From Nezua:

Flagstaff. AZ — At approximately 10AM on Thursday December 4th, Flagstaff Immigrant Rights Enforcement (FIRE) confronted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in a daring raid, serving a notice of deportation to ICE representatives at an ICE Management meeting. FIRE agents pinpointed the location of the ICE management
meeting at the Flagstaff Radisson Hotel in the Kaibab Meeting Room and staged the raid. FIRE agent Del Fuego read the notice of deportation to more than 15 ICE associated criminals, some of whom appeared to possibly be illegal immigrants themselves, as they were not Indigenous People. Agent Del Fuego called for the immediate withdrawal of ICE from the Flagstaff community and notified ICE of the cease and desist order for all future raids.

Read the Order of Deportation after the jump.

Post extendido - Leer más 'I.C.E Gets Served.....Deportation Papers'...

This October 31st, I - along with a big group of people - protested in front of the San Francisco ICE office, with the purpose of stopping the raids happening in Sanctuary Cities, such as San Francisco and Oakland. It was one of the first major protests I have attended and I felt proud to be out there making a stand for all immigrants who are being treated unjustly. Again, I know that Frank committed a serious crime but I believe it is unfair that my brother is being deported, because it does not solve anything, there are still gangs in El Salvador. If someone does a crime make them do their time, but do not move them far away from their families, it not only hurts them but their families as well.

The last time I talked to him on the phone, was about four days before he was deported. He sounded like the same Frank I knew. When I asked him if he was going to still be in a gang after all that happened he simply said "no." None of his gang friends visited him during the time he was in jail. One of his friends did write letters to him. All the people in his gang that were his "family" never visited him. On the other hand, his mother, sisters, my dad, my brothers and I visited him every chance we had. Now he is alone in El Salvador, because his only family is here.

Big Think has interviewed a host of immigration experts and our questions have hit the issue from all angles. What is the immigrant experience in America? How do we decide who gets to be an American? How will a nation founded, built and continually refueled by immigrants broach the issue under the country’s first biracial president? To frame our discussion of an online border patrol, let’s turn to Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico and descendant of a long line of Mexican immigrants, on what steps can be taken to tackle the immigration dilemma.

The measure, which progressives claim to be “pro-labor” is more aptly described as pro-unionization, with all the unexamined flaws that attend thereto.  What the law would do is actually remove from employees their only opportunity to express their real feelings about potential union representation in a secret ballot and force employees instead to express their will solely through a card filled out and signed under the direct supervision of a union organizer.  Make the “wrong” choice on the “card check” and the employee could be vulnerable to job loss if the union is formed anyway or other forms of social or even physical intimidation.  Rather than the boogyman of intervening coercion by business, such fears are precisely the reason that “card check” drives tend to show the appearance of more support for unionization than secret ballots do.  After all, which is more likely: That employers have found a way to monitor and influence employees in the secret ballot, or that union organizers have found a way to monitor and influence employees filling out a card check right in front of them?

The commitment from Obama is bald political payback.  Union leaders were strong supporters of Obama and they lavishly contributed to Obama’s campaign from the coffers of union dues extracted and spent without workers’ consent under the pretense of funding collective bargaining.  And union officials clearly hope to use the new coercive powers granted to them by a compliant Congress and President to reverse decades of workers choosing to not have union representation and its associated fees and added bureaucratic supervision by union representatives.

If there was ever a good candidate for the first Republican filibuster, this is it.

UPDATE: The probable pro-union tilt in the Obama administration has been reinforced by the appointment of a union activist for Labor Secretary.  This might be an appointment for Republicans in the Senate to resist.  The Labor Secretary is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of labor laws that protect workers from both employers and unions, not a cheerleader for unionization.  While Obama’s other cabinet picks thus far have been generally excellent, the appointment of a union organizer as Labor Secretary is the kind of low-profile, high-impact appointment that can cause an incredible amount of damage to worker’s rights during a time when jobs might already be hard to come by.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

McIntosh is the girl to the left of her mother when you look at the photograph. The picture is best known as "Migrant Mother," a black-and-white photo taken in February or March 1936 by Dorothea Lange of Florence Owens Thompson, then 32, and her children.

Lange was traveling through Nipomo, California, taking photographs of migrant farm workers for the Resettlement Administration. At the time, Thompson had seven children who worked with her in the fields.

"She asked my mother if she could take her picture -- that ... her name would never be published, but it was to help the people in the plight that we were all in, the hard times," McIntosh says.

"So mother let her take the picture, because she thought it would help."

The next morning, the photo was printed in a local paper, but by then the family had already moved on to another farm, McIntosh says.

"The picture came out in the paper to show the people what hard times was. People was starving in that camp. There was no food," she says. "We were ashamed of it. We didn't want no one to know who we were."

The photograph helped define the Great Depression, yet McIntosh says her mom didn't let it define her, although the picture "was always talked about in our family."

"It always stayed with her. She always wanted a better life, you know."

Her mother, she says, was a "very strong lady" who liked to have a good time and listen to music, especially the yodeler named Montana Slim. She laughs when she recalls her brothers bringing home a skinny greyhound pooch. "Mom, Montana Slim is outside," they said.

