Chaparral respects no borders

Federal Goverment Prefers Their Way Better Than Arpaio's

2011-12-15T21:51:00.000-08:00

The federal government has finally decided it doesn't exactly like how Arpaio has been enforcing immigration, huh? Admittedly I can't help but get a little kick out of the blow to Arpaio's ego (and career?) but at the same time, I really can't stand the idea that people would be celebrating the federal government for finally putting their foot down against maltreatment of migrants. Why?

I broke it down almost three years ago in my blog post, Federal Government will not be Maricopa County's Savior, one of the main points being that the federal government is just as bad if not worse in handling the immigration issue. I think of Arpaio as an extremist clown- he is a spectacle that pushes the limits of what the public will accept. He makes nearly everyone else who is pro-immigration enforcement (aside from Pearce who was right there with him) look responsible and reasonable. So the federal government militarizes the border, holds thousands of migrants in detention centers and/or deports them, still conducts huge raids (Obama's raids surpassed previous ones, i.e. here and here), etc,. but they get to decide, to the delight of many, that Arpaio just went to far because he's been using his federal authority to discriminate.

"The Department of Homeland Security is troubled by the Department of Justice's findings of discriminatory policing practices within the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office," Napolitano said in a statement. "Discrimination undermines law enforcement and erodes the public trust. DHS will not be a party to such practices. Accordingly, and effective immediately, DHS is terminating MCSO's 287(g) jail model agreement and is restricting the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office access to the Secure Communities program." (Source).

Apparently the federal government knows how not to erode the public trust. For similar reasons I have a problem with people focusing on the "innocent" victims of racial profiling and such. Sure, go after the real criminals, we won't question that concept, just as long as all the people caught up in the deportation/detention system are the ones you say you're going after- because blatant maliciousness and hypocrisy erode the public trust, the status quo doesn't.

Yes, I'd like to see Arpaio gone, just as I liked seeing Russell Pearce gone (it'd be better if he was goner) but the illusion of victory distracts from what's really happening. As I've mentioned numerous times, the Phoenix PD continues to deport more people than MCSO, but they do it without all the media hubbub, and therefore without comment from Stephen Lemons and migrant rights groups. Arpaio is the face that can be pasted to a piñata, but he's not the only one we should be hitting with the metaphorical (or not) stick.

Some of what I wrote in early 2009 is pretty out-dated, but the following concluding paragraphs are more timeless.

One problem with appealing to the government is that to do so would require not being a threat. But any real just solution to the “immigration problem”, inevitably involving the dismantling of NAFTA and other neoliberal projects, as well as a serious change in social/political structure, is and always will be a threat to the government.

Another problem is that the government has an interest in appearing to be able and willing to deliver justice. But overall it is not in its interest to truly liberate the people from injustice and in fact its existence is actually antithetical to such an action. It would like to have people ask instead of demand changes, however, and would like us to think of it as a benevolent force in such cases when it’s actually worth the time to make reforms that benefit the people. Therefore, if we ask and they give, they are the heroes. If we demand and they give, they are still the heroes although we still have some sense of having played a part.

Related, the government is not a just one. We cannot expect a government that has been built on racism and continues to practice it in various ways (much higher rates of incarceration of people of color than whites, lack of indigenous rights, wars, just to name some examples) to be a force against white supremacy. The operator of immigration detention centers (or the ones who outsource private detention facilities), the performer of raids, is not the one whose going to save us from the similar actions of the Sheriff. He is doing their work for them. He's just doing it in an extra "look how demeaning i can be to these people" way. If the federal government does anything about it, it will only be to legitimize and continue its own actions and those of other jurisdictions.

Law Enforcement Doesn't Stop Sexual Assault: On the MCSO Controversy

2011-12-10T13:24:00.000-08:00

Trigger Warning: Sexual Assault

While it's embarrassing for the MCSO that former investigators' claims led to media attention such as MCSO priorities blamed for sex-crimes snafu, I cringe when thinking about how this will be framed, as usual, that regular police departments who are not led by extremist clowns like Arpaio, do a fine job at dealing with sex-crimes. Interestingly, the articles I read barely mention Arpaio's focus on immigration, whereas independent media like Sheriff Arpaio ignored rape cases for years does. It is clear that solving sexual assault cases took a back seat to the politically-motivated anti-immigrant campaign of attrition. Yet this is not to insinuate that law enforcement is meant to prevent or even solve crime for the most part- particularly when it happens to especially-marginalized people.

Let's contrast this recent MCSO controversy with the situation that is rarely talked about: Immigrant Detainees: The New Sex Abuse Crisis.

There is abundant evidence that rape is a systemic problem in our immigration detention facilities—for women, for men, and, as the Women’s Refugee Commission has documented, for children. In 2010, Human Rights Watch released a report based on over fifty known incidents and allegations of sexual abuse of immigration detainees. The American Civil Liberties Union has discovered 185 government reports of such allegations since 2007, and a senior ACLU staff attorney says this is only “the tip of the iceberg.”

For crossing a man-made line in the sand in an unauthorized way, people are made particularly vulnerable to abuses inside and outside the prison system. Sometimes the coyotes assault those they're helping to smuggle across the border. Men have dressed as ICE agents to assault women. Real ICE agents, police, and detention officers get away with abuses of this sort all the time. Whether this behavior is excused or ignored because of racism or because the survivor is "illegal", it is made easier and more commonplace because of the criminalization of people.

Police or ICE officials sometimes make themselves out to be saviors of people held against their will, such as in drop-house busts in cases where migrants are held for ransom, only to turn around and hold the migrants in their own cages, where many of the same abuses occur. The question that arises while people are calling out Arpaio for de-prioritizing sexual assault cases is, whose bodily integrity matters? Are we considering the cases of those who get picked up for overstaying their visa? Do they even have the choice to report the crimes perpetrated against them?

Terrified of deportation and separation from their families, immigrants in detention are often extremely reluctant to file grievances against facilities run by the very people who can expel them from the country; and there is little question that deportation is sometimes used as retribution against immigration detainees who complain, and sometimes as a way of forestalling investigations into abuses. And it’s clear that facilities holding people who do not feel able to complain are particularly fertile grounds for abuse, as are institutions that can easily deport witnesses against them.

What comes to mind is the situation with criminalization of sex-workers, especially where it overlaps with immigration. While sex-trafficking does occur, laws that are written to supposedly curb sex-trafficking actually make things worse for sex-workers.

As Nandita Sharma said in an interview,

Anti-trafficking legislation is used to target so-called “illegal migration.” Instead of placing the blame for migrants’ vulnerability on the restrictive immigration policies of national states that force people into a condition of illegality, it blames those who are actually facilitating their movement across borders... Anti-trafficking legislation criminalizes people who facilitate migrants’ entry into national states. I think this is the underlying agenda behind anti-trafficking legislation. It offers ideological cover to target both the migrants themselves and the people who facilitate their movement. In this way, anti-trafficking legislation strengthens border policing...

Let me give you two examples of how anti-trafficking legislation actually increases the vulnerability and exploitation that many women migrants face. First, anti-trafficking legislation targets people who are helping women cross borders. This raises the cost of moving across borders and, as a result, women have to go further into debt in order to do so. Second, by imposing these enormous penalties – which, in Canada, can include a life-sentence and in the United States can include a death sentence – those facilitating movement make migrants use routes that are less safe. People are being forced to cross borders in very vulnerable places like deserts and mountains, places where hundreds of migrant bodies are found dead every year. Anti-trafficking legislation is thus making migration less safe for women.

Jessica Yee was also interviewed:

Women around the world, especially racialized women, shoulder the burden of labour that doesn’t get acknowledged or reported. Forced labour and exploitation are reported even less. When we’re talking about “trafficking,” people assume we’re talking only about sex work, and only about cross-border trafficking. We need to remind ourselves that sexual slavery and the forcing of sexual acts are not the only kinds of exploitation, even though they seem particularly salacious compared to other forms of forced labour. We also need to understand that “trafficking” takes place within nation states, and against Indigenous people.

Many people uncritically accept the conflation of trafficking and sex work. The same people who think it is taboo to talk about sex are the first to suggest that this is the number one issue of forced labour, but it’s not. And people who are actually being trafficked and moved against their will receive no attention because the state is so focused on raiding massage parlours and arresting women who are sex workers. This neglect occurs in the name of righteousness and “saving” women, yet it is merely the further colonization of women’s bodies, women’s spaces, and women’s choices.

(Listen to the radio show here).

This is all to familiar to those of us who had been following the situation of the migrants in Maricopa County who were charged with conspiracy in human smuggling cases. Even though the law wasn't meant to go after migrants themselves, hundreds of migrants were charged with conspiracy by MCSO over the last few years. While many who didn't take a guilty plea were not convicted, MCSO was still able to get them caught up in the legal system because they could take them in under reasonable suspicion. And even though the authors of the bill said they didn't intend for the law to be used that way, it was clearly an effort to cut down on migration, while likely increasing the risks of those involved in a similar way as the sex-trafficking laws discussed above. This is also similar to the ways in which the Employer Sanctions Law should really be called the Employee Sanctions Law because many more employees have been arrested under the guise of going after employers, few of whom have seen any consequences (Another workplace raid targets workers not bosses).

The criminalization of unauthorized movement, drugs, and sex-work is done allegedly for the sake of minimizing violence, issues of security, and health problems, when in fact it perpetuates these things.
The badges, guns, and official vehicles, this assumption that law enforcement are never/rarely law-breakers, allows violations to occur against people, not to mention the drug smuggling enabled by the authority provided to various agents (Mexican Smugglers Exploit the Corrupt Reputation of U.S. Border Officers). This is not about the unfortunate bad apples who spoil the barrel- this is a systemic, institutional problem. And even while Arpaio gets publicly called out for deprioritizing sex-crimes, it is not as though the media doesn't praise the (other) police as well as perpetuate victim-blaming.

ALEC Resistance Continues with SRP Protest

2011-12-03T09:02:00.000-08:00

As a follow-up to my last post, I want to say, that I had not closely seen the banners in the following photo, which clearly show a more radical message. Of course there were others, but I felt that overall it was not an adequate attempt at drawing a bigger picture of people. It's difficult however, as when I found myself explaining ALEC to passersby tonight, since so few people have ever heard of it, it makes sense to just stick to the basics. Anyway, these banners had great messaging.

When I wrote my last piece I also make a distinction between tactics and message. I include the call for shutting down ALEC more as tactics than messaging. Again, many people were down with the "shutdown" message as well as the actual tactics which were as close as could be gotten to that goal, which you can read about here.

Check out this zine also: N30 Shutdown ALEC zine

I was delightfully surprised about the protest planned for the morning of Dec 2nd at the Salt River Project (SRP), which is a local energy company and an ALEC board member, and has collaborated with Peabody Coal (another ALEC member) for resource extraction. I wasn't aware of the issues with SRP specifically and so I imagine very few other people were until this action. This action definitely addressed the broader issue of colonization, which was present at the N30 event, but perhaps a bit drowned out. Although several people involved with Occupy Phoenix showed up, some of whom were down with what was going on while others didn't get it but showed up because they got the message to, this action steered away from the occupy message. It helped to make clear that the opposition to ALEC is not just coming out of occupy, even though the media seems to be portraying the N30 action that way.

Please check out the following independent media: BREAKING NEWS: Indigenous Elders & Supporters Occupy ALEC Member Salt River Project Headquarters
PHOTOS & VIDEO Indigenous Elders & Supporters Occupy ALEC Member Salt River Project Headquarters
and more at http://azresistsalec.wordpress.com/

ALEC Protests: Any more radical than Bush protests?

2011-12-01T11:55:00.000-08:00

Considering that ALEC has not been shut down (yet?), I'm concerned that some of the message has been lost in the interest of gaining numbers and exposure. I do think it's important to expose ALEC, and that has been accomplished on a large scale over the last year, with this protest in Scottsdale being the largest and most militant yet.

I've been concerned about ALEC being the new public enemy #1 when in fact they are just a good example of the larger system(s) at work that affect laws to the benefit of the rich and powerful. So we're talking colonization, capitalism, slavery and the continued criminalization of people of color, which included borders and prisons, etc. There certainly are benefits to the exposure of the World Trade Organization (WTO) culminating 12 years ago, but in a sense, it focused on neo-liberalism/globalization at the expense of a focus on capitalism.

While ALEC came to be exposed to us in AZ because of its links to SB1070 and private prisons, I was concerned that the private-ness of prisons would be the focus, rather than the history of criminalization people, primarily people of color, which has also benefited the rich and powerful. But while I don't know a lot about the messages coming out of the liberal/progressive/democrat groups that are also opposing ALEC, it seems that even the private prison connection is not the main focus. And with the occupy rhetoric, ALEC can just be understood as representing the 1%.

Today I asked myself what made these ALEC protests different than the old Bush protests where democrats and anarchists gathered together to oppose a common enemy. Not to say we shouldn't oppose a common enemy, but it is clear to anarchists (for the most part) that democrats can be just as bad if not worse in their slimy deceptive ways. Or they don't have to be deceptive, it's that those who would oppose Obama's higher rates of raids and deportations are more isolated because the left is too afraid or enamored to oppose Obama. It's similar to how Arpaio has been the face of evil anti-immigrant schemes, while the Phoenix PD has made more arrests than MCSO and with hardly a peep from the immigrants' rights movement.

All this is intended as constructive criticism and self-criticism. What is it that we'll wish we had done differently, and is it to late? The indigenous gathering was very encouraging. There will be more media releases that address the wider context. It was great that the "SHUTDOWN ALEC" message did not alienate many people, even if it hasn't resulted in the achievement of that goal. I hope that now that ALEC has been further exposed, we can bring the bigger issues into the forefront. Because if ALEC didn't exist, there would still be prisons, borders, colonization...

It's the never-ending conundrum: say what only anarchists will say at the risk of total isolation, or compromise a bit in hopes that people will slowly be drawn towards being open to what only anarchists will say. I honestly fall somewhere in the middle of these, but sometimes more towards the former.

See also: ALEC protest Wednesday
ALEC in context...
Private Prisons in a Wider Context: Video

ALEC protest Wednesday

2011-11-27T23:27:00.000-08:00

Check out http://azresistsalec.wordpress.com for more info.

Wednesday is November 30, which is the 12th anniversary of the WTO protests in Seattle. It's also the first main day of the ALEC States and Nation's Summit in Snottsdale. This is the Summit at which two years ago they agreed upon SB1070 becoming one of their many pieces of model legislation, which corporations and legislators collude on propagating across the country. In the case of SB1070 and legislature before it (three strikes laws, mandatory minimums, etc.), the three largest private prison companies in the country were involved in the discussions. It also turns out that various companies involved in resource extraction are also involved.

I haven't spent much time on the details about ALEC because ALEC is just an example of what happens on a large scale, everyday and with a long history. There are many horrible things about ALEC, but they didn't create the border wall, they didn't build the prisons. Sheriff Joe's jail is as bad or worse than any private prison or detention center, with the temps reaching 117 in tent city this summer. When I first learned about ALEC last fall, i wrote What came first: the Racism or the Profit Motive? which i would write a bit differently today, but has some important questions within. Now i would answer that question by describing it as an intricate combination of the two. I do believe that people will try to profit off something that is already happening, as in the case of private prisons, and that they do try to shape how we see different populations so as to justify criminalization (not to mention the ways that other interests seek to justify exploitation- and this is justified partly through criminalization). But i also think that there is a history of racism that this concept of privatized prisons is built upon. Yet at the same time, as i discussed, this racism is built on a desire for stability for the rich and has ultimately resulted in a divided working class that could not rebel in unity, and therefore could not successfully rebel.

