Ensuring that ALL pregnant women, regardless of status, can receive affordable prenatal care for a healthy pregnancy through Medicaid or CHIP (if otherwise eligible);
Ensuring that lawfully present immigrants have access to nutrition assistance;
Improving federal investment and standards for cultural competency and language access for providers and public health programs;Requiring more comprehensive collection of data on race, ethnicity, and language in all federal health programs as a strategy for addressing health disparities.

H.R. 3090 is available at http://thomas.loc.gov/

Please immediately contact the following members of leadership in the House of Representatives and Chairs of the three key House health reform committees by email or phone at 866-210-3678:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi: (202) 225-0100; http://speaker.gov/contact/

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer: (202) 225-3130; http://majorityleader.gov/email_and_rss/email_the_leader/

Representative Henry Waxman, Chair of House Energy and Commerce Committee: (202) 225-3976; E&C Committee: (202) 225-2927
Representative Charles Rangel, Chair of House Ways and Means Committee: (202) 225-4365; https://forms.house.gov/rangel/forms/contact.shtml
Committee: (202) 225-3625; http://waysandmeans.house.gov/contact.asp
Representative George Miller, Chair of House Education and Labor Committee: (202) 225-2095; http://georgemiller.house.gov/contactus/2007/08/post_1.html
Committee: (202) 225-3725

Letters of Support
You may also send a letter of support of H.R. 3090 to the Tri-Caucus:
U.S. Representative Barbara Lee, Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)
http://thecongressionalblackcaucus.lee.house.gov/
U.S. Representative Nydia Velázquez, Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC)
http://velazquez.house.gov/chc/
U.S. Representative Mike Honda, Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC)
http://honda.house.gov/capac/

Make sure Congress knows that federal health care reform must include EVERYONE and that true reform will not work for all of us unless immigrants are also able to contribute and have access to coverage and care

PA Legislators – Fund our libraries!

I received the fundamentals of my education in school, but that was not enough. My real education, the superstructure, the details, the true architecture, I got out of the public library. For an impoverished child whose family could not afford to buy books, the library was the open door to wonder and achievement, and I can never be sufficiently grateful that I had the wit to charge through that door and make the most of it. Now, when I read constantly about the way in which library funds are being cut and cut, I can only think that the door is closing and that American society has found one more way to destroy itself.

- Isaac Asimov

As science-fiction writer Isaac Asimov presciently wrote in his 1994 memoir, I, Asimov, library doors will not only be closing this year in Pennsylvania - they'll be slamming shut. That is, if the Pennsylvania Legislature has its way.
Governor Rendell has proposed a 16 percent cut in state support for libraries. The State Senate’s plan slashes support by more than 53 percent in the coming year. The drastic cuts proposed in the 2009-2010 budget would force libraries throughout the Commonwealth to eliminate services, or close branches, or both. The cuts would also make one thing clear about our state legislature: they don't have a clue about the vital role public libraries play in the small towns and rural regions of our Commonwealth.
Public libraries in small towns don't simply serve as repositories for the collective knowledge and wisdom of many cultures in printed form - each one is a hub of its community. People gather at libraries to read and borrow books, yes, but also to interact with each other, to discuss local events, to participate in book discussion groups and numerous other programs. For many elderly citizens, visiting a library where they are known, recognized, greeted and treated personally is as important to their ongoing well-being as the proper diet, or an annual flu shot.

The library is one of the first places a newcomer will venture to find a sense of community. A place where mothers can take their children to sit in the company of other children, and experience the magic of live storytelling. Where teens can go to keep busy in the summer and out of trouble year-round, and fall into the lifelong habit of reading.
If this weren't enough, public libraries are great equalizers: providing internet and computer access to those who can't otherwise afford it, and allowing every child and adult, no matter what their economic means, equal access to books, resources, information. As Asimov describes in the quote that opens this piece - public libraries feed our dreams and nurture our possibilities.
Perhaps state legislators don't need access to what public libraries provide. The rest of us can't afford to be so cavalier.

This is an updated version of an editorial I wrote November 2003 as editor of the Tri-County Record newspaper in Morgantown, Pa. What seems remarkable to me is that, six years later, we’re here again – fighting to keep our libraries open.

Draconian measures in Arizona

Shocking bill proposed in Arizona (itals are mine):

PHOENIX — The state moved on two fronts Tuesday to prohibit politicians and appointed agency chiefs from blocking law enforcement officers from enforcing immigration laws.

The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 8-3 to outlaw any policies that keep any public employee from contacting federal immigration officials to determine whether someone with whom they are dealing is in this country legally.

That would include not just people stopped by police, but anyone who enters a government building applying for a benefit, service or license where being a legal resident is a condition.

And to make sure SB 1162 had some real teeth, Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, included a provision allowing anyone who believes a public official is ignoring the law to sue.

Fi2W (Feet in 2 Worlds) blog has this: http://bit.ly/B9UHq about the proposed legislation.

SB 850 – the unkindest cuts

The Pa. Senate Appropriations Committee’s proposed budget for 2009-2010 is in.

If you aren’t affluent, say goodbye to access.

To the arts.
(SB 850 zero funds arts and culture grants made through the Pennsylvania Council on the Arts. Which means many of the small arts organizations across the Commonwealth that produce and present dance, music, film, visual and performing arts in neighborhoods and communities will be shuttered.)

To funded civil legal services.
(SB 850 eliminates all of the state appropriations that ensure that the poorest among us have access to justice.)

To Pre-K and Head Start.
(SB 850 slashes Pre-K counts by 55 percent and Head Start funding by 50 percent.)

To low cost insurance for children.
(SB 850 cuts CHIP funding, as well as funds for child care, county child welfare and basic education.)

The list is extensive and alarming.

In proposing SB 850 as an alternative to Gov. Rendell’s more moderate proposed budget, the Senate Appropriations Committee has ensured that those most impacted by the current economic recession will find life in the Commonwealth even more difficult – if not impossible – after July 1.

If you value any of what is being cut by SB 850, call your state legislators immediately. Rumor has it the vote on SB 850 will be tomorrow – May 6.

• • •

The image at the top of this post is a public artwork by my mother, Joyce de Guatemala, on Howard and East Huntingdon Streets in Philadelphia. The image to the right of this paragraph, is another of her public sculptures -- this one in front of the Elkins Park Library (http://www.elkinsparklibrary.org/history.htm). And that's my mom in the inset photo.

From my mom I inherited my love for art, and my belief that access to any and all of the arts should be open to all – not restricted only to those who can afford it. While you might be tempted to dismiss arts organizations as less important than the other organizations/programs mentioned above, I urge you to think of a what the world would be like without music, paintings, poetry .... To protect the arts, go to http://ga1.org/campaign/FY10_PCA.

Man will begin to recover the moment he takes art as seriously as physics, chemistry or money.
– Ernst Levy, composer