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

Illegal Immigration Debate Rages in Utah
By Sara Bonisteel

SALT LAKE CITY — The battle over illegal immigration is being waged on a surprising front — Utah, where some lawmakers are scrambling to drop perks that have lured tens of thousands of undocumented workers to the Beehive State.

Since the opening of the 2008 session on Jan. 21, Utah legislators have discussed around a dozen measures that would dramatically curb rights for illegal immigrants in this non-border state, which has become an unlikely battleground in the nation's immigration debate.

"It’s not a good situation," said Utah Rep. Glenn Donnelson, R.-North Ogden. "As other states take away the benefits, then we become a magnet, and I say that the best fence to build is not chain link and barbed wire, but is to take away the benefits — take away the perks of being an illegal immigrant."

The state legislature is considering bills that would eliminate driver-privilege cards and in-state tuition for undocumented workers, give local authorities expanded power to fight illegals, and add safeguards to combat identity theft.

Legislators are under pressure from citizen groups such as the Utah Minuteman Project, whose members have demanded an end to Utah's position as "a sanctuary state where illegal aliens and their children feel welcome to ignore any and all of our laws."
Related

"There’s a vague sense of disquiet, discomfort and unease about the situation by virtually everyone in Utah that’s not a liberal or not a Democrat and doesn’t want these people here," said Eli Cawley, the chairman of the Utah Minuteman Project. "They want the law followed. The politicians have noticed that."

A poll conducted early last month by the Desert Morning News found that 60 percent of Utahns favor a local role in the enforcement of illegal immigration laws, with 85 percent desiring citizenship checks before immigrants can receive public benefits.

The firestorm surrounding the debate has frustrated Utah's Hispanic community, which makes up approximately 11 percent of the state's approximately 2.65 million population.

Margarita Rodriguez, the president of Centro Civico Mexicano, a community center in Salt Lake City, says the state's Hispanic residents are not unlike their neighbors. "They want the same things: for their children to be educated, for them to have enough food on the table and to pay
the bills," she said. "Across the board, they want the same things."

Roughly 100,000 people are estimated to be living in Utah illegally. Migrants are attracted to the Beehive State by seasonal and manual labor, lower rents and a community that puts a strong emphasis on family and religion. Church charities also aid needy arrivals.

"Coyotes" — people who smuggle immigrants into the U.S. from Mexico — bring many undocumented workers to the state where a cottage industry peddling "la micas" — fake green cards — can help them get work, Rodriguez said.

The increase comes amid an overall population boom in Utah, which saw a 13.7 percent increase between 2000 and 2006, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
Complicating the issue in this deeply religious state — the home of the Mormon church — are
spiritual calls for compassion toward those who may be in Utah illegally.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has taken no position regarding immigration legislation but simply expressed the need for compassion when dealing with any of God's children," said Michael Purdy, a church spokesman.

Mormon missionaries minister to new Utah arrivals, but "church leaders and missionaries do not necessarily know the legal status of those who might express an interest in joining the Church and do not seek to know," Purdy said.

The Latter-day Saints count around 4.7 million members in Central and South America — with 1.1 million in Mexico alone, he said.

The Catholic Church has been more vocal in the debate; the leader of the Catholic Diocese in Salt Lake called on Sunday for a path to citizenship for those immigrants currently in the U.S. illegally. Bishop John C. Wester said the church itself could be called "Immigrants 'R' Us," as he called on his parishioners to "welcome" the needy stranger, according to a report Monday in the Deseret Morning News.

Charitable arms of both churches — Catholic Community Services of Utah and Welfare Square —
offer support to immigrants, Rodriguez said.

The influx of new arrivals has changed the face of the state's capital, Salt Lake City. At the city's oldest Mexican store, Marisa's Fashion and Market, little more than a mile from the Mormons' Temple Square, owner Refugio Perez notes the change to his community, where Spanish-speaking immigrants have populated neighborhoods near downtown and on the city's westside.
Perez, a U.S. citizen who came here from Mexico illegally three decades ago, said the community knows who is here illegally, but most of the illegal immigrants work hard and don't cause trouble.
"They need us, but we need them too because there’s nobody going back to the fields and do the job," he said. "Nobody’s going to do the dirty job that they’re doing."

Arguments like that don't fly with Cawley and his group. They say that by entering the country illegally, immigrants have forfeited their shot at the American dream.

"All that we ask is that you respect our flag, you obey the law and you assimilate into our value
and culture, that’s all," Cawley said.

At Rita Valencia's candy and candle shop in a new Latino shopping development on the city's westside, her merchandise includes spiritual candles that offer help finding jobs and legal aid. She said most of her customers are here illegally, and many have been here for years, establishing good credit, buying houses and finding good jobs.

"Here, they can still find a job without legal documents," she said.

While the percentage of undocumented workers is relatively small in relation to Utah's legal Hispanic population, the immigration debate dominates newspapers and airwaves, creating an atmosphere of intolerance toward those here legally, too.

"I hear people say, 'Mexicans are lazy. They come here and they take — they use up our money,' and then in the next sentence, 'We don’t like when you come because you take our jobs,'" Rodriguez said. "So which one is it? Are we lazy, or do we take your jobs? We can’t do both."
Every year it gets worse and worse, she said.

"A growing percentage of people have made up their mind that they are no longer going to give Hispanic-looking people the benefit of the doubt," Cawley said. Doing so, he contends, aids and abets illegal immigration in Utah.

"They don’t deserve to be met with this hostility and this anger and resentment by people like me. They don’t deserve it," Cawley said. "But I’m not going to take that risk anymore."
Representatives in the Utah House have already acted swiftly, pushing six bills through committee as of Thursday, including bills that repeal in-state tuition and driver-privilege cards.
"We need to obey the law," Donnelson said. "The federal government needs to do something about the law, and they are not, and it is left up to the states. And so we become between a rock and a hard spot because of that."