Based on this, i was motivated to create this video, which is explained further at this link: Private Prisons in a Wider Context (maybe you watched part one, but did you watch part two?). It brings the focus more towards a historical arc that incorporates colonization, the criminalization of slaves then ex-slaves, and the continuation of criminalization of people of color. This doesn't have to be directly for profit as in the case of private prisons.

Anyway, hope to see you out at the ALEC protest events (there's more going on than just wednesday by the way).

ALEC in context...

2011-11-21T15:39:00.000-08:00

This is the text of a flier, which can be viewed or printed, here.

What!? Politicians and private companies get together to create laws that benefit those companies? AZ Senator Russell Pearce and other legislators from around the U.S. meet in a group called ALEC*.
You never thought it would be so blatant as private prison companies** having a say in laws that can create more demand for their facilities and services. How could people be criminalized so companies can profit from imprisoning them?!?! Not only is ALEC behind mandatory minimums and three strikes laws, they also had a hand in SB1070. When they see immigrants, they see dollar signs, and so they participate with other racists to paint immigrants as a problem--deserving of imprisonment. This is nothing new...

The deviousness that occurs within ALEC is just an example of how people are criminalized for profit. But it does not have to be as directly profitable as this. Colonization has of course provided settlers with land and other resources at the expense of those who are native.

Slave codes & convict leasing created crimes that made it easier to exploit the labor of people of color. Criminalizing unauthorized migration did the same thing, specifically affecting the Chinese and Mexicans for many decades. More recently, the drug war also criminalizes people of color more disproportionately to maintain racist policies without them appearing race-based.

* American Legislative Exchange Council ** Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and Geo Group are the largest private prison companies.

More info: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDtTK1uxrg

Satire for Russell Pearce- again, because he's GONE

2011-11-09T10:02:00.000-08:00

I haven't posted in a while as things seem somewhat tame for a bit, and I've been working on other projects.

In celebration of Russell Pearce's ouster, i'd like to repost this piece i compiled/edited/wrote which i have always felt somewhat awkward about, but nonetheless gets the point across in a more creative way.

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Satire for Russell Pearce

No more catch and release of the unwelcome male
(or, what if you took the extremist position of our anti-immigrant Arizona Senator Russell Pearce, and put it in a different context?)
by Senator Valerie Solanas Pearce

I sat ashen as I watched the news reports. Several chiefs of police stood at a press conference and publicly refused to enforce the law. Less than a month after the brutal murder of a police officer at the hands of a male, they snubbed the opportunity to make necessary changes and violated their oaths of office for the sake of political correctness. Meanwhile, people are killed, maimed and raped. Men cost citizens billions to educate, medicate and incarcerate, and they take jobs from women.

Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to prevent the potential crimes that men commit, by destroying or at least repressing the entire male class. I will not stand by and be a spectator to male-perpetrated violence because we refuse to enforce our laws and fail to put women first.

The courts have not identified any policy or humanitarian argument that would negate the fact that men in the United States are more likely to abuse others. The male is, by his very nature, a leech, an emotional parasite and, therefore, not ethically entitled to live, as no one has the right to life at someone else's expense.

Women have a constitutional right to expect the protection of federal laws that prohibit unauthorized activities by men, cluttering up the world with their ignominious presence, and are denied equal protection by law enforcement, police departments or magistrates that fail to enforce those laws.

This is the only law we put conditions on before a police officer can enforce it. Men as a social category are the only criminals we protect by policies. No other crime or criminal gets this protection by our elected officials. The sick, irrational men, those who attempt to defend themselves against their disgustingness, when they see us barreling down on them, will cling in terror to Big Mama with her Big Bouncy Boobies, but Boobies won't protect them against us; Big Mama will be clinging to Big Daddy, who will be in the corner shitting in his forceful, dynamic pants.

Studies and reports have cited alarming statistics: Men commit about 91% of all homicides, and they commit 98% of all sexual assaults. Gratuitous violence, besides 'proving' he's a 'Man', serves as an outlet for his hate and, in addition--the male being capable only of sexual responses and needing very strong stimuli to stimulate his half-dead self--provides him with a little sexual thrill.

Phoenix runs second in the world in kidnappings and third in the United States for violence. Arizona has become the home-invasion, carjacking, identity-theft capital of the nation. These are not statistics Arizona should be famous for.

The elimination of any male is, therefore, a righteous and good act, an act highly beneficial to women as well as an act of mercy. Enough is enough. The laws must be enforced.

I pledge that if we eliminate all men in this state, the result will be less crime and lower taxes. The costs of these crimes are far more than financial to our citizens, and HB 2280 will help make Arizona a safer place.

"What is this?" you must be asking. An op-ed piece taken from a sci-fi novel depicting a feminist semi-utopia? Well, it is a stretch to imagine women's livelihood and bodily integrity being considered valuable, much less a priority, but it is not sci-fi or fantasy. This is a hodgepodge of an editorial by Russell Pearce with some nouns and statistics altered, with some gems from Valerie Solanas’s SCUM Manifesto (SCUM stands for Society for Cutting Up Men).

While I disagree with most of Solanas's manifesto, it is an example of an extremist position. And though Russell Pearce, our dishonorable anti-immigrant senator, would be repulsed by the SCUM Manifesto, I insist that his position is equally unreasonable. He has been advocating for dealing with the crimes committed by some of a certain class of people by removing the whole class of people (undocumented immigrants), even though those crimes are also committed by others. He has praised Sheriff Arpaio for being the only one to do “preventive law enforcement”. What can be made of that other than he prefers to stop crime before it is even committed. What happened to “innocent until proven guilty”?

Of course, Pearce is saying that undocumented immigrants have already committed the crime inherent in being in the country illegally, though clearly he needs to defend this point ad nauseam because crossing a man-made line is just not something most people find important. The satirical piece is a bit of an exaggeration, as Pearce probably wouldn't publish such harsh words about immigrants as Solanas did about men. For one, he learned his lesson when he forwarded out an email from the National Alliance, a white supremacist organization. And two, it's just not politically useful. In addition, Pearce doesn't have to make insults--it is implicit in his position. He unflinchingly equates all undocumented immigrants with murderers and rapists.

The change in references to “illegals” to men in Pearce's op-ed were made so one can see that he is targeting a whole class of people to prevent the violent crimes that some of them commit. No doubt it seemed really extreme to the reader, particularly because men in general are not seen as the "other" like immigrants are. Despite the fact that the statistics about men committing such crimes are true and far worse than the statistics about undocumented immigrants, no one, aside from Valerie Solanas perhaps (tho she seemed less concerned about violence than men’s dullness and egocentricity), would propose that such pre-crime fighting should be exercised to thwart male-perpetrated violence.

What would seem absurd to most people, unfortunately, is to actually get at the root of the problem regarding violent crime. Mental health issues, poverty, social alienation; racist, heterosexist, capitalist patriarchy. But instead, undocumented immigrants are scapegoated for various problems including the crimes that a few commit, usually due to the fact that they must live a criminal, clandestine, and desperate lifestyle, one which is rewarded by exploiting others. Meanwhile there are worse criminals who don't have to be secretive because they are part of the establishment.

Russell Pearce's op-eds which ran with similar tho not exact text in two publications: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/141045
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2009/06/24/20090624pearce25.html
The SCUM Manifesto: http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm

ALEC thinks they're meeting in Scottsdale, AZ this November...

2011-08-14T13:21:00.000-07:00

ALEC thinks they're meeting in Scottsdale, AZ this November...

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a massive non-profit body that brings corporations and legislators together to draft "model" legislation. For example, AZ Senator Russell Pearce and Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the nation's largest private prison firm, have been members for years. ALEC finalized the model legislation which became, almost word for word, Arizona's SB1070, aka "Support Our Law Enforcement." It's the latest in the historical pattern of colonization, slave codes, convict leasing, and the drug war, that CREATES crimes and therefore criminals, for profit.

With British Petroleum (BP) and the Koch brothers as some of their funders, ALEC has pushed for Three Strikes and Mandatory Minimum sentencing, as well as the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. More than 200 of ALEC's model bills became actual laws throughout the country over the past year.

We're a group of people in occupied Indigenous lands, now called Arizona, who demand the end of SB1070 and 287g, the criminalization—and then the incarceration—of migrants, and the militarization of the border. We oppose private prisons, detention centers, and security companies, not simply because they are private, but because we are sickened by profiteering on human misery. ALEC desires "free markets" and "limited government," which means they use the state to support profit-making, the continuance of colonization, and neo-liberal policies (NAFTA, CANAMEX, etc.) that draw lines, make laws, and build freeways and prisons to exploit labor and the earth.

Whether maintained by the state or corporations, we're against all systems of control. We are for freedom of movement for all people.

ALEC should know there are a million better things to do with their time than plotting mass incarceration. But there’s nowhere we’d rather be than confronting their meeting. We're calling for four days of action here in occupied Onk Akimel O’odham lands from November 29th - December 3rd, 2011, with an emphasis for action on November 30th (N30!). We encourage a creative diversity of tactics on N30, the 12th anniversary of the Seattle uprising against the WTO. No matter the acronym, ALEC is no different than all the other gangs of businessmen, politicians, and bureaucrats that we’ve been resisting for over 500 years.

In solidarity with everyone locked up and locked down in AZ, and all O’odham, Yaqui, Lipan Apache separated by the border, and anyone dispossessed by the wealthy and powerful…

Project Baldwin
projectbaldwin@riseup.net

see also: azresistsalec.wordpress.com

NOLA Anarcha- Why Anarchists Should Protest the ALEC Conference

2011-07-22T12:04:00.000-07:00

It is important for everyone interested in the topics I write on here to know what ALEC is. I've written a bit about it on a few occasions, and included a bit about them in the video I compiled.

ALEC is meeting in New Orleans in just a few short weeks. ALEC protests have thus far mostly called for transparency and similar watered-down demands. The article I include below calls on anarchists to participate. What I like about the article is that it argues that anarchists should be involved not so much because of the specifics of ALEC's heinousness, but because of what they represent.

While ALEC's dealings aren't a meaningful divergence from the normal machinations of power, it is easier for people to see that the system's a sham, and easier for them to finger the true culprits, when corporations are writing their own legislation. This is why the anti-ALEC organizing to confront those economic power structures is worth supporting.

The article below didn't emphasize the privateness of prisons the way a lot of websites and articles do. At the same time, the reason I put together the video "Private Prisons in a Wider Context" is because ALEC and privatization of prisons is part of a broader trajectory that we must oppose on that macro scale, which is something I'm seeing very little discussion of so far.

Why Anarchists Should Protest the ALEC Conference in New Orleans, August 5th
via NOLA Anarcha Blog ---

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is coming to town! They are a bunch of nasty fuckers who bring corporations together with state legislators so corporate lawyers can hand pre-written bills to the politicians, who then try to get the bills passed in their state legislatures.

ALEC has been making the news a lot recently, with NPR pieces[pt.1, pt.2] about how, in meetings with private prison corporations, they wrote the infamous SB1070, the anti-immigrant law that anarchists and others have been fighting against in Arizona.

Leaked documents from inside ALEC prompted an interview segment on Democracy Now! The documents show that ALEC, in partnership with it's corporate members, actually wrote many pro-corporate laws that have since gone into effect, including free trade agreements that were a main focus of the anti-globalization movement many anarchists participated in after the WTO protests in Seattle in 1999.

And on the Huffington Post, an article explains how ALEC is carrying forward the ideological program of deregulation and privatization pushed by Milton Friedman. This simplistic, fundamentalist capitalist ideology has had many negative local effects, as was mentioned in a recent article on this blog.

Now, anarchists have no illusions about the fact that big business owns and runs the government, but at least corporate power usually fears public anger that arises from the blatant merger of State and corporate power enough to put on a political puppet show for us! Mostly, the way elites legitimize the unequal and unjust system that they preside over to the rest of us is to make sure that it at least has the appearance of people, through elected politicians, getting to decide democratically what happens in our country. ALEC doesn't bother with that populist song and dance, they facilitate the outright penning of legislation by corporations themselves becoming law. So we end up with things like Immigration Policy, brought to you by Corrections Corporation of America! etc...

While ALEC's dealings aren't a meaningful divergence from the normal machinations of power, it is easier for people to see that the system's a sham, and easier for them to finger the true culprits, when corporations are writing their own legislation. This is why the anti-ALEC organizing to confront those economic power structures is worth supporting.

Of course, there will surely be those in the protest calling for the political charade to be played out fully once again, for the kabuki theater to re-close the curtains that shields us from what's happening backstage, so we can once again be whisked away to fairyland, where democracy exists and people power is in charge, and we can return to our peaceful slumber, dreaming the American Dream.

But, there will be also be people protesting who know returning to the democratic facade is not going to solve any of our problems, and that confronting the corporations behind the curtain of our "democracy" is the first step to destroying their control of our lives and communities.

In that spirit, anarchists should come out to the locally-organized ALEC protests in New Orleans (August 5th, 2pm, 500 Poydras St.). Come out not to demand stricter adherence to lobbying laws, more transparency, or less corruption. Come out to demand an end to the power of corporations, and their use of State violence to increase their wealth, and thereby control over our economy, society, and lives. Come out to say that it doesn't matter whether that power is hidden behind the veil of democracy, or is blatantly transparent, as it is with ALEC, that either way it has to be dismantled. Anarchists should come with flags, in black, or with banners and signs to show our united stance, to show that we are not in favor of a return to the democratic political farce, but organizing for an end to capitalist control.

Not only should anarchists participate in the protest on August 5th, but we should organize other actions to confront the corporations who are members of ALEC during the conference, from August 1st-6th. ALEC's members include oil companies responsible for ruining the Gulf and Wetlands, big banks who own hundreds of foreclosed homes in our city while people sleep on the streets, and private prison companies directly profiting from tough on crime laws, the creation of a racist, militarized police state, and booming incarceration rates, which Louisiana leads the nation in. Let's get creative and use their conference to catalyze our own actions to take back our city from these profiteers of human suffering!

Beware the Funders of Immigrants’ Rights

2011-07-04T13:44:00.000-07:00

What would make a giant foundation headed by rich people be interested in donating money to so many groups promoting social justice? What’s Ford Foundation’s interest in all the immigrants’ rights non-profit organizations that are involved in Arizona (and beyond)? While a member of the Board of Trustees at Ford Foundation is simultaneously on the Board of Directors at none other than the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA)[1], Ford funds groups who have campaigns against CCA.[2] Other groups[3] also funded by Ford, are working on campaigns to counter the racist overpopulation myths that have been promoted by institutions like the Population Council who have received close to $100 million from Ford[4]. This speaks not so much of blatant hypocrisy, but that those in charge of the Ford Foundation have a completely different agenda than a lot of the groups they fund.

The publication in 2007 of the book The Revolution Will Not Be Funded put out by INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence sparked discussions about the role of the Non-Profit Industrial Complex (NPIC)[5] in movements. The book delves into “…the way in which capitalist interests and the state use non-profits to (1) monitor and control social justice movements; (2) divert public monies into private hands through foundations; (3) manage and control dissent in order to make the world safe for capitalism; (4) redirect activist energies into career-based modes of organizing instead of mass-based organizing capable of actually transforming society; (5) allow corporations to mask their exploitive and colonial work practices through ‘philanthropic’ work; (6) encourage social movements to model themselves after capitalist structures rather than to challenge them.”[6]

This article will focus on points one and three, addressing not only Ford’s historical involvement with the CIA and violent coups, but also their tendency to channel resistance into “reasonable” and “responsible” activities like legal defense and reform, and how their hollow push for “equality” is part of “progress” on their terms. Although there is emphasis here on the Ford Foundation and how it may impact the immigrants’ rights movement, this article also addresses funding from other foundations[7], private donors and the government, which may have similar impacts on groups, as does the desire to win over politicians, mainstream media, etc. This is about whether the world we want to live in is compatible with that of any funder or anyone in positions of power whether they’re promoting social justice or not. This is about how people orient themselves in relation to the current power structure.