The differences in how white folks who are in poverty are treated compared to brown skinned people is really upsetting to me. While a picture of a white family brought help and change from the government--the same picture of a brown family would get ignored if the community was lucky or an ICE raid if they weren't. The life the woman describes here is no different than what Mexicans (among other groups) are living right now today--but nobody considers that a tragedy. And in light of what happened to the black immigrant worker whose life was made less valuable that a 69$ camera by shoppers, I have to ask all those who insist that unions are no longer necessary--are you serious?

Bush said that one of his biggest disappointments was the failure to pass a comprehensive bill on immigration reform.

"I firmly believe that the immigration debate really didn't show the true nature of America as a welcoming society," he said. "I fully understand we need to enforce law and enforce borders. But the debate took on a tone that undermined the true greatness of America, which is that we welcome people who want to work hard and support their families."

Post extendido - Leer más 'Regrets Only : Bush is Sorry About Immigration and Iraq'...

Aside from the political side of the story — which is likely overblown in that the Obama administration’s backing away appears more a matter of changed timing than a shift in its supportive position — the text of the story itself gives an unusually clear window into how bias in the media works. 

Note first the text of the story in using inflammatory and sweeping language to describe President Reagan’s tenure:

The new law could be the most consequential social and economic policy shift since President Reagan reshaped the country by slashing taxes and regulation and crushing unions.

Would the Las Vegas Sun characterize an Obama administration economic policy as “raising taxes and regulation and crushing business”?  I seriously doubt it.

But more seriously biased is how the story treats the substantive issue itself.  The case in favor of the union position is presented in glowing and charitable terms:

The law would allow workers to form a union by signing cards instead of voting in a secret-ballot election, stiffen penalties for employers who commit unfair labor practices during organizing drives and impose binding arbitration in bargaining cases in which the sides cannot agree. Unions argue that those changes will level a playing field that has tilted toward business at the expense of labor for decades.

Well who could possibly oppose that?  We should certainly stop those abusive employers and seek arbitration, right?  And it is especially important to “level a playing field that has tilted towards business”?

Unfortunately, of course, they don’t answer the question of who could oppose it or why.  They cast opponents in purely procedural terms, without ever presenting the actual basis for their opposition:

The chamber deployed a network of operatives in a number of key Senate races this year and campaigned aggressively — on the air and on the ground — against the card-check legislation. It will be maintaining those operations, hoping to win over some senators and peel back others, in addition to running TV ads. Last week it released the first in a series of reports refuting what it calls union rhetoric.

In truth, the basis for opposing card check is that it is potentially even more abusive to workers than the mostly mythical claims of employer abusiveness now.  The cards that are signed are offered to workers directly by union organizers.  Workers feel compelled to sign in order to comply with the in-your-face demand of the organizer, especially when they know that they may find themselves out of a job if the union organizes without their profession of support on the card.  If they resist signing the card, they may also face threats of violence or property damage for their “betrayal”.

Traditionally, the best check on this potential for abuse is the secret ballot, where workers who may not want to pay union dues (much of which can be diverted to political causes as determined by the union leaders, not the individual members) and to have their jobs dependant upon the continued goodwill of potentially corrupt union leaders can evade the ability of union organizers to use social pressure, threats, or intimidation.  Because the secret ballot has so often allowed workers to break free from union organizers’ coercion is precisely why the union organizers want to revoke it.  Contrary to their narrative, Reagan didn’t “crush unions” in most cases of the two-decade decline in union membership, the workers themselves declined to join.  Union leaders want to strengthen their hand against the workers more than against the companies or the government.

Of course, to read the Las Vegas Sun, you would be made aware of exactly none of that.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

The Washington Post is reporting that the state is attempting a different approach, with the aim of assimilating, not isolating, the undocumented...

Recommendations include shortening the Medicaid residency requirements for certain qualified immigrants, offering in-state tuition to immigrants who meet specific criteria and creating an immigration assistance office.

In the coming weeks, the Virginia Commission on Immigration will send Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) two dozen recommendations, most of which would help immigrants instead of penalizing them...

The commission proposed increasing the number of English classes and creating a plan to address the needs of foreign-born residents. It also urged the federal government to compile more complete immigration statistics, increase the number of visas for foreign workers and pass comprehensive immigration legislation.

Post extendido - Leer más 'Virginia tries to Change It's Tune In Terms of Immigrant Policy'...

Q: Do you see immigration as more of a problem or more of an opportunity?

More of an opportunity: France 46% - US 33%
More of a problem: France 35% - US 50%

Respondents who disagree: US 48% - France 70%

Comment from Transatlantic Trends: “Of all countries surveyed, the French public was the only one to strongly reject the idea that immigration increases crime. While public opinion in the other countries surveyed was either split (47% of Americans agreed, 48% disagreed) or the majority agreed that immigration will increase crime (53% in the U.K. and Poland, 57% in Germany, 61% in the Netherlands and 66% in Italy), only 28% of the French public agreed (while 70% disagreed). Among those who disagreed, 76% had a friend or colleague from another country.”

