Teachers Strike

Last week teachers in Puerto Rico went on strike, citing multiple problems with the system such as low wages, inadequate supplies and textbooks, as well as class sizes. What is most interesting about this strike is the US involvement in it. The US is involved in two ways: first, a US union has offered its support to the governor of Puerto Rico, by offering to replace the current teachers union. Secondly there have been large demonstrations in New York City by Puerto Rican educators in front of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Agency.

Not only does this show that even today, with Puerto Rico’s relative independence, the US still has a strong-arm economically (in this case with controlling labor) in Puerto Rico. This also shows what Correa was taking about in chapter 7 of Between Two Nations when he talks about the political mobilization of immigrants, demonstrating the hybrid nature of immigrant politics (p. 136). These immigrants are not looking to show their support in any form of traditional political arena. Instead they are mobilizing in mass to demonstrate, and put immediate pressure on officials to make changes quickly.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/80883/

Puerto Rico's Governor arrested

This week Puerto Rico’s Governor was arrested on charges of misuse of campaign funds and conspiring with US contractors for deals with his administration, in exchange for favors. This comes as a huge blow for Barack Obama, who had the support of the Governor and his super delegate vote.

But what’s more important is what direction the country will now go regarding statehood. The current Governor Anibal Acevedo Vila was a member of the pro commonwealth Democratic Party, and is supported by Barack Obama. The second major political party in Puerto Rico is the New Progressive Party, which favors statehood, and is supported by Hillary Clinton. What this could mean for Puerto Rico is that if Obama louses the political support of Puerto Rico because of the loss of the most visible Obama supporter on the island, and Clinton wins the election, then we could see a push for statehood led by the NPP and supported by Clinton, which would of course alter the very political fabric of Puerto Rico.

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-prgov0328.artmar28,0,3198797.story

political capital for Puerto Rico?

In class we have been talking extensively about the loss of political power of Puerto Ricans. But with the upcoming presidential election that trend could be turning. Puerto Ricans do not get to vote in the presidential election, however there are 55 delegates from the island, and with the close race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, more and more attention is being placed on the political importance of Puerto Rico in this election.

I think that it will be very interesting to see how much political capital Puerto Rico can gain from this election and how much of it they can keep. Jose Sanchez talks about power in relation to interests on page 41. A high interest in A by B (in this case Puerto Rico-A and the presidential hopefuls-B) directly correlates to a high equilibrium of power between A on B. What does this mean for Puerto Rico? I think that it could mean greater political say in the US government, perhaps even a vote for the representative in congress. It could mean return of lands currently held by the US government, or increased federal funding to create jobs. But what I think will the thing to watch will be how much of this attention and promises will be kept after the election. I guess there is only one way to find out, and that is to just sit back, and wait and see.

www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/18/news/CB-POL-Puerto-Rico-Clinton.php

In the conclusion of Fluid Borders Lisa Bedolla sates that to “bring new voters into the political system is not necessarily in the parties’ best interest. They would be spending limited resources on engaging individuals who may or may not vote, and more important not vote for them (p. 188-189). I find this interesting because both parties are looking very closely at who can reach out to the Hispanic voters this election. Bedolla says that parties would like to spend money on partisan voters, or “sure thing voters,” but this does not seem to be the case.

It seems that both parties are treating the Hispanic vote as an independent one, which could sway either way. With this in mind I think that Contrary to Bedolla’s belief I think that we may see a concerted effort to try to reach out to the Hispanic vote this election. And a real effort to incorporate new immigrant voters this year.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080227/NATION/267093512/1002&template=nextpage

New Border Officials

Today in Washington Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey gave a press briefing to reporters explaining his new plan to improve border security. The new plan calls for an increased hiring of law enforcement officials, as well as more assistant district attorneys with the sole purpose of prosecuting cases of illegal immigrants, and increased cooperation with Mexican officials to stem the tide of illegal trafficking of weapons from the US to Mexico, and drugs from Mexico to the US.

What is interesting about Mukasey’s stance on border security is that the changes and hiring of new officials has their emphasis on violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants, not on cases involving citizenship.

As I have discussed earlier about the negative connotations of associating illegal immigrants with negative images (such as violent criminals) is beginning to play a role in the policy of the US government. These new steps are another good example of in which official policy is geared towards the imagery of the criminal element in immigration. In her book Lisa Bedolla says of collective identity “… is less about how one sees oneself, that is, one’s personal identity, and more about the values ad attributions one feels are attributed to his or her group...” (p. 7). With this in mind this policy runs the risk of associating the collective identity of illegal immigrants not just as people who broke the law by entering the country illegally, but as violent criminals, we run the risk of loosing sight of the overall picture of fixing the problem of illegal immigration, and more on combating a stereotype that may not be there.

A transcript link to A.G Mukasey’s statement is below: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/prepared-remarks-of-attorney-general-michael-b-mukasey-at-the,289128.html

Obama on immigration

With Washington’s caucuses concluded, it now looks as if Barack Obama will win the Democratic vote. So with that in mind, I think that it is important to take a look at his stance on immigration. Obama sees the source of the immigration problem in two areas: a broken bureaucracy and ineffective immigration raids. To fix these problems Obama wants “to preserve the integrity of our borders.” He supports “additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and at our ports of entry.” But what I find most interesting is he wants “to support a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.” And “we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.”

To me this program sounds a lot like the Bracero program. I think that while this is a viable solution, I feel that there is a real possibility of a backlash against these workers by American low skilled workers who might feel that this program is an institutionalized attack on their livelihood. This could also be used as a spring board for people to use the immigration issue as an excuse for racism. Another important point that I want to bring up is his plan to fine, make illegal immigrants learn English, and go to the back of the line for citizenship is a solution, but I don’t think that it will work because these people are already impoverished and may not be able to pay the fine. So what would happen then? Deportation? This would discourage people from coming forward for this program. Also, as discussed in class, some Latin immigrants either do not have the resources, or the desire to learn English. And how would this be enforced? Could we as Americans really bear to deport someone just because they can’t speak English? That in itself seems pretty un-American.

Negative Imagery

In her book Fluid Borders Lisa Bedolla talks about collective identity, she says that “collective identity is less about how one sees oneself, that is, one’s personal identity, and more about the values and attributions one feels are attributed to his or her group(s) because of how the group(s) is seen by others” (p. 7). So in other words social stigmas that are placed upon a group by an outside group (in our case, illegal immigrant vs. US born citizens) has a way of working its way into our subconscious and help us lump groups of people into categories, based off of little to no information about the individual. This association either by imagery or by word play has completely changed the way that we as modern citizens view illegal immigrants.

I was not aware that the INS, after 9/11 had been folded into the National Homeland Security Agency. While this may have been done for budgetary reasons, or manpower reasons, what it has done is it has begun to work its way into our subconscious to the point that we are beginning to associate illegal immigrants crossing the border with a terrorist invasion, undocumented workers with a national security threat. Similarly, the example of sending police officers instead of INS officials, to raid factories and arrest illegal immigrant’s plays a role in associating illegal immigrants with criminals. Because who do you send after criminals? Police officers.

This association of illegal immigrants with negative images is beginning to play a role in the policy of the US government. They are beginning to treat undocumented workers as criminals, sending them to jail, before deporting them or securing the borders with military forces all reflects this imagery.

I find it interesting how this sociological observation could be applied to the immigration debate, and am interested to see how the rest of Bedolla’s book looks at Mexican immigration through a sociological perspective.

If you would like examples of some of the images that I was talking about please go to: www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1710851,00.html and www.usliberals.about.com/od/immigration/a/IllegalImmi.html