History of Manipulation

Many of us are engaged in a battle against the deeply engrained myths about overpopulation which are part of the attack on the fourteenth amendment which gives citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. The argument that immigration means overpopulation and destruction, reeking of racism, has infiltrated various sectors of politics and activism, including environmental groups. These myths can partly be traced back to the Population Council, which Ford Foundation has been funding since 1954. What does it mean for organizations working to fight these ideas about immigrants and overpopulation to accept Ford Foundation funding?

A little context: “The 1957 report of an ad hoc committee, consisting of representatives from the Population Council…outlined the emerging strategy of population control. Titled Population: An International Dilemma, the report depicted population growth as a major threat to political stability both at home and abroad.”[8] As I have written in “Invasion by Birth Canal?” “The efforts to supposedly end poverty through population control…is actually an attempt to decrease the threats that Black/Brown and poor people’s desires for freedom and equality (or even just survival) represent to these systems,” and to deflect responsibility for the poverty which is usually due to “resource/labor extraction as part of colonialism, capitalism, and neo-liberalism.”[9] Ford Foundation and others, making themselves out to be benevolent funders of the “empowerment” and “education” of poor (brown) women, are making deflecting responsibility for poverty and environmental problems onto these same women in the U.S. and abroad.

Ford Foundation, along with other institutions has sought stability across the world including within the US. In so doing, it has made itself a player in supporting the promotion of population control, as well as Capitalist-influenced economic change that has been accompanied by coups and horrendous human rights abuses, such as in Indonesia:

“Sukarno’s independent foreign policy greatly antagonized Western powers, and during his regime international agencies such as the Ford Foundation focused on sending the country’s intellectual elite [known later as the Berkeley Mafia] abroad for training, in the hope that one day they would inherit power. Their investment paid off in 1966, when a bloody military coup, which left a million dead, brought the country’s current ruler, General Suharto, to power. Under the influence of Western-trained technocrats, Suharto embraced the philosophy of population control. Today he has become one of its most prominent spokesmen in the Third World.” Naomi Klein describes Ford’s involvement a bit more in depth, “The Berkeley Mafia had studied in the U.S. as part of a program that began in 1956… Ford-funded students became leaders of the campus groups that participated in overthrowing Sukarno, and the Berkeley Mafia worked closely with the military in the lead-up to the coup, developing ‘contingency plans’ should the government suddenly fall.”[10]

Extremely similar was Ford’s link to the 1973 coup in Chile, involving the Chicago Boys who were trained (funded by Ford) in Milton Freidman’s neo-liberal program at the University of Chicago.[11] The coup and the resulting detainment, torture, and deaths are an indirect result of Ford’s vision for stability and development.

Of course Ford Foundation is a different entity now and has turned to superficially supporting human rights efforts in response to the torture, disappearances, and murders. Yet, maybe Ford is not all that different. Naomi Klein wrote, “Given its own highly compromised history, it is hardly surprising that when Ford dived into human rights, it defined the field as narrowly as possible. The foundation strongly favored groups that framed their work as legalistic struggles for the ‘rule of law,’ ‘transparency’ and ‘good governance,’”[12] which, as we’ll see, is part of a larger pattern.

In reading about Ford, one might get the sense that they didn’t fully comprehend the implications of that which was being taught to the Chicago Boys. Compared to many other institutions, Ford Foundation hasn’t pushed a neo-liberal agenda much. However, despite the fact that they have funded projects that are critical of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), they have also funded organizations with a more successful pro-NAFTA stance.[13] It is commonly acknowledged that NAFTA contributed to the loss of land and jobs in Mexico and so not only is Ford tied to the myths about overpopulation, they also share responsibility for the economic/political conditions that have led to mass immigration. It also appears that they are funding research that would help facilitate Homeland Security, as well as trade and growth in the border region, something that may cause more migrants and indigenous people to face displacement and dispossession.[14]

We can’t separate the interests of Ford Foundation from the interests of the state and capitalism. Need more examples? “The Ford Foundation's history of collaboration and interlock with the CIA in pursuit of U.S. world hegemony is now a well-documented fact...The Ford Foundation has in some ways refined their style of collaboration with Washington's attempt to produce world cultural domination, but retained the substance of that policy...The ties between the top officials of the Ford Foundation and the U.S. government are explicit and continuing.”[15] As part of the Cold War and beyond, the CIA set up front-groups which would provide funding for hand-picked groups through foundations such as Ford.[16]

So while Ford has supported the police state’s standard avenues of repression,[17] its primary role has been more as “soft power.”[18] Joan Roelofs elaborates, “Coercive institutions also have their role, but attracting flies with honey can get them stuck good. Foundations induce consent by creating an ideology that appears to be common sense…”[19] (emphasis mine). Comparing the Prison Industrial Complex (PIC) with the Non-Profit Industrial Complex (NPIC), Andrea Smith explains, “While the PIC overtly represses dissent the NPIC manages and controls dissent by incorporating it into the state apparatus.[20]

The Civil Rights/Black Power movements are a good domestic example. “Philanthropy suggests yet another explanation for the decline of the 1960s’ and 1970s’ protest movements. Radical activism often was transformed by grants and technical assistance from liberal foundations into fragmented and local organizations subject to elite control. Energies were channeled into safe, legalistic, bureaucratic and, occasionally, profit-making activities.”[21]

James Forman of SNCC wrote in a later version of his book[22] that the following had been censored from the original: “After the call for Black Power had become popular in the United States and other countries, McGeorge Bundy, former National Security Advisor under the late President John F. Kennedy, called a meeting at the Ford Foundation in New York City of twenty or more Black leaders. At that time McGeorge Bundy was the President of the Ford Foundation. Bundy announced to the assembled Black leaders that a decision had been made to destroy the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and to save the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). This decision was based on an assessment that it was possible to wean CORE away from the concept of Black Power through massive infusion of money for its operation. In the case of the SNCC, however, the assessment was that it was too late to save it; it had to be destroyed.” [23]

In 1969, Robert Allen wrote in Black Awakening in Capitalist America, “CORE's militant rhetoric but ambiguous and reformist definition of black power as simply black control of black communities appealed to Foundation officials who were seeking just those qualities in a black organization which hopefully could tame the ghettos. From the Foundation's point of view, old-style moderate leaders no longer exercised any real control, while genuine black radicals were too dangerous. CORE [fit] the bill because its talk about black revolution was believed to appeal to discontented blacks, while its program of achieving black power through massive injections of governmental, business, and Foundation aid seemingly opened the way for continued corporate domination of black communities by means of a new black elite.”[24] As another example, Roelofs adds, “Under the leadership of Ford and Rockefeller foundations, the National Urban Coalition was created in 1967 to transform ‘black power’ into black capitalism. Foundations donated $15.6 million in 1970 to moderate black organizations, mostly to the National Urban League, the NAACP, the NAACP-LDEF, and the Southern Regional Council.”[25]

You can see that foundation involvement in social justice groups undermined radical currents in the past, and while people more often talk about COINTELPRO,[26] Ford and others are still affecting groups today through the “state’s ongoing absorption of organized dissent through the non-profit structure.”[27] It is important to view this history in the context of current foundation involvement as well as the ways current activism often models itself on past activities.

Based on Foundation News articles, Roelofs determined that the attitude was the following: It was important that “the wildest appearing groups were essentially pragmatic. Ignore their rhetoric; all they want is to obtain benefits or their ‘rights’ from the system.”[28] She also wrote, “Those who see our travails arising from corporate power and wealth gradually are excluded from political discourse; they are labeled ‘irresponsible,’ ‘unrealistic,’ and ‘unfundable.’”[29] In this context, are the groups receiving foundation funding meeting these more conservative qualifications, and if so, is it to get/maintain funding?

Joaquin Cienfuegos, an anarchist organizer, wrote in 2009, “Non-profits… have hired many people of color who in other sectors of work would not have a job, but looking at the role that the Non-Profit Industrial Complex plays in guiding the struggle in a direction that is not a threat to the state because their funding in large comes from the state itself. We have many recent examples where these people have not been honest to the communities they ‘serve’ in terms of their real relationship they have to the state apparatus, and in many key times of repression they have sold out the more radical segments of the movement.”[30] It is important to see how funders can lead to divisions between people when “leadership” and non-profits find it more important to seem “responsible” and “realistic.”

White people have a specific problem when being “good allies” and “following the leadership of people of color” leads to uncritical acceptance of existing leadership and assumptions of unanimity, considering that people of color have divergent priorities, visions, and influences. It becomes essential to view leadership with a critical eye especially because, as Roelofs writes, “‘Leadership training’ is another project of foundations that sought to tame radical protests. Here influence was exerted not on specific organizations but on activists and potential leaders. Domestic programs paralleled foundation and CIA cold war efforts to identify activists in the Third World, preferably at the high school level, and to capture them for our side, through conferences, scholarships, and extended stays in the United States.”[31] She adds that leadership programs “sought to identify militants from various ghettos and to persuade them that responsible leadership means giving up the idea that the power structure should be changed.”[32] Don’t think that Ford Foundation doesn’t still have leadership programs and that current local “leadership” hasn’t been courted, trained, and funded by them.

Undoubtedly there are individuals who, despite having gotten caught up in these types of programs, take advantage of them, and never have or no longer will let foundations dictate their actions. However, there are likely many cases in which foundation-picked leaders use and maintain their imparted legitimacy and assume responsibilities for speaking for the community they claim to represent. They may try to influence this community on the issue of “responsible” and “reasonable” priorities, when in fact their interests may run counter to members of the community. They are also in a position to single out the “irresponsible” and “unreasonable” dissidents. (Ford Foundation has also promoted coalition building, which often comes with acquiescence to the lowest common denominator regarding demands). Certainly those of us who are white should be humble about our position in the power structure, but if we yield unquestioningly to the leadership or groups that have possibly been manipulated by foundations, we are contributing to the marginalization of voices that may be purposefully marginalized.

Really it’s hard to say how much influence funding has on any given organization or individual at any given time. We know from the past that various groups including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and Chicana Rights Project had to change their personnel and/or focus to maintain Ford funding.[33] INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence got their funding revoked by Ford Foundation because of their position on Palestinian Liberation.[34]

Ford Foundation’s conditions for grant money led the ACLU in 2004 to ultimately take a strong principled stance and reject $1.15 million in funding from Ford and Rockefeller foundations and return $68,000 previously received from Ford. This was in response to requirements (as of 2004) to sign a pledge to agree, “not to ‘promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry or the destruction of any state, nor… make subgrants to any entity that engages in these activities;’”[35] “not to ‘directly or indirectly engage in, promote or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activities;’” and to “not ‘knowingly employ’ individuals found on a series of ‘watch lists’ of known or suspected terrorists.”[36] Based on this language, organizations would possibly be forbidden from supporting or promoting groups like the Zapatistas for example. Or considering the broad definition of terrorism, even promoting Food Not Bombs could perhaps get you into some trouble.[37]

This pledge was modeled after the Patriot Act in response to controversy over offensive language in some literature from a Palestinian Non-Governmental Organization (NGO—similar to non-profits, but non-profits specifically meet the requirements for tax status within the U.S.) that Ford Foundation previously funded. Although Ford Foundation is still accused of supporting Palestinian groups that are opposed to a two-state solution, Zeina Zaatari states,“Funders supported the Oslo agenda by rewarding projects concerned with mutual coexistence, and forced the collaboration between Israeli and Palestinian groups. Within Palestine, organizations previously concerned with a broader vision for justice—such as freedom for historic Palestine, the right of return, and the land—turned their attention to smaller issues such as social services…, representational politics, and constitutional development.”[38]

It is no coincidence that Ford Foundation’s involvement during the resistance to apartheid in South Africa was similar to the Civil Rights movement in the US and in with Palestinian groups. Roelofs writes, “Foundations had been working for some time creating NGOs as alternatives to the liberation movement approach. The Ford Foundation promoted public interest law firms concerned with civil rights, which helped people to whom the apartheid laws were unfairly applied, and assisted black trade unions, especially those developing power in the mining industry…. Ford also gave… scholarships to enable blacks to become lawyers, and generally helped to moderate reformers.”[39]

In 1988 and probably prior, Ford Foundation was invested in IBM,[40] a corporation which was actually sued for their involvement in apartheid. “The complaint states, ‘The South African security forces used computers supplied by ... IBM and Fujitsu ... to restrict Black people's movements within the country, to track non-whites and political dissidents, and to target individuals for the purpose of repressing the Black population and perpetuating the apartheid system.’ Black South Africans were issued passbooks, which the apartheid regime used to restrict movement and track millions of people, and to enable politically motivated arrests and disappearances over decades.”[41] IBM divested from South Africa in 1987 and it is difficult to say what their relationship with Ford Foundation was prior to this. It is interesting to note that Ford Motor Company, along with IBM, was also involved in S.A. apartheid[42]—just as both were with Nazi Germany[43]—but this is pretty irrelevant since Ford Motor Company and the Foundation have been separate since 1976. Yet IBM’s involvement might be especially relevant considering they are one of Homeland Security’s top contractors,[44] so they are likely to be involved in any national ID containing biometric information that U.S. citizens may be required to carry, possibly as part of Comprehensive Immigration Reform.[45]

Very similar to concerns raised in the book The Revolution Will Not Be Funded are the experiences of Arundhati Roy about Non-Governmental Organizations in India. “Eventually–on a smaller scale, but more insidiously–the capital available to NGOs plays the same role in alternative politics as the speculative capital that flows in and out of the economies of poor countries. It begins to dictate the agenda. It turns confrontation into negotiation. It depoliticizes resistance. It interferes with local peoples’ movements that have traditionally been self-reliant. NGOs have funds that can employ local people who might otherwise be activists in resistance movements, but now can feel they are doing some immediate, creative good (and earning a living while they’re at it). Real political resistance offers no such short cuts. The NGO-ization of politics threatens to turn resistance into a well-mannered, reasonable, salaried, 9-to-5 job. With a few perks thrown in. Real resistance has real consequences. And no salary.”[46]

With the Civil Rights Movement, Palestine, South Africa, and India in mind, let’s consider an example of what’s going on right now in the U.S. Opposition to Corrections Corporation of America (CCA)—which runs private detention centers and has influenced legislation like SB1070 (through the American Legislative Exchange Council or ALEC) so they may continue to profit—is at odds with the interests of Thurgood Marshall Jr, a board member of both Ford Foundation and CCA. Whether or not there is some awareness of this seeming contradiction on the part of CCA or Marshall Jr., it may be more useful for Ford to fund legal, non-militant opposition in contrast to the much more militant targeting of businesses that invest in private prison companies (like Wells Fargo who invests in GEO Group, another large private prison company) such as the actions by anarchists that have been happening in various cities across the US.[47] In addition, it seems as though focusing on private prisons as an aberration of the criminal “justice” system, deflecting attention away from the state and towards private entities, would be more in the interest of the Ford Foundation since they seem to be more generally allied with the state than any one corporation. To them it would be more important to have activists worrying solely about the privatization of prisons while leaving mass incarceration intact.[48]

“Equality” for Stability

If you looked at the Ford Foundation’s literature today, you might think they’re a totally different organization than they were during the civil rights movement or apartheid in South Africa. But Ford Foundation primarily discusses immigrants’ rights on a very superficial level, as though migrants didn’t have it bad other than the “roundups, the denial of due process in deportation proceedings, abusive detention conditions and increased hate crimes and bias attacks.”[49] Although Ford Foundation acknowledges that the reasons for migration need to be addressed,[50] they do not explain how. It is pretty clear what their idea of “justice” for migrants is, considering their language on immigration and influence with NAFTA. When they have rationalized their support for immigrants’ rights, they speak of “our Nation’s future,” progress, stability, development, advancement, and finding our “common goals” or “common ground.”[51] Ford is not interested in equality; they want stability. Keep in mind that those in charge of Ford are some of the richest people in the world. They want enough people, who might otherwise be threats to the status quo, to come to share the values of “mass consumption, economic abundance… individualism, and mobility.”[52]