Q: Do immigrants take away jobs from native-born workers?

Respondents who agree: France 24% - US 51%

Comment from Transatlantic Trends: [A] majority of Americans believed that immigrants take jobs away from workers in their labor market. Interestingly, educational level was not a predictor of sentiment on this issue in the United States. Of the most highly-educated Americans—those with graduate degrees—39% still believed that immigrants take jobs away from natives. In Europe, by contrast, only 17% of the same highly-educated group agreed.

Q: Should legal immigrants be given the opportunity to stay permanently instead of being admitted only temporarily?

Legal immigrants should stay: France 72% - US 62%

[What do you wanna bet that had our responses be more negative the WaPo would have mentioned France in its article about the report?]

Report’s key findings (and more facts).
Report data (and even more facts).

Previous facts for the lesson-givers.

Still, surprisingly, Mr Obama has made some foreign policy committment to Africa - e.g. assistance with funding for ARV for HIV patients. Something for Africans to be optimistic about though it’s not quite the equivalent of visa-free travel to the US that many were secretly hoping for in Kenya.

Not only has Obama started to surround himself by (former) Clintonistas, which is a hopeful sign indeed, it seems likely that Hillary Clinton herself will become his Secretary of State.

Clinton is much more hawkish that Obama. She is a staunch supporter of Israel, supported the war in Iraq, and seems determined not to let Iran develop nuclear weapons. Obama seems a different kind of politician himself, but it is highly unlikely that Clinton would be willing to work for an administration which she would deem overly dovish.

Then there is Secretary of Defense Robert Gates; a true, old school Republican realist. President George W. Bush chose Gates as his SecDef after the horrendous and highly authoritarian Donald Rumsfeld resigned. Unlike his predecessor, Gates was able to communicate and work well with the State department, military leaders and foreign politicians such as Nouri al-Maliki. Gen. David Petraeus is often credited with turning the tide in Iraq but Gates’ role in the process should not be ignored; he too played a major role in bringing the different factions in the Middle Eastern country together.

As if that is not enough, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) has been chosen to head the Department of Homeland Security. Napolitano is a Democrat, of course, but she does well with Independent and moderate voters. She is a hard worker and a pragmatist rather than an ideologue. When the illegal immigration problem became prominent Napolitano did not focus on the illegal immigrants themselves but on the institutions that allowed foreigners to move so easily into the U.S. illegally. Conservative immigration hawks may not like her too much, deeming her soft on illegal immigration, but the rest can certainly live with her.

Since Napolitano is only 50 years old, she will turn 51 November 29, she may very well be her party’s presidential frontrunner in 2016, if Barack Obama performs well as president, serves two terms and does not become an albatross around the neck of fellow Democrats like George Bush became for Republicans. She is only 50 years old, but cannot run for governor again due to term limits. She could run for Senate, by taking over Sen. John McCain’s seat in 2012 when he is expected to retire, but becoming part of Obama’s administration would make even more sense for a woman with her experience, especially if she believes that Obama will serve two terms and retire with high approval ratings.

Whatever the future holds for Napolitano one gets the impression that President Obama will govern from the center (or relatively so). And that is good news for all of us, especially for those who feared that Obama would govern like he legislated in Senate; from the far left.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Lopez, who immigrated illegally from Mexico with his family when he was 3, said it has been torturous waiting to know what would happen to his mother, Consuelo Vega Nava.

After her arrest officials transferred her to a federal prison in Leavenworth, Kan., and then later to a Florida facility before her deportation to Mexico.

Lopez, who has not seen his mother since May 12, said he will be reunited with her when he returns to Mexico next month.

"I've missed those days when me and my mom would just walk or go get an ice cream," he said. "I don't want this to be forgotten."

The practice of moving imprisoned people away from their families is not a new or unusual practice. It, in my opinion, is an illegal and immoral practice, one that the U.S. should be ashamed of participating in. Punishing through incarceration is one thing, punishing through denial of family is something else all together. The denial of access to family is what the dictatorships we abhor so much do.

If we can't agree on immigration as a whole, let's agree on the treatment of imprisoned people. Family integrity should be respected as much as possible for ALL imprisoned people. Period.

A study released last week by the Center for Public Policy Priorities (CPPP) found that:

...more than 43,000 undocumented, unaccompanied children have been mistreated while in custody and denied access to representation by Customs and Border Protection (Border Patrol) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and then transported home unsafely.

The treatment of children reported is downright criminal and abusive. Pero since they are "illegals", "aliens" , and potential criminals they don't deserve basics like water, food, or a blanket to keep warm.

In clear violation of international and U.S. child welfare standards, our interviews with the Mexican and Honduran children uncovered troubling claims of child abuse and maltreatment by U.S. Border Patrol officers, including: • Inattention to repeated requests for medical attention; • No access to water while in the border patrol station; • Having to sleep on the floor without a blanket in a heavily air conditioned cell; • Not being given any or enough food; • Not being allowed to contact family; • Being struck and knocked down by agents; • Being handcuffed; and • Being transported “like dogs,” in kennel like compartments.

Post extendido - Leer más 'U.S. Immigration Policy : Women and Children Last'...