That said, Ford is interested in some immigrants’ economic participation as part of the larger success of the economy of the US,[53] in addition to being interested in directing political participation in specific ways (i.e. into the democratic party). But whether or not you agree with the significance of the Ford Foundation’s involvement with the CIA, their interest in channeling activists’ energies in certain directions, or at least keeping tabs on them, there is one thing that is less deniable—either way, their strategy is about recuperation. Even a former Ford Foundation program officer in South Africa stated, "The agenda of grant-making organisations is the agenda of capital. It is an agenda that is designed to make negative effects of capital more bearable rather than to reform the system by which capital is created."[54]

It is true that the various non-profits that are funded by Ford may have a diverse range of intentions regarding long term goals in relation to immigrants’ rights. While an end to raids, mass detention and hate crimes is obvious, these are shorter-term goals. This ambiguity about long term goals opens the movement up for co-optation or being channeled in a direction that benefits few, similar to the examples given above about the Civil Rights Movement. What are and have been the long term goals of proponents of immigrants’ rights beyond basic human rights, and how do they compare to what entities like the Ford Foundation want?[55]

Ford hypes integration,[56] but what does this mean, and is this goal shared by those who get the funding? When we speak of integration let’s not think of it as the opposite of segregation. This sort of integration is about participation, compliance, and partial assimilation as far as values related to consumerism and the law go. Yet the sort of integration Ford seeks does not mean there will be no one excluded. For example, the President of MALDEF (funded by Ford) said the following about an agricultural jobs bill, “I don’t think that there’s much of a debate that there is not a domestic work force, and you need an immigrant work force in that particular industry.” [57] What does it mean to need an immigrant work force? Doesn’t that imply a need for a workforce that is exploitable? Doesn’t this imply that certain work, in addition to cleaning toilets and washing dishes, is fitting for certain people—immigrants? The participation/integration of some allows the continued exploitation of others. There still has to be an underclass, just like with Comprehensive Immigration Reform where there will still be “illegal” people.

While right-wing conservatives may want you to believe that liberal organizations such as the Ford Foundation are trying to undermine America’s values and facilitate the invasion of the country by Mexicans, the interests of the Ford Foundation might be more closely aligned with conservatives than with many immigrants and immigrants’ rights activists. Right-wingers tend to hate the promotion of multiculturalism while some on the left tend to embrace it without realizing the implications—that it “renders race marginal by heralding the primacy of culture.”[58] Ford and similar organizations have an interest in promoting multiculturalism at the expense of truly addressing the political implications of race and racism. In addition, multiculturalism is not necessarily incompatible with capitalism. It may be as Noam Chomsky describes, that capitalism would like us all to be interchangeable cogs as producers and consumers.[59] Of course in the U.S., capitalism functions and has functioned in part by dividing people along racial lines, and functions better with the illusion that we live in a post-racial society.

Multiculturalism fits Ford Foundation’s vision of democracy. Ford and sections of the immigrants’ rights movement replicate the “‘colonizing trick’—the liberal myth that the United States is founded on democratic principles rather than being built on the pillars of capitalism, colonialism, and white supremacy.”[60]

Since integration entails participation in promoting the rule of law, we can see where some elements of the immigrants’ rights movement perpetuate the white/black color line and ally with whiteness. Examples include the lack of acknowledgement of the white supremacy-saturated “justice” system in activists’ calls for going after the “real criminals,” or demanding that Sheriff Arpaio serve Maricopa County’s unserved warrants instead of going after immigrants.[61] In “No One is Criminal,” Martha Escobar wrote, “[W]hen we claim that immigrants are not criminals, the fundamental message is that immigrants are not Black, or at least, that immigrants will not be ‘another Black problem’… [C]riminalizing immigrants serves to discipline them into whiteness.”[62]

I wrote in “No Borders or Prison Walls,” that “the war against ‘illegal’ immigration is just one part of institutional racism, except this is an example that makes it all the more clear that crimes have been made out of the actions of people because of who they are.”[63] Yet the above attitude has also contaminated the calls against racial profiling that targets immigrants from south of the border, these calls being primarily concerned with innocent people getting caught up in what’s portrayed as an otherwise legitimate law enforcement system.[64] Limited by their own desire for credibility, many spokespeople have been unwilling to oppose the border or immigration laws;[65] unwilling to call out these laws as unjust; and even Black folks who are aware of the racism of law enforcement, such as Al Sharpton, have perpetuated these ideas.[66] This speaks to why the dichotomies between “good” and “bad” (white/black, hard-workers/“real criminals”) are complex. Martha Escobar explains that if one suggests that “those targeted are upstanding members of society,” this rationalizes “the violence that occurs to those that do not fit this category.” She continues, “…the binary opposition between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ immigrants necessarily naturalizes the exclusion of some, mostly immigrants labeled ‘criminal’ in order to defend the belonging of others. This naturalizes any negative effects on those that are deemed ‘criminal,’” which applies to immigrants labeled “criminal” as well as the huge number of black people labeled “criminal.”[67]

Speaking of certain European immigrants, Daniel A. Rochmes and G. A. Elmer Griffin wrote, “…in order to become white they had to join in Black subjugation, i.e., the construction of Blackness as inferiority. Agreeing to support the system of slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow, immigrants attained upward social mobility and secured a privileged status in their new country. The social status and rights granted them were those accorded to all who chose whiteness in exchange for endorsing and enforcing the notion of Black inferiority.” [68] It is important for white people to challenge this trajectory.

Things are not just black and white, but in many ways, power is structured on this black and white binary and is enforced through the law. Rochmes and Griffin continue, “‘Brownness’ has no fixed place in the Black–white binary. Chicano identity strives to say I am not white, but to not be white means to be both Black and inferior. This equation has pressed many Chicanos into uncritically disassociating with Blackness as a way of affirming the value of a brown identity. However, Chicano identity constructed without a critical awareness of whiteness as ‘the maintaining force’ of a racial system that posits ‘some as superior and others as subordinate’ replicates its hierarchies. The disassembly of whiteness would appear to be the necessary predicate for the formation of an ethnic identity that does not require a corresponding inferior.”[69] Considering that undocumented immigrants from south of the border do not necessarily subscribe to this type of identity, and more of them are increasingly from indigenous communities that don’t even speak Spanish (and therefore are even less likely to be able to integrate), applying this analysis of Chicano identity to these immigrants is not particularly useful. The issue here is not so much about attainment of whiteness by immigrants, but participation in white supremacy by anyone in the immigrants’ rights movement. An important question is: who is speaking for the immigrants’ rights movement, and how often is the messaging of the movement geared towards appealing to whites or alleviating the fear of white (and rich) people?[70] What role do white people play, then, in fighting white supremacy?

Legal Routes

Although the Ford Foundation may not have any clearly defined agenda regarding whiteness, they put a large amount of their “Advancing Racial Justice And Minority Rights” funding towards legal defense (MALDEF, NAACP-LDF).[71] Even though there are some important victories that come out of these activities, it is clearly within the framework of the current oppressive legal system.[72] The funding hardly challenges the system that labels people criminals, nor does it challenge the laws that have led to mass incarceration of Black people and undocumented immigrants. Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow, explains that civil rights groups have not been fighting mass incarceration because they have been focusing mostly on litigation, which cannot solve this problem. They also tend to avoid advocating for people who have been labeled criminals.[73]

Although Alexander is speaking about affirmative action in the quote that follows, it could also apply to the types of reforms that Ford has promoted in the past and what it intends for its advocacy of immigrants’ rights: “We should ask ourselves whether efforts to achieve ‘cosmetic’ racial diversity—that is, reform efforts that make institutions look good on the surface without the needed structural changes—have actually helped to facilitate the emergence of mass incarceration and interfered with the development of a more compassionate race consciousness.” She continues, “Racial justice advocates should reconsider the traditional approach to affirmative action because (a) it has helped to render a new caste system largely invisible; (b) it has helped to perpetuate the myth that anyone can make it if they try; (c) it has encouraged the embrace of a ‘trickle down theory of racial justice’; (d) it has greatly facilitated the divide-and-conquer tactics that gave rise to mass incarceration; and (e) it has inspired such polarization and media attention.[74]

Have civil rights efforts been specifically steered (by forces like Ford) in the direction of legal defense and away from the grassroots fights in the streets? Is this an effort to channel energy into directions that would be largely ineffective? Clearly one does not need a nefarious conspiracy theory (though one could still be true) to explain the counter-revolutionary efforts of those such as Ford. It is important to consider the ways that legal defense strategies have relied on an assumption of innocence, which then requires that everyone be innocent or else they will not be defended. Do Mumia Abu Jamal or Leonard Peltier have to be innocent to be defended? If immigrants or their supporters decide to use unconventional tactics in protest, will they be on their own?

If advocacy for undocumented immigrants is limited to the current set of laws, one is more likely to focus on racial profiling,[75] and educating about their rights although rights-education groups have fewer and fewer rights to inform them of. This will be a perpetual dilemma until the idea is challenged that a migrant’s crossing of the border or staying in the country illegally is the problem. A good portion of the immigrants’ rights movement seems to wait, therefore, until some undocumented immigrants get legalized through Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR). This reform will still leave plenty of migrants criminalized, including the newer arrivals whose border crossing may be more dangerous with the increased border militarization that seems to be part of every plan for CIR. It also certainly doesn’t address the causes of migration or the legitimacy of the border. Fighting current policy with the law is limited as well, because, “…as Native scholar Luana Ross notes, genocide has never been against the law in the United States… On the contrary, Native genocide has been expressly sanctioned as the law.”[76] You can say the same about the border, which is intimately tied with genocide and dispossession. The circumstances surrounding immigrants’ plight are pretty much all legitimized within the law. Therefore the debates lie safely between whether the federal or local governments should be enforcing immigration law, and whether local police should avoid making immigrants afraid to call the police or not (as though the enforcement of immigration law is the only thing that makes people, citizen or not, avoid calling the cops).[77]

The fight for legalization does not question the notion that undocumented immigrants’ actions are wrong instead of the laws and the economic circumstances being wrong. As I’ve mentioned, the intention of any passable reform is not to legalize all undocumented immigrants who are in the country, much less address the source of the problem that cause the necessity of migration (although I would also argue that people should be able to move from region to region even if they don’t need to). And as Raúl Al-qaraz Ochoa writes, “The concept of citizenship has helped capitalism by always providing a subclass of exploitable, disposable cheap labor at their convenience. Citizenship legitimizes the global capitalist order, as well as their borders and their nation states. So when we talk about citizenship today, we should ask who/what benefits from the exploitation of an ‘illegal class.’”[78]

Integration means not only participating in the reinforcement of black inferiority and the concept of rule of law, but also of colonization. For example, take Mary Rose Wilcox, who, fully integrated as a Latina citizen, has allied herself with, and seems to be embraced by, elements of the local immigrants’ rights movement. Yet she supports the Loop 202 freeway extension that would either cut through the Gila River Indian Community reservation or their sacred South Mountain, displacing and dividing people within their own community, desecrating sacred sites, increasing pollution, among other problems. She is and has been affiliated with various Ford Foundation-funded organizations[79] and currently sits on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors where she has come into conflict with Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Yet while she opposes Arpaio’s immigration policies, she is also part of the Arizona-Mexico Commission which facilitates free trade, partly through building infrastructure like NAFTA highways by being “instrumental in the development of the Canamex Corridor,” which, guess what, includes the “Sun Corridor” of which the Loop 202 extension would be part. So not only is she part of an organization that seeks to facilitate NAFTA—one major cause of people (indigenous and mestizo) having to leave their homes south of the border—she also aligns herself with development that negatively affects indigenous people in this region. Yet local activists have also shared the stage with her and cheered on her calls for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.[80]

Ford seems to be trying to push a consensus about Comprehensive Immigration Reform[81] although if any Ford-funded non-profit opposed CIR or even has serious qualms about what it could entail, they do not seem to have voiced it. Some immigrants’ rights groups have concerned themselves with addressing the issue of border security/militarization and specifying “humane” reform (which is still ambiguous), but most have not. Every CIR proposal I’ve seen has catered to white supremacist/nationalist fears and included increased border security (along with other plans such as requiring a national ID card containing biometrics information, which would diminish civil liberties even further[82]). This is a problem not only for those who would be crossing the border in the future, but also for the indigenous communities along the border.

Pointedly speaking to the larger movement about CIR, the press release for the May 2010 lockdown at a Border Patrol Headquarters in Tucson stated, “Border militarization destroys Indigenous communities. The development of the border wall has lead to desecration of our ancestors graves, it has divided our communities and prevents us from accessing sacred places. Troops and paramilitary law enforcement, detention camps, check points, and citizenship verification are not a solution to migration. We have existed here long before these imposed borders, my elders inform us that we always honored freedom of movement.”[83] The action and the press release played a role in shifting the debate away from the settler-centered point of view which did not address the implications of border militarization as well as the larger economic and colonialist context.

As a participant in the action wrote, “[H]ow can reform for many, be at the expense of the original inhabitants of the land? We need to see it for what it is, and question neo-liberal projects, such as NAFTA, not just put a bandage on policies that affect everybody! We must challenge both the politicians and reformist activists that try to pit indigenous and migrant communities against each other in their ‘political’ solutions! We are in this together, and must start at the root of the problem, in this case from an O'odham perspective.”[84]

The problem for the immigrants’ rights movement is that if it calls into question the legitimacy of the U.S. in general, it loses all credibility in the eyes of the media and anyone in power, and reinforces the fears of nationalists (This means it’s all the more important for white people to join in the fight). For the most part, the more pragmatic strategy has been to win over enough people through ideologically non-threatening means, appealing to their morality instead of telling them to move out of the way if they’re going to impede liberation. Does this mean that at the risk of people not finding their personal interest or stake in allying with migrants, they should not be challenged on their racism and settler privilege? Winning people over would seem to require ignoring issues of colonization or state violence (historical and current).[85]

In this context, indirectly calling for the militarization of the border (via CIR) does not seem contradictory to the goals for “racial justice,” so how can anything fundamentally change? Ford sees “The Law-Related Work of Ford Foundation Grantees Around the World” as part of the “Many Roads to Justice.”[86] You can perhaps see the parallels between the emphasis on legal work around cases in which South African apartheid laws were unfairly applied and the focus on racial profiling by Arpaio. It is no wonder, when fights for justice are channeled into legal battles, that “justice” loses meaning.

False Solutions

One of the primary criticisms of philanthropy is that it simply alleviates some of the harm caused by capitalism without addressing the root of the problem. Maybe it makes rich people feel better, or maybe it just relaxes their worries about the likelihood that people will resist in a manner that the people in power cannot control. Either way, let’s have no illusions. Andrea Smith explains that foundations provide rich people with a way to “escape estate taxes, compensate relatives, and pay annuities to themselves.” With this tax shelter method, they only have to spend five percent of their net investment income on charitable expenses.[87] They are also very secretive about what they’re investing the rest of that money in.[88]

For them, instability is detrimental for so many reasons. While some further to the right might feel they can rely on the heavy hand of the state, others would prefer to avoid blatant state violence in solving these problems, especially when “soft power” might be even more effective. As the Secretary of the Ford Foundation in 1969 said, “We are in need of more—not fewer—instruments for necessary social change under law, for ready, informed response to deep-seated problems without chaos, for accommodation of a variety of views without deafening anarchy. Foundations have served as such an instrument.”[89]

Foundation funding for non-profits is similar to green capitalism in that it provides false solutions to real problems (“buy more stuff, as long as it’s green!” and “recycle and ride your bike more but don’t look at what the military and big corporations are doing”). In fact, often these solutions are directly or indirectly profitable to those promoting them (i.e. see Grameen Bank’s relationship with Monsanto).[90] “People of conscience” can get behind a campaign that feels good to them; meanwhile the problems remain because energies are being diverted to “solutions” that perpetuate the wider problems. They deflect responsibility away from economic inequality/capitalism and the state, allowing the rich to continue to profit.

Poverty is a problem for which people like to shift responsibility especially to the poor. They do not acknowledge that the rich benefit from the state-enforced theft of land and the limiting of freedoms that have impacted people all over the world in their ability to subsist more easily. Ford Foundation has been deeply involved[91] in the proposal of solutions like helping to provide microloans to impoverished (often landless) people (which by the way, is happening in Mexico[92]), without acknowledging the reasons and consequences of their circumstances in the first place.[93] Microcredit programs, while sometimes bringing a few people out of poverty, have also put many people into debt whereas before they were just poor. Additionally, more insidious entities such as the World Bank[94] have gotten into the microfinance, creating an image of helping the poor while in fact putting even more people into debt and profiting from it. The purpose here may also be to prevent uprisings,[95] and to create more participants in capitalism, creating new “needs” for television sets and such things. And even when programs cut ties with foundation funding, they may still replicate the structure.[96]

Ford Foundation’s false solutions to the problem of poverty are closely tied to its false solutions to immigration problems. So we can see how all this could be a conspiracy[97], but it doesn’t need to be a conspiracy to be counterproductive or worse.

Conclusion: Money is not neutral

The Ford Foundation has its hands in all sorts of immigrants’ rights (and other progressive anti-racist) non-profit organizations. It could be seen as part of an organized effort to secure the status quo, or it may just be rich people trying to solve other people’s problems in their narrow way that obviously would not threaten their own position of wealth.

Hopefully it is clear that Ford Foundation funding is not the only problem being discussed here. It is the values and the objectives—not coming just from foundations—that influence the goals, messages, and activities of those who might otherwise push things to their limit. Even groups who forego funding may still live by the values held by their funders.[98] There may be various groups and individuals taking advantage of funding and not letting that funding dictate what they do.[99] You can argue that Ford is so large (especially if you include foundations it funds, like Tides), of course so many groups are going to receive funding from them. But we still must question what foundations are getting out of it. What would things look like if there were no groups whose dependency on funding required that they carry out “responsible” and “reasonable” activities and messages?

To break it down, the problem with anyone getting funding is the possible direct or indirect influence on organizations or individuals receiving funding, if energy is drawn away from more liberatory goals, if it means activities and messages get controlled or managed, if it causes leadership or spokespeople to speak for people they don’t represent, if it causes the leadership to police the group and/or outsiders or to sell others out. It is a problem if groups’ existing goals go unquestioned, or whether their ambiguity about long term goals can be co-opted into reinforcement of the status quo. There are so many people limiting their activities to safer (as in less threatening to those in power) activities like educational, legal, and charity “work” because that will get funded or will get more respect from politicians—when instead they could be doing something more effective with that time. Maybe no one has the answers right now about what will work, but if people stop limiting themselves to the accepted strategies, and to pragmatic visions, those answers are much more likely to come.

Dylan Rodriquez suggests, “Perhaps it is the fear of a radically transformed, feminist/queer/anti-racist liberation of Black, Brown, and Red bodies, no longer presumed to be permanently subordinated to the structures of criminalization, colonization, (state and state-ordained) bodily violence, and domestic warfare, that logically threatens the very existence of the still white-dominant US Left… that compels it to retain the staunchly anti-abolitionist political limits of the [NonProfit Industrial Complex].”[100] Ford and others may co-opt the language of these struggles, and put on a façade of concern about them, while avoiding getting at the root of the problems.

Some immigrant-haters seem to have decidedly taken their strategies to the extreme, perhaps hoping they will achieve something close to their objectives. Fanatical activities such as the Minuteman Project patrolling the borders, or Russell Pearce and others daring to change or reinterpret the constitution which they claim to revere, may not achieve their specific demands, but they succeed in shifting the debate. On the side of immigrants’ rights, very few people are even calling for an end to immigration laws, border controls, and the like, much less total freedom and no borders.[101] But isn’t that what we should be fighting for?

Some groups linked to Ford Foundation:

(Alto Arizona via NDLON)
Brave New Foundation[102]
Border Network for Human Rights[103]
Center for New Community[104]
(Cuentame via Brave New Foundation)
Enlace Institute/Communities United for People[105]
Grassroots Leadership[106]
Interfaith Worker Justice[107]
Institute for Transnational Social Change[108]
National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON)[109]
National Immigration Law Center[110]
National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild[111]
Pan Left (“Under Arpaio”)[112]
(Puente Movement, via NDLON/Alto Arizona, Tonatierra)
Resource Generation[113]
Salvador Reza[114]
Seventh Generation Fund[115]
(Tonatierra via Seventh Generation Fund and NDLON)

You can search the grant database for recent grants to groups on fordfoundation.org. Some groups don’t come up in a database search and can be found by searching for the group name in google, accompanied by “site:http://fordfoundation.org” in your search field.

Tides Center and Foundation, which receive millions of dollars from Ford also funds Brave New Foundation, Coalición de Derechos Humanos, NDLON, Resource Generation, Seventh Generation Fund, and Southern Poverty Law Center, Tonatierra Macehualli [116]

[1] http://www.linkedin.com/pub/thurgood-marshall-jr/6/345/808

[2] http://enlaceintl.org/about/financial-report-and-funders/

[3] http://www.newcomm.org/content/view/2152/1/

[4] “In 1954 the Ford Foundation started funding the Population Council’s work, and during the Council’s first 23 years they provided it with a staggering US$94 million… Such a massive investment paid substantial dividends to both the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations -- which during this time had also been working hand-in-hand with the CIA in waging the cultural cold war against the Communist 'threat' -- and, by 1959, population issues had begun to ‘assume the weightiness of a major geopolitical force on the world scene, soon to be adopted as a cherished cause by the 'military-industrial complex'.’ This led to the creation of what was referred to as the population-national security theory (PNST), a dubious theory that causally linked ‘overpopulation, resource exhaustion, hunger, political instability, communist insurrection, and danger to vital American interests.’ As JDR3 explained in a lecture to the United Nations in 1961, ‘population growth is second only to control of atomic weapons as the paramount problem of the day.’" http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2008/barker230708.html

[5] Dylan Rodriguez defines the NPIC as “the industrialized incorporation of pro-state liberal and progressive campaigns and movements into a spectrum of government-proctored non-profit organizations” Rodriguez, Dylan. “The Political Logic of the Non-Profit Industrial Complex”. The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the non-profit industrial complex. Cambridge: South End Press, 2007. 21.

[6] Smith, Andrea. “Introduction.” The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the non-profit industrial complex. Cambridge: South End Press, 2007. 3.

[7] There is a good amount of criticism of the Soros Foundation. “The Soros Media ‘Empire’: The Power of Philanthropy to Engineer Consent “http://www.swans.com/library/art14/barker02.html

[8] Hartmann, Betsy. Reproductive rights and wrongs: the global politics of population control. South End Pr, 1995. 103 And more financial incentive: “In the mid-1960s…General Electric researcher Stephen Enke produced the first cost-benefit analysis of population control, which claimed that resources spent on family planning could contribute up to 100 times more to higher per capita incomes than could resources invested in production. In other words, population control was a very profitable investment indeed, more profitable in fact than most any other development expenditure!” Ibid.,104. Problems with Population control: Developed Norplant[8] recklessly promoted in china, India, Bangladesh, Egypt. Used on blacks and native Americans, Ibid., 207.

Also Michael Barker interviews Daniel Faber, “The neo-Malthusian perspective (overpopulation = poverty and environmental destruction) long predates the rise of liberal foundations, but it has been reinforced in the U.S. environmental movement since by a host of grantmakers. In the early 1950s, for instance, the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller money helped to establish the Population Council, providing over $94 million in funds in a little over two decades. Many writers (Bonnie Mass, Steve Weissman, Robert Arnove, Vandana Shiva, etc) have outlined the role of the Malthusian establishment in justifying the various manifestations of U.S. imperialism (the green revolution and capitalist land reforms in the developing world, sterilization campaigns, counterinsurgency). Rather than developing strategies to address the systemic sources of poverty and rapid population growth, the U.S. government-sponsored coercive population control programs and policies supported by liberal foundations and much of the traditional environmental movement. These programs served to facilitate control over the local populations in order to serve the needs of U.S. capital and the national security state; and to perpetuate the myth that poverty and environmental destruction is created and reproduced by the oppressed themselves via overpopulation. The argument disguises the fact that rapid population growth is a function of the unequal distribution of resources, wealth, and political power that characterizes dependent development.” http://www.counterpunch.org/barker09132010.html

[9] "Invasion by Birth Canal? The fourteenth amendment and its opponents’ motivations" http://chaparralrespectsnoborders.blogspot.com/2010/08/invasion-by-birth-canal-fourteenth.html

[10] Klein, Naomi. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Picador USA, 2008. 68.

See also “The Ford Foundation And The Co-option of Dissent” at http://www.swans.com/library/art16/barker41.html

Also “The Berkeley Mafia and the Indonesian Massacre” at ://www.swans.com/library/art16/barker41.html

[11] http://shockdoctrinesummary.blogspot.com/ You can read pages 59-71 of the Shock Doctrine online: on books.google.com

[12] Klein, 23.

[13] “During the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) debate, the EPI (funded by Ford and others) made technical objections to the models supporting the trade agreement. At the same time, a much greater effect was produced by Ford funding to the other side, which included grants to the Institute for International Economics, a think tank that emphasizes the benefits of NAFTA. In addition, ‘the Ford Foundation also awarded grants to environmental groups and the Southwest Voters Research Institute to convene forums on NAFTA. These resulted in an alliance of 100 Latino organizations and elected officials, called the Latino Consensus on NAFTA, which provided conditional support for the agreement.” Roelofs, Joan. Foundations and public policy: the mask of pluralism. State Univ of New York Pr, 2003. 99.

[14] “[F]unding from US agencies such as the Southwest Consortium for Environmental Research and Policy (SCERP), the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the National Science Foundation, and the New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED). All of these agencies were interested on mapping natural resources and infrastructure along the US-Mexico border region, which in turn help on identifying gaps and geodata needs for the border communities, on important, relevant and strategic projects such as the US Homeland Security initiative.” http://www.asprs.org/a/publications/proceedings/portland08/0022.pdf

[15] Petras, James. (12/15/2001) quoted in "The Ford Foundation and the CIA: A documented case of philanthropic collaboration with the Secret Police" at http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/FordFandCIA.html It’s no wonder since, “McGeorge Bundy, became president of the Ford Foundation in 1966 (coming straight from his job as Special Assistant to the President in Charge of National Security, which meant, among other things, monitoring the CIA).” http://www.newsofinterest.tv/politics/media_issues/ford_cia_establishment.php See also http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/06/the-ideology-of-philanthropy/

[16] http://www.rupe-india.org/35/app1.html, see also http://www.questionsquestions.net/feldman/feldman07.html

[17] “Ford monies also were employed to improve the efficiency of police and criminal justice processes, through better equipment, computerization, and coordination of local and national police (e.g. encouraging CIA-NYC Police cooperation.” Roelofs, 113.

[18] http://mostlywater.org/hijacking_human_rights

[19] Roelofs, Joan. Foundations and public policy: the mask of pluralism. State Univ of New York Pr, 2003. p 199.

She also write, “Foundation wealth and connections are used to pursue interests directly and also to maintain hegemonic control via consent.” Ibid, 198.

And “When they were criticized by the right for aiding these strange bedfellows, the foundation spokespeople explained how useful it was to have a ‘piece of the action.’ Bob Nichol, a consultant to foundations, advised: ‘Prepare your boards….You’re moving into a new funding arena. These are people dealing with social change….It is buying into a movement,’ which is ‘what America is all about.’ Ibid, 128. (1984)

And “As Progressives, [liberal foundations and their allies] strive for rationalization, centralization, and bureaucratization in public policies. They have promoted many reforms to reduce threats to capitalism arising from our archaic and local traditions, such as segregation, police brutality, and dumping raw sewage into rivers. Their reformism contrasts with the right wing of the elite, which may stubbornly attempt to prevent all change. Nevertheless this does not put them on the ‘left,’ as they do not defer to the democratic process.” Ibid, 122.

[20] Smith, 8.

[21] Ibid, 121.

[22] Forman, James. The making of Black revolutionaries. Univ of Washington Pr, 1972.

[23] “’1967 was the year in which the influence of the CIA on the National Student Association, labor unions and foundations was exposed -- but people forget that there are other foundations well founded to carry on the CIA's job. The powerful Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation are two outstanding examples.’ http://www.swans.com/library/art16/barker70.html#9

Here it is intriguing to note that despite Forman's keen awareness of the viable threat posed by liberal foundations to progressive activism, their activities did not warrant a mention in his history of the SNCC, The Making of Black Revolutionaries -- which was first published in 1972. Yet it turns out that even this book, which itself amply documents the manipulative intentions of the liberal elites, was censored by his publishers. Thus in the preface of the 1985 edition of the book he acknowledges how he was forced to cut out the following information owing to censorship demands from "a lawyer of Macmillan" -- the publishers of the original edition. The section that was edited out read…” http://www.swans.com/library/art16/barker70.html

[24] http://www.swans.com/library/art16/barker70.html

[25] Roelofs, 131.

[26] “COINTELPRO is an acronym for a series of FBI counterintelligence programs designed to neutralize political dissidents. Although covert operations have been employed throughout FBI history, the formal COINTELPRO's of 1956-1971 were broadly targeted against radical political organizations.” http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm

[27] Rodriguez, Dylan. “The Political Logic of the Non-Profit Industrial Complex.” The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the non-profit industrial complex. Cambridge: South End Press, 2007. 23.

[28] Roelofs, 128.

[29] Ibid, 123. Also: “’Troubles’ were not to be linked, and organizations and movements that found systemic causes for poverty, military intervention, racism, and environmental degradation would be ignored, transformed, or destroyed.” and “Groups genuinely independent of elite control are to be feared.” Ibid, 128.

[30] Cienfuegos, Joaquin. http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Joaquin_Cienfuegos__Critical_Analysis_of_the_Left__Lets_Clean_House.html#toc2

[31] Roelofs, 128.

[32] Roelofs, 129.

[33] “The militancy of some MALDEF personnel, however, produced tensions between MALDEF and its primary sponsor, the Ford Foundation,'' One MALDEF staffer, for example, made widely reported "anti-gringo" statements that caused US, representative Henry B, Gonzalez of Texas to criticize Ford's support of various radical Chicano organizations on the floor of Congress, These criticisms prompted Ford to reevaluate and place conditions on its sponsorship of MALDEF, Political scientist Benjamin Marquez argues that the Ford Foundation, by making funds available for social advocacy, hoped to draw Chicano activists away from disruptive politics and into institutionalized politics." In 1970 the foundation informed MALDEF that further funding was contingent on merging the positions of president and general counsel and on moving the organization's headquarters from San Antonio to a less politically charged, "neutral" location on the East Coast.” Fores, Lori A. “A Community of Limits and the Limits of Community: MALDEF's Chicana Rights Project, Empowering the ‘Typical Chicana,’ and the Question of Civil Rights, 1974-1983”

“Chicana Rights Project should be examined with a critical eye. Not only was the Project funded almost entirely by the Ford Foundation—which brought to bear its own agenda and conditions on the Project's future path—but the CRP was far from a grassroots organization.” Ibid.

[34] Smith, 1.

[35] http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/21/opinion/op-sherman21

[36] http://www.forward.com/articles/4457/ and http://www.hereinstead.com/NYTIMES-ON-ACLU-PROBLEMS-2004.PDF

[37] http://web.archive.org/web/20061002224854/http://www.acluaz.org/News/PressReleases/06_21_06.html

[38] Zaatari, Zeina, Interview by Andrea Smith. “The NGOization of the Palestine Liberation Movement. The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the non-profit industrial complex. Cambridge: South End Press, 2007. 176.

Also: "Without exception, every foundation that funds work on Palestine (from the most conservative to the most 'progressive') does so from the understanding that Israel, as it currently exists, should stay intact, and the solution is to change Palestinians so that they will adapt to their colonial situation." -Hatem Bazian, 2007. Ibid, 178.

See also: http://electronicintifada.net/content/one-voice-manufacturing-consent-israeli-apartheid/8208

And http://www.swans.com/library/art15/barker35.html

[39] Roelofs, 174.

See also: “Liberal Philanthropy And Social Change In South Africa” http://www.swans.com/library/art16/barker46.html) and “George Soros And South Africa's Elite Transition” http://swans.com/library/art16/barker51.html

[40] “The Ford Foundation has almost half of the investments held by the 10 foundations in these corporations. The holdings account for 16 percent of Ford's total investment value, or $496 million, with the largest holdings being in nuclear contract-rich IBM and General Electric.” http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1988/12/mm1288_05.html

[41] http://staugustine.com/opinions/2010-01-18/amy-goodman-holding-corporations-accountable-apartheid-crimes

[42] “South Africa Backs GM, Ford , IBM Apartheid Lawsuit” http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2xm_iMWNc7g

[43] “AMERICAN CORPORATIONS COLLABORATE WITH THE NAZIS” http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/jphuck/Book14Ch.1.html

See also: http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/ “IBM Germany, using its own staff and equipment, designed, executed, and supplied the indispensable technologic assistance Hitler's Third Reich needed to accomplish what had never been done before--the automation of human destruction.”

[44] http://www.govexec.com/features/0809-15/0809-15s10s1.htm

[45] “Biometrics Still Likely to be Part of Reform “http://chaparralrespectsnoborders.blogspot.com/2010/04/biometrics-still-likely-to-be-part-of.html and Biometrics Part of Immigration Reform? http://chaparralrespectsnoborders.blogspot.com/2009/08/biometrics-part-of-immigration-reform.html

[46] Roy, Arundhati. “Help That Hinders” http://mondediplo.com/2004/11/16roy

Although Roy doesn’t specifically discuss the Ford Foundation, they were involved early on in the “Green Revolution” which was used to prevent uprisings in India. http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1611

[47] Some examples: “ATMS Broken at Wells Fargo : Indybay” http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/07/22/18518792.php

“Tacoma, Wa: Paint thrown on a Wells Fargo in Solidarity with ...” http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/14143

“Wells Fargo Attacked In Minneapolis | Twin Cities Indymedia” http://tc.indymedia.org/2008/aug/wells-fargo-attacked-minneapolis

[48] “While many…in the establishment Left pay some attention to the unmediated violence waged by state formations… the implicit theoretical assumptions guiding much of this political-intellectual work have tended to pathologize state violence, rendering it as the scary illegitimate offspring of a right-wing hegemony… [T]he treatment of state violence as a nonessential facet of the US social formation is the discursive requirement for the establishment Left’s strained attempts at political dialogue with its more hegemonic political antagonists…” Rodriquez, 36.

[49] Ford Foundation, A New Generation of Social Change, 2009. http://www.fordfoundation.org/pdfs/library/new-generation.pdf

[50] “We support organizations… that are engaged in… efforts to secure comprehensive immigration reform that addresses the realities of migration in both sending and receiving countries.” http://www.fordfoundation.org/issues/human-rights/protecting-immigrant-and-migrant-rights

“A $500,000 grant from the Ford Foundation will support a new initiative by the American Jewish Committee (AJC) to create momentum for comprehensive immigration reform, including through advocacy skill-building workshops for Latino leaders and organizations around the country.” http://www.thedailytell.com/2009/06/ford-foundation-grant-supports-immigration-reform-effort/

[51] Bach R. L. Changing Relations: Newcomers and Established Residents in U.S.Communities. New York: Ford Foundation. 1993.

Additionally, you can find these ideas in the language of groups that Ford funds: “the DREAM Act is a much-needed stimulus to our nation's continued development.” These are the words of Thomas A. Saenz, President and General Counsel of MALDEF, which has gotten tons of funding from Ford, and has been working on the DREAM Act Legislation for about a decade. It is clear that not only is it a problem for the DREAM Act to channel youths into military service, it is also problem to reinforce this concept of progress of “our nation,” and to integrate immigrants into the American capitalist mind-set. http://www.maldef.org/news/releases/dream_act_phone_bank/

[52] “[Accommodation is] a process of mobilization and participation. It takes many forms, including day-to-day activities associated with work, school, shopping, and acting as a neighbor. Newcomers encounter pressures to conform to standard community practices. They also embrace many of these actions and identify them with opportunities that come from membership and participation in American society. The abstract principles of American society—including mass consumption, economic abundance, equality under the law, individualism, and mobility—are learned in these everyday encounters. These community practices are not necessarily steps toward assimilation, if by that we mean abandoning group backgrounds and identity. They are efforts to participate fully in local activities. For accommodation to succeed, the more established generation of residents must also reach out to newcomers… Yet in those instances when participation prevails, newcomers and residents found common ground and begin to work together.” Bach, 52.

[53] These sentiments have been repeated by local organizers. “Salvador Reza, PUENTE movement organizer said: ‘We are grateful for the Republicans who voted in the interest of defending our state's economy. It is now time to repeal SB 1070 in its entirety to cure the self-inflicted wound on our state's economic health. We are hoping today's vote marks a new beginning in the Capitol where all lawmakers understand respect for Human Rights is crucial for our economic prosperity.” http://www.pitchengine.com/ndlon-and-puente-respond-to-rejection-of-arizona-anti-immigrant-bills/133182/

[54] http://www.swans.com/library/art16/barker46.html Original Source: Moyo Bhekinkosi, “Setting the Development Agenda? U.S. Foundations and the NPO [Non-Profit] Sector in South Africa: A Case Study of Ford, Mott, Kellogg and Open Society Foundations,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Witwatersrand, 2005, 99, 177.

Also: “The nature of such foundation power and control can be traced to the philanthropic philosophy of "misery reduction," which is all that social service agencies are really supposed to do. The think-tanks and intellectual justification that guide these foundations don't go [to] the root of the problem. They abjure questioning the system or organizing people so there could be a chance for real unity or the possibility of real change. As such they are the firmament of the establishment, and may do more harm than outright conservatives and known racists, because they claim to be helping poor people, but their job is only to hold them down and keep them divided, fearful and weak.” “Anonymous Latin-American workers collective undertook such a communicative effort in 2008 when they gave a presentation at an activist conference titled "Liberal Mayors and Liberal Funders: A Case of Racism, Classism, and Ideological Warfare." http://www.swans.com/library/art16/barker41.html

And from Ford Foundation’s website: “Expanding opportunities and providing fair and equitable ways for all people to earn a decent living and build economic resources is essential to creating prosperous societies… Our efforts seek ways to make markets and public systems and policies work better for low-income families…” http://www.fordfoundation.org/pdfs/ar08/FF_AR08.pdf

[55] See Ford Foundation’s page on grants for Protecting Immigrant and Migrant Rights http://www.fordfoundation.org/issues/human-rights/protecting-immigrant-and-migrant-rights/for-grant-seekers

[56] “We also built upon decades of work supporting groups that have helped inform the debate on immigration reform and fostered the integration of immigrants into American life.” http://www.fordfoundation.org/pdfs/library/ar2006.pdf

“2006: INTEGRATING NEWCOMERS” Nashville, Tenn., reflects the growing diversity of communities across America. Ford grantees, such as the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, are part of a national movement dedicated to supporting the successful integration of immigrants into social, political and economic life. http://www.fordfoundation.org/pdfs/library/ar2006.pdf

[57] http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/maldef-thomas-saenz/

[58] Ana Clarissa Rojas Durazo, '"we were never meant to survive" Fighting Violence Against Women and the Forth World War', In: Incite! Women of Color Against Violence. The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the non-profit industrial complex. Cambridge: South End Press, 2007. 115.

[59] “See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist—it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn’t built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super-exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist - just because it’s anti-human. And race is, in fact, a human characteristic - there’s no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all the junk that’s produced - that’s their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance.”- Noam Chomsky http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Understanding_Power

[60] Smith, Andrea. “American Studies without America: Native Feminisms and the Nation-State” American Quarterly, Volume 60, Number 2, June 2008 (referencing Davis Kazanjian, The Colonizing Trick. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003.)

[61] As an example of the focus on warrants, a press release from no specific organization but from "Leaders from the civil rights and Latino communities" came out in March 2008 saying, ‘The people are entitled to have a true lawman for Sheriff, someone who goes after real criminals, not gardeners, cooks, nannies and pregnant mothers. America’s “toughest sheriff” must stop making mothers and fathers disappear in the middle of the night, callously leaving vulnerable, terrorized children at home alone. He can turn a new leaf and start protecting the public by serving the county’s 70,000 arrest warrants that he has allowed to remain outstanding.’” http://chaparralrespectsnoborders.blogspot.com/2009/11/what-happens-when-they-serve-warrants.html

[62] Escobar, Martha. “No One is Criminal.” Abolition now!: Ten years of strategy and struggle against the prison industrial complex. A K Pr Distribution, 2008, 57.

[63] “No Borders or Prison Walls: Beyond Immigrants' Rights to Ending Criminalization of All People of Color” http://chaparralrespectsnoborders.blogspot.com/2009/03/no-borders-or-prison-walls-beyond.html

[64] See http://criticalresistance.org/ for criticism of the criminal justice system, and imprisonment in particular.

[65] I don’t want to imply here that there aren’t plenty of people who buy into the ideas that are compatible with funders and politicians, but I believe some do not believe these ideas yet go along with it for credibility.

[66] “First They Came for the "Illegals" But I Only Care about Racial Profiling” http://chaparralrespectsnoborders.blogspot.com/2010/05/first-they-came-for-illegals-but-i-only.html

[67] Escobar, 66.

[68] Rochmes, Daniel and G. A. Elmer Griffin (2006). “The Cactus that Must Not Be Mistaken for a Pillow: White Racial Formation Among Latinos,” Souls 8 (2): 77-91.

[69] Rochmes. “There is no “white” culture, religion, or language, Baldwin wrote; there are many cultural ways of being white. Any immigrant group, including Latinos, could become white while maintaining their holidays, native languages, naming conventions, and other proprietary cultural practices. This was certainly the case with the Irish. As Noel Ignatiev has shown in How the Irish Became White, the Irish chose to endorse the system of Black slavery in exchange for acceptance as white. In declaring solidarity with so-called whites against so-called Blacks, the Irish were able to fold themselves into the privileged group of “a bipolar system of color caste, in which even the lowliest of ‘whites’ enjoyed a status superior in crucial respects to that of the most exalted ‘Blacks.’” However, this did not require that they relinquish Catholicism or St. Patrick’s Day.”

“One organization at the forefront of assimilation efforts is the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). LULAC understands itself, or describes itself now as having been organized in response to anti-Latino racism. However, it was formed in response to the Black–white color line demarcation which made Latinos Black, and LULAC’s original and to some degree its contemporary energy comes from crossing this line into the white “mainstream.”

“In the wake of the Watts riots in 1965, both LULAC and the American GI Forum ‘sent President Lyndon Johnson a resolution pointedly contrasting [Latinos’] assimilationist orientation with Black militancy’ and claimed that ‘unlike Blacks, Mexican Americans eschewed civil disobedience and violent confrontation in favor of loyalty to’ whiteness. Criticizing the slogan ‘Brown Power,’ the founder of the American GI Forum, Dr. Hector P. García, said, ‘That sounds as if we were a different race. . . . We’re not. We’re white. We should be Americans.’22 For García, the prospect of being a ‘different race’ from whites, or Black, was the difference between being American and non-American.”

“López rightly sees that ‘Mexicans stressed their native ties partly in order to distance themselves from the Black experience... Though Chicanos did not want to be white, neither did they want to be Black.’”

“It is the disavowal of Black identity which opens Chicano identity to the possibility of a credible (non-Black) indigenous identity. López does not see anti-Black sentiments as the decisive component which re-connects the apparently radical, indigenous focused Chicano movement with conservative assimilationist ideology.”

“[T]he history of the Chicano movement demonstrates that Chicanos and Chicanas persistently disassociated with Blacks and rejected Blackness as inferior. The critical question therefore becomes whether or not contemporary Chicano identity constitutes sufficient resistance to the dynamics of whiteness construction. In their desire to reject whiteness Chicanos are faced with the difficulties of the whiteness equation: whiteness defines itself as the superior opposite of Blackness. Those who are not white must be Black and by definition inferior.”

“Latino whiteness is less detectable as whiteness, particularly to Latinos themselves. It has been seen in the larger political world in terms of conservative political agendas and characterized in the rhetoric of hard work, hard-won social gains. Predicated as it is on the construction of Latino immigrants as prepared to do the work that others do not want to do, Latino whiteness makes them increasingly exploitable as it ties the image of so-called Blacks more firmly to the construction of them as lazy, foolish, and quintessentially un-American. As Latinos become white, so-called Blacks are debased.”

“Latinos must cultivate a political alliance with Blackened people not simply to avoid the stultifying economic wages of whiteness, but also to effectively challenge whiteness as the signifier of superiority in this country.”

[70] “Video: Civil Rights Activist Salvador Reza Interviewed by David Pakman (2 of 2)” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W4tLzHcSW4#t=1m45s

[71] Advancing Racial Justice And Minority Rights http://www.fordfoundation.org/issues/human-rights/advancing-racial-justice-and-minority-rights

[72] Roelofs, 102. “…Foundation-supported efforts at legal reform aimed to remove glaring inequalities, but ‘…will not disturb the basic political and economic organization of modern American society.” Quoting Joel Hander, social movements and the legal system 1978, 233.

[73] Alexander, Michelle. The new Jim Crow: mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New Press, The, 2010, 214.

[74] Alexander, 232-3.

[75] For example, see MALDEF’s lawsuit against Arpaio: http://www.maldef.org/news/newsletter/07252008/index.html

[76] Smith, Andrea. “American Studies without America: Native Feminisms and the Nation-State” American Quarterly

Volume 60, Number 2, June 2008 (referencing Luana Ross, Inventing the Savage: The Social Construction of Native American Criminality (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1998), 15.)

[77] “’In addition to blatantly flouting the U.S. Constitution, Arpaio’s focus on federal immigration issues has come at a cost to public safety,’ said Kristina Campbell, MALDEF Staff Attorney. ‘He has drained resources from other crime fighting and investigation units, and his discriminatory practices have undermined trust – a critical component of effective law enforcement – in the Latino community.’” http://www.maldef.org/news/newsletter/07252008/index.html

“The letter states that the program-which relinquishes the power to enforce federal immigration laws to local law enforcement and correction agencies-lacked oversight…, deteriorated public safety and trust between communities and local law enforcement, diverted scarce resources, and was abused to ‘target immigrants and persons of color.’” http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/10/01-10

[78] “Citizenship is perfect for capitalist exploitation. Mexican and Central American labor has become the most appealing to the ruling class; Largely because they could easily divide and conquer the labor force (similar to how they did during slavery times) between “American” and “immigrant,” between “citizen” and “illegal” or essentially between “human” and “sub-human.” This has not only crafted a perfectly segregated labor force, but also a social, psychological, cultural, economic and political apartheid system segregated along racial, class, gender, sexual orientation and citizenship lines.” -Raúl Al-qaraz Ochoa http://antifronteras.com/2010/12/27/legalization-kills-revolution-the-case-against-citizenship/

[79] “Mary Rose is very involved with the local and national Hispanic community and has served as a past or current member of such organizations as MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund) and NCLR (National Council of La Raza). She also served five years as the Chair of the NALEO (National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials) Educational Fund.” http://www.maricopadems.com/mary-rose-wilcox

Mary Rose Wilcox is on the board of NALEO (National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials) 1999-2006 which receives Ford Foundation Funding http://fordfoundation.org/grants/grantdetails?grantid=8727

“The NALEO Educational Fund appreciates The Ford Foundation’s commitment to helping the Fund remain the leading advocate for increased Latino access to the American political process.” (2010 grants only?) “…we carry out our mission through programs that integrate Latinos fully into American political society, provide professional development opportunities and technical assistance to the nation’s more than 6,000 Latino elected and appointed officials, and monitor and conduct advocacy on issues important to the Latino community and our political participation.” http://www.naleo.org/naleoeducationalfund.html

“Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox has been named to the 30-member national board of directors of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund” http://www.maricopa.gov/pr_detail.aspx?releaseID=1729

MALDEF was funded by Ford: 2.5 million dollars in 2009-2011 alone.

“[Arizona-Mexico Commission] was born from a visionary spark in the ‘Cold War’ climate of 1959. Suspicion was closing trade between nations. During a first-of-its-kind university-sponsored conference aimed at expanding Arizona and Sonora cultural and trade relations, Arizona Governor Paul J. Fannin envisioned a great possibility for collaboration that could lead to mutual prosperity.” http://www.azmc.org/about-us/Arizona-Mexico-Commission-brings-together-private-and-public-partnerships/

“AMC was instrumental in the development of the Canamex Corridor.” http://azmc.org/amc_downloads/amcdownload440.pdf p4

Mary Rose Wilcox’s restaurant “El Portal” has hosted numerous events related to Alto Arizona, Puente, etc. http://blog.altoarizona.com/blog/2010/05/friday-may-28th-join-us-for-a-festival-of-human-rights-in-phoenix-az-the-day-before-national-day-of-.html Friday, May 28th - Join us for a Festival of Human Rights in Phoenix, AZ - The day before National Day of Action against #SB1070

“She has been in the forefront in the push for comprehensive Immigration Reform.” http://www.maricopa.gov/dist5/biography.aspx

[80] Video: “Phoenix Represented at DC Immigration Rally” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu7VLxATQR4&#t=2m23s

[81] “We support organizations at national, state and local levels that are engaged in immigrant rights advocacy, including efforts to secure comprehensive immigration reform that addresses the realities of migration in both sending and receiving countries. We also support institutions that are crucial to building an effective and lasting movement to protect immigrants' rights.” http://www.fordfoundation.org/issues/human-rights/protecting-immigrant-and-migrant-rights

“A $500,000 grant from the Ford Foundation will support a new initiative by the American Jewish Committee (AJC) to create momentum for comprehensive immigration reform, including through advocacy skill-building workshops for Latino leaders and organizations around the country.” http://www.thedailytell.com/2009/06/ford-foundation-grant-supports-immigration-reform-effort/

[82] “Biometrics Still Likely to be Part of Reform “http://chaparralrespectsnoborders.blogspot.com/2010/04/biometrics-still-likely-to-be-part-of.html and Biometrics Part of Immigration Reform? http://chaparralrespectsnoborders.blogspot.com/2009/08/biometrics-part-of-immigration-reform.html

There’s also a possibility of CIR including a guest worker program http://www.excludedworkers.org/guest-workers

[83] “OCCUPATION OF BORDER PATROL HEADQUATERS DAVIS-MONTHAN AIRFORCE BASE, TUCSON, AZ” http://oodhamsolidarity.blogspot.com/2010/05/occupation-of-border-patrol-headquaters.html

[84] “Movement Demands Autonomy: An O'odham Perspective on Border Controls and Immigration” http://oodhamsolidarity.blogspot.com/2010/04/movement-demands-autonomy-oodham.html

[85] “…the treatment of state violence as a nonessential facet of the US social formation is the discursive requirement for the establishment Left’s strained attempts at political dialogue with its more hegemonic political antagonists: whether they are police, wardens, judges, legislators, or foundations. In this way, a principled and radical opposition to both the material actuality and political legitimacy of racist US state violence—which is inescapably a principled and radical opposition to the existence and legitimacy of the US state itself—is constantly deferred in favor of more “practical” or “winnable” campaigns and demands.” Rodriguez, 36.

[86] http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTJUSFORPOOR/Resources/ManyRoadstoJustice.pdf

[87] Smith, Andrea. “Introduction.” The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the non-profit industrial complex. Cambridge: South End Press, 2007. 5-6.

[88] “While promoting/saving/improving capitalism over the long term, foundations are also deeply entrenched in the corporate sector, including the military-industrial complex and finance capitalism, through their trustees and investments. In 1971, the Ford Foundation established the Commonfund for managing the investments of private universities, schools, and foundations.” http://www.counterpunch.org/roelofs05282009.html

[89] Smith, 8. quoting Howard Dressner

[90] http://www.peopleofcolororganize.com/analysis/be-aware-organizations-promoting-microcredit/

[91] http://laffsociety.org/blog/?p=627 “The Ford Foundation considers microlending the most successful form of aid ever invented.” Source: http://www.womenstrust.org/content/wt-microlending

[92] http://www.fordfoundation.org/newsroom/events/223

[93] http://www.peopleofcolororganize.com/analysis/be-aware-organizations-promoting-microcredit/

[94] World Bank partners with the Ford Foundation, by the way: http://www.worldbank.org/foundations

[95] “Elite financiers fulfill an important role in shaping the evolution of civil society; promoting low-intensity democracy in a frantic, yet strategic, bid to undermine citizen-led attempts to promote a type of democracy that demands their active participation. It is no overstatement that public-funded, and directed, social change strikes fear into the heart of elites who are well aware of the tenuous hold they maintain on power.” http://www.swans.com/library/art16/barker46.html

Regarding the “green revolution” and prior, “Nehru, although himself a populist, realized that a widespread insurgency—such as that foreshadowed by the Telengana revolt—would destroy the young Indian republic, and thus hailed this early Ford [Foundation] work, ‘as a model for meeting the revolutionary threats from left-wing and communist peasant movements demanding basic social reforms in agriculture,’ and calling it a means toward “peaceful revolution.” http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1611

[96] “I have seen micro-credit groups in Lebanon decide to end their dependence on the foundation system and still end up operating as if they ere NGOs…These micro-credit groups, in order to become independent, also ended up focusing on growth; ironically, once they became self-sufficient, theirs became indistinguishable from a foundation agenda.” Said, Atef,. Interview by Andrea Smith. “The NGOization of the Palestine Liberation Movement. The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the non-profit industrial complex. Cambridge: South End Press, 2007. 178.

[97] “At worst, we can accuse the Soros, Ford, Mellon, and Rockefeller foundations, and their ilk of NGOs and non-profit organizations, of accompanying and facilitating these massive structures of human domination, which simply cannot be reformed or ‘reconciled’ in a manner that legitimates anything approaching a vision of liberation or radical freedom.” Rodriguez, 36.

[98] “I have seen micro-credit groups in Lebanon decide to end their dependence on the foundation system and still end up operating as if they ere NGOs…These micro-credit groups, in order to become independent, also ended up focusing on growth; ironically, once they became self-sufficient, theirs became indistinguishable from a foundation agenda.” Zaatari, 178.

[99] Regarding James Forman of SNCC: “However, he writes that although he accepted the idea that donating money to support activism is a political issue, ‘I also reject the popular notion that he who pays the piper calls the tune, for my experience has been that you can put radical policies up front and stick to them and still get financial help.’ Yet despite SNCC's fetish for decentralization, ideologically-speaking his organization was just the type of group that could be influenced by elite funders, as ‘[o]pen criticism and self-criticism were not the style of the SNCC’ and, as Forman continues with respect to their work in 1964, their ‘lack of ideology’ meant they were ‘caught in the habits of thinking about short-term objectives only.’ This is on top of the fact that SNCC had systemic funding problems.” Barker, Michael. “Elite Philanthropy, SNCC, And The Civil Rights Movement (Part II of III) http://www.swans.com/library/art16/barker69.html

Also : “We began to understand that there is a very thin line between ‘milking the system’ and being milked by the system.” Jones de Almeida, Adjoa Florencia of Sista II Sista Collective. “Radical Social Change: Searching for a New Foundation.” The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the non-profit industrial complex. Cambridge: South End Press, 2007. 186.

[100] Rodriguez, 22.

[101] “The Best Immigration Law is No Law at All” http://chaparralrespectsnoborders.blogspot.com/2010/03/best-immigration-law-is-no-law-at-all.html

[102] http://www.fordfoundation.org/grants/grantdetails?grantid=9419

[103] http://www.fordfoundation.org/grants/grantdetails?grantid=7299

[104] http://www.fordfoundation.org/grants/grantdetails?grantid=7775

[105] http://enlaceintl.org/about/financial-report-and-funders/

http://www.fordfoundation.org/grants/grantdetails?grantid=9322

[106] http://www.grassrootsleadership.org/detention.html

[107] http://www.fordfoundation.org/grants/grantdetails?grantid=9228

[108] http://www.fordfoundation.org/grants/grantdetails?grantid=8367

[109] http://www.fordfoundation.org/grants/grantdetails?grantid=9307

http://www.fordfoundation.org/grants/grantdetails?grantid=9091

http://www.fordfoundation.org/grants/grantdetails?grantid=8747

[110] http://www.fordfoundation.org/grants/grantdetails?grantid=6971

http://www.fordfoundation.org/grants/grantdetails?grantid=7577

http://www.fordfoundation.org/grants/grantdetails?grantid=7772

http://www.fordfoundation.org/grants/grantdetails?grantid=7970

http://www.fordfoundation.org/grants/grantdetails?grantid=9069

[111] http://www.fordfoundation.org/grants/grantdetails?grantid=7773

[112] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA_6zsLcX0c&#t=2m1s

[113] RG is partnered with Ford foundation, and has received money from them http://www.resourcegeneration.org/about-us/history

http://www.resourcegeneration.org/about-us/partners

And has toured AZ to fund other groups http://www.facebook.com/pages/RG-Migrant-Justice-Solidarity-Working-Group/190333824342351

[114] http://www.leadershipforchange.org/awardees/awardee.php3?ID=28

[115] http://www.fordfoundation.org/grants/grantdetails?grantid=1501

http://www.fordfoundation.org/grants/grantdetails?grantid=2523

http://www.fordfoundation.org/grants/grantdetails?grantid=3405

http://www.fordfoundation.org/grants/grantdetails?grantid=4414

http://www.fordfoundation.org/grants/grantdetails?grantid=6497

[116] http://www.tides.org/fileadmin/user/pdf/Tides-Foundation-List-of-Grantees-2010.pdf

Private Prisons in a Wider Context: Video

2011-07-02T12:18:00.000-07:00

It has been encouraging to see the awareness about the role of private prison companies in influencing criminalization of people grow and grow in the last year. SB 1070 and the relationship between various legislators like Russell Pearce and private prison companies like CCA and Geo Group within the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and between governor Jan Brewer and CCA, has been exposed recently. People had already started to address the connection between Wells Fargo and private prison-run detention centers that hold thousands of migrants in other parts of the country and a tiny bit here in AZ. Now there are country-wide campaigns popping off against private prisons companies and against ALEC.

However, as horrible as the conditions in private prisons are (and they do tend to be several times worse than state-run facilities), and as obvious as it is that SB 1070 passed with great influence on the part of those who stand to make millions off of putting people in cages, I would hate to see the focus be solely on this most recent phenomenon. An anti-private prison campaign can easily fall into the same traps as the "go after the real criminals" message, as though there's nothing wrong with the "criminal" "justice" system. As though the criminalization of people who cross a man-made line is not similar to the criminalization of so many of the people in prisons today and historically. We should also consider the limitations of previous nation-wide anti-private prison campaigns like the one that targeted Sodexho in the early 2000's. A focus only on the privatization of prisons can only divert energy from addressing the prison system in general; the various reasons people end up in jail or prison, and the ways in which the system will never and is not meant to address the real ills of our society.

I put together the following video to provide a complex yet still simplistic (limited by time and resources) history of criminalization of people for the benefit of the few. Please share it with anyone you think would be interested. This video is a follow up from several of my blog entries including No Borders or Prison Walls and What came first: the Racism or the Profit Motive? On Private Prisons' push for SB1070

Please also view the 2nd part. It all ties together, and there's some good commentary towards the end.

Tucson: Angry community members storm offices of G4S Wackenhut

2011-06-30T23:07:00.000-07:00

ANGRY COMMUNITY MEMBERS STORM G4S OFFICE
Press statement
Censored NewsProtest Targets Prison Firm for Profiteering, Police Cite 16 for TrespassingTUCSON --(June 29, 2011) At around 2 p.m., community members burst uninvited into the Tucson offices of private security firm G4S and declared in no uncertain terms their opposition to the company’s profiteering at the expense of immigrant communities in Tucson, across the nation and throughout the world. Incensed by G4S’ role in promoting the criminalization of immigrants and the expansion of the private prison industry, the protestors entered the G4S office complex, delivered a letter to company representatives and unfurled a banner reading “G4S: Prison profiteering destroys communities.”

Today’s action, which was organized autonomously by Tucson community members, was carried out under the banner of Direct Action for Freedom of Movement. Although the protesters were never asked to leave the building, and were there only 10 minutes, the Tucson Police cited 16 individuals for criminal trespassing.

G4S is the world’s largest security company and has public contracts to transport, detain and imprison immigrants throughout the world. The company is infamous for the mistreatment of individuals in its custody, with the most atrocious examples including the senseless deaths of two inmates in 2010. Since 2006, G4S has provided transportation for Customs and Border Protection and, in 2010 alone, secured over 125 million dollars in contracts from the Department of Homeland Security. Read more ...

http://censored-news.blogspot.com/2011/06/tucson-angry-community-members-storm.html

Also see:
Australian Aboriginal elder cooked to death by G4S
Duty of Care: beyond the case of Mr Ward, cooked to death by gigantic outsourcer G4SClare Sambrook, 8 June 2011
Last week in Western Australia, Graham Powell and Nina Stokoe, two former private security guards, pleaded not guilty to charges relating to the death of renowned Aboriginal elder Mr Ward, cooked to death while being transported more than 220 miles across searing Goldfields in a badly maintained van with faulty air conditioning in January 2008.
Read more:http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/clare-sambrook/duty-of-care-beyond-case-of-mr-ward-cooked-to-death-by-gigantic-outsourcer

Lulzsec/Antisec Hackers Fight SB1070, Police

2011-06-30T23:02:00.000-07:00

Chinga la Migra! Here are some recent articles on the hacked websites and information that targeted Arizona police agencies in response to racism.

Hackers slam Arizona police for third time

Minuteman group talked of shutting down Arizona freeway

Leaked memo shows Border Patrol found roadside bomb along smuggling route

Tucson: Hackers reveal data targeting ethnic studies

Hackers slam Arizona cops again to expose racism and corruption

I know various people are making suggestions as to who could be targeted next. In my humble opinion, Arpaio might be on the top of the list, Arizona Legislative Exchange Council, Geo Group, Corrections Corporation of America, Arizona-Mexico Commission...

See also: http://firesneverextinguished.blogspot.com/2011/07/hazy-shade-of-criminal-antisec-police.html

OSABC: Border Patrol Headquarters Occupation Protesters Found Not Guilty-Reaffirms Call to End Border Militarization

2011-06-30T22:50:00.000-07:00

NEWS RELEASE
DATE: Thursday June 29, 2011
Contact: Alex Soto
Phone: 602-881-6027
Email: stopbordermilitarization@gmail.com

Border Patrol Headquarters Occupation Protesters Found Not Guilty
Reaffirms Call to End Border Militarization

Chuckson (Tucson), AZ - The six protesters who locked-down and occupied the United States Border Patrol (BP) – Tucson Headquarters on May 21, 2010 were found not guilty on the remaining count of a disorderly conduct "with serious disruptive behavior” charge.

The legal defense, William G. Walker and Jeffrey J. Rogers, argued that the remaining charge of disorderly conduct did not apply because it did not meet any of the statutes of the charge. After three hours of deliberation, the judge found the six not guilty.

The city prosecutor had attempted to re-introduce the previously misfiled criminal trespassing as a misdemeanor charge, but this charge was dismissed after the first trial date for the occupiers in February. After an objection by the defense, the state’s motion was denied.

Read more...

Stolen Labor on Stolen Land

2011-06-19T14:16:00.000-07:00

The video below of Harsha Walia of No One is Illegal in Canada is a couple years old, but i just came across it and wanted to share it. She addresses some of the common struggles between indigenous and immigrant communities and what solidarity looks like. These things are being increasingly discussed in Arizona. The primary issue is the marginalization of the impacts on indigenous people the border has, and in particular, how Comprehensive Immigration Reform will more than likely bring increased border militarization to indigenous communities along the border.

There is also a marginalization of local indigenous struggles in favor of a concept of pan-indigenism (if indigenous issues are brought up at all). One local struggle is against the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway extension. There was a recent action addressing a member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors who has come into conflict with Arpaio over his immigration sweeps. To me, this action not only calls out Wilcox, but those who see her as an ally in the immigrants rights struggle. It has become more clear that she is not an ally (not even to migrants) especially because of her involvement in the pro-NAFTA Arizona-Mexico Commission which is a private entity influencing policy and development.

The statement says, "Mary Rose Wilcox... you continue to posit yourself as some champion of immigrant and worker rights... [W]e are pro-migrant, and in our support of immigrants who have been dispossessed by predatory American trade policies, we recognize that it is those trade policies, in particular NAFTA, that are the enemy of all workers in North America. What, then, is solidarity when you support all of these conditions that line the pockets of corporations, while keeping indigenous people, workers, and immigrants down?
It is your involvement in the Arizona-Mexico Commission that signals your complicity with the exploitation caused by neo-liberal trade that continues to impact people’s lives in Mexico by dispossessing them and keeping wages in the toilet, forcing the poorest to migrate for survival... Another of the consequences of increased trade between Arizona and Mexico are the proposed freeways that would devastate the land and air, in particular the proposed Loop 202 freeway extension through the Gila River Indian Community (Akimel O’odham land). Surely, you’re aware that the tribe has opposed the freeway extension, as both District 6 in Gila River, and the tribe as a whole has previously opposed any new freeway, so it should be no surprise that there continues to be opposition..." Read the entire statement here.

Designed to Kill: Border Policy and How to Change it (Crimethinc)

2011-06-09T13:37:00.000-07:00

This article is from the Crimethinc. reading library. I imagine it'll be printed in Rolling Thunder. It is definitely worth a read, really well written, and covers so much ground regarding the issues. If this piece of writing had existed 5 years ago, i probably wouldn't have felt so compelled to start my own writing on such subjects.

There are a few things I would've said differently, but one thing i especially wish it would've addressed more was the way the border impacts indigenous communities on the border. I think this is such an important piece of the puzzle, especially when so many anarchists and other anti-authoritarians support others' fight for Comprehensive Immigration Reform which would only contribute to more border militarization.

Designed to Kill: Border Policy and How to Change it

For a number of years now I’ve worked in the desert on the Mexican-American border with a group that provides humanitarian aid to migrants who are attempting to enter the United States—a journey that claims hundreds of lives every year. We’ve spent years mapping the trails that cross this desert. We walk the trails, find places to leave food and water along them, look for people in distress, and provide medical care when we run into someone who needs it. If the situation is bad enough, we can get an ambulance or helicopter to bring people to the hospital. We strive to act in accordance with the migrants’ wishes at all times, and we never call the Border Patrol on people who don’t want to turn themselves in.
During this time I’ve been a part of many extraordinary situations and I’ve heard about many more. Some of the things I’ve seen have been truly heartwarming, and some of them have been deeply sad and wrong. I’ve seen people who were too weak to stand, too sick to hold down water, hurt too badly to continue, too scared to sleep, too sad for words, hopelessly lost, desperately hungry, literally dying of thirst, never going to be able to see their children again, vomiting blood, penniless in torn shoes two thousand miles from home, suffering from heat stroke, kidney damage, terrible blisters, wounds, hypothermia, post-traumatic stress, and just about every other tribulation you could possibly think of. I’ve been to places where people were robbed and raped and murdered; my friends have found bodies. In addition to bearing witness to others’ suffering, I myself have fallen off of cliffs, torn my face open on barbed wire, run out of water, had guns pointed at me, been charged by bulls and circled by vultures, jumped over rattlesnakes, pulled pieces of cactus out of many different parts of my body with pliers, had to tear off my pants because they were full of fire ants, gotten gray hairs, and in general poured no small amount of my own sweat, blood, and tears into the thirsty desert. Read more...

"The New Jim Crow" speech relates to immigration

2011-06-08T15:01:00.000-07:00

I'm very interested in the parallels between the criminalization of black people and the criminalization of migrants, and the parallels between the drug war in general and the criminalization of migrants, as I've written about at No Borders or Prison Walls. I recommend checking out this speech by the author of "The New Jim Crow". She doesn't talk about immigration, but you can see how what she talks about relates to it.

I'm also interested in looking at the roles the private prison corporations might have played in any legislation relating to the drug war, as they have with the criminalization of migrants with SB1070 both through ALEC/Russell Pearce and through Governer Jan Brewer. I intend to look further into that. I'm also interested, though, in why it the privatization of prisons isn't the problem per se. There have been economic and political reasons for people to be imprisoned before prisons were privatized. I discuss that a bit in What came first: the Racism or the Profit Motive? You can expect more on this in the future.

Drug War/Anti-Immigrant Hypocrisy

2011-05-25T18:21:00.000-07:00

Don't you love when officials get slapped in the face with their own hypocrisy? I have posted numerous times about border patrol agents and national guard down near the border getting caught trafficking drugs while the general attitude promotes the stereotypical Mexican drug trafficker. Just recently, the biggest villains in Maricopa County have both had their hypocrisy exposed.

Just recently 3 of Sheriff Arpaio's deputies were arrested for their involvement in drug trafficking. One is suspected of having been corrupt for ten years. Arpaio knows that drugs are trafficked by cops and other government officials, but turns a blind eye. Meanwhile, he acts as though Mexican immigrants are the criminals (some are, but obviously some police are too). To top it off, he often portrays his officers as saviors of people held captive by human traffickers even as those officers also keep the same folks captive in their custody (and/or transfer them to detention or have them deported).

Senator Russell Pearce's son has gotten into trouble a lot, but the most recent news is that he violated his probation by smoking pot and will serve a year in prison. This is likely a light sentence for such a thing. Of course the Pearces, or mormons, or white people are not tinged with the stereotype of drug addicts, nor as law breakers. Mexicans are said to be the problem.

As I have pointed out before, the media tends to be a lot more understanding of the pressures involved in being an official down at the border and getting caught up in drug dealing. The big drug traffickers have the money to offer relatively low-waged border patrol agents. These agents are just parents who want to provide for their family. They're vulnerable to corruption because things are hard economically. Yeah, and isn't that the case for Mexicans too? Somehow we can just picture Mexicans as particularly devious and having no qualms about getting involved in drug dealing, whereas white people/US citizens give some resistance but cave in out of desparation. We should also consider that there is a wide range of involvement in the drug trafficking industry from the people heading the cartels, the folks who torture and murder others, to the small time pot dealer who could easily be your friendly neighbor who wouldn't hurt a flea. The thing about being a cop or an agent or a national guardsman is that these folks have the legitimacy and the tools they need to give them access to that which wouldn't be possible for other folks. They can cross the border unquestioned, they can use their authority and gun for criminal uses. They've been empowered to be even better drug traffickers than those without the uniforms and badges.

We must also acknowledge the ways in which the drug trafficking scene is so much more violent due to the involvement of the government. Recently there have been massive demonstrations by Mexican citizens demanding that the military remove itself from the war on drugs. It's making things worse. Of course the Mexican government is corrupt, and they're likely fighting certain cartels in favor of other cartels. Weapons and training (such as torture and murder) are provided directly or indirectly (though of course quietly) from military to cartels. People defect to the cartels because they pay better.

An overarching theme here is that drug trafficking pays better than most other jobs. In situations where people are hurting for money (such as poverty especially south of the border but also in the US) on top of the social pressures of showing you can purchase expensive things (particularly here in the US) and people getting into huge amounts of debt, how can anyone expect that people will steer clear of drug trafficking? If the state did not prevent people from (re)obtaining the means of subsistence (such as land), then they would have alternatives to these activities. If drugs were not illegal, there wouldn't be so much money in it, and there wouldn't be so much violence involved. If people were not so alienated and beaten down in their daily lives, there would be less demand for drugs in the first place.

See also: National Guardsmen Caught in Drug Smuggling Bust
Ex-ICE Officer Charged in Drug-Smuggling
Authorities bust major marijuana smuggling ring
Ex-ICE Officer Charged in Drug-Smuggling

Tucson Uprising for Ethnic Studies

2011-04-28T17:04:00.000-07:00

In case you haven't already seen footage of the lockdown at the TUSD (Tucson) meeting by a group of students calling themselves UNIDOS, here is a video of the action. The ethnic studies program has been under attack recently.

From my distanced position, it has seemed that the movement to defend ethnic studies has shied away from outright accusing standard education as racist. Even as a white person, I feel that my education was indoctrination into this white supremacist, colonialist, sexist capitalist society by telling us blatant lies or half-truths and lots of omissions. Why didn't I learn about Malcolm X or any number of important figures who represent a threat to the mentality that the education system is meant to maintain?

You might also listen to Tim Wise on this video in which he makes some interesting points about white people not wanting brown students to know their real history or they might hate white people.

I imagine that what is taught in the ethnic studies classes are much closer to the truth than other classes. But because proponents of ethnic studies are accused of reverse racism and promoting hate of the US government, people are going to tend to avoid giving anyone any more evidence to back up these accusations. Reverse racism is a crock, and I hope Nonetheless, I would also like to add that someone (I'm pretty sure it was Linda Paloma Allen) made the point in an indigenous panel recently that often the book "Occupied America: A History of Chicanos" is used in these ethnic studies classes, and while this book has a lot of valuable information, it marginalizes the local indigenous folks (like the O'odham). Although they are not Chicanos, if you're going to write a book called "Occupied America", do a little bit better job of representing those who were occupied in America (and by Mexico previously). I read the book a few years ago, and hadn't quite noticed this, but as I re-read parts of it when I was working on writing something about the "Baja Arizona" idea (which also had a proposed name of "Gadsden" which is lacking in any consideration of context), and did notice quite an omission. Of course it is believable that a lot of information is readily available, but something tells me it could've been included. And given that some folks find it so easy disregard the local struggles of indigenous people, if anyone is going to teach or read the book they should find some supplemental materials.

The Constitution and Citizenship based on Genocide

2011-04-01T13:20:00.000-07:00

While looking at the various pieces Indigenous feminist Andrea Smith (also part of INCITE!) I came across this discussion about the myths around the constitution, democracy, and "our founding forefathers". I was particularly interested in this because of my examination into what's being framed as an attack on the 14th amendment; the attempt to end (or reinterpret) birthright citizenship to exclude children born of undocumented parents.

I have been concerned with the tendency by the left to defend the sanctity of the constitution- to base the defense of immigrants solely on this amendment as if the writers of the amendment were unquestioningly right, and to change the constitution or its amendments is to be an enemy of democracy.

It is important to discuss immigration outside of the context of the constitution not only because the authors of the constitution and its amendments were not infallible, but also because the closing of borders, the criminalization of people and the reasons people are migrating to the U.S. are based on the same logic of colonialism, domination, and capitalism. Not only this, but it doesn't make sense to talk about something that is already illegal (unauthorized movement) in terms of the law. The defense of the amendment is only the defense of the children of the undocumented, not the undocumented parents themselves. We mustn't fall into the trap of defending those who are already "legal" and not those who are "illegal". Not to mention, I kinda doubt that undocumented immigrants for the most part give a crap about the US constitution.

For all these reasons, now is the time (if not before) to call into question the idea of citizenship in the first place. What does it mean? How does citizenship benefit the power structures?

In this essay, "American Studies without America: Native Feminisms and the Nation-State", Smith is discussing Judith Butler's analysis of Bush and the war on terror, but compares it to some of Butler's theory on gender and bodies (which is written in very academic language and is hard to paraphrase- the entire article is under the cut because i don't think it's available to the public).

In even radical critiques of Bush's war on terror, the U.S. Constitution serves as an origin story—it is the prior condition of "democracy" preceding our fall into Bush's "lawlessness." The Constitution's status as an origin story then masks the genocide of indigenous peoples that is its foundation. Thus reading Butler against Butler, a Native feminist analysis might suggest that her analysis of Bush's policies is predicated on what David Kazanjian refers to as the "colonizing trick"—the liberal myth that the United States is founded on democratic principles rather than being built on the pillars of capitalism, colonialism, and white supremacy. In this way, even scholars such as Butler and Kaplan, who make radical critiques of the United States as an empire, still unwittingly or implicitly take the U.S. Constitution as their origin story, presuming the U.S. nation-state even as they critique it. Consequently, the project of imagining alternative forms of governance outside of the United States remains impoverished within the field of American studies. Certainly, Native feminism should provide a critical resource for this project because the United States could not exist without the genocide of Native peoples—genocide is not a mistake or aberration of U.S. democracy; it is foundational to it.
As Sandy Grande states:
The United States is a nation defined by its original sin: the genocide of American Indians . . . American Indian tribes are viewed as an inherent threat to the nation, poised to expose the great lies of U.S. democracy: that we are a nation of laws and not random power; that we are guided by reason and not faith; that we are governed by representation and not executive order; and finally, that we stand as a self-determined citizenry and not a kingdom of blood or aristocracy . . . From the perspective of American Indians, "democracy" has been wielded with impunity as the first and most virulent weapon of mass destruction.
From this perspective, the Bush regime does not represent a departure from U.S. democratic ideals but rather the fulfillment of a constitutional democracy based on theft and violence.

It's worth pointing out here, as well, that some argue that the constitution was based on slavery as well, or at least the framers specifically avoided speaking on the ethics of slavery, and therefore condoned it.

American Studies without America:

Native Feminisms and the Nation-State

Andrea Smith

Writings on Native women and feminism often rely on essentializing claims that Native women cannot be feminists, thus erasing the diversity of thought that exists within both scholarly and activist circles. ¹^,² To the extent that Native women's writings on feminism are cited, their use is often limited to demonstrating the racism of "white" feminism. Such rhetorical strategies limit Native women to a politics of inclusion—let us include Native women in feminist theory (or if we do not think that they can be included, let us reject feminist theory completely). This politics of inclusion inevitably presumes that feminism is in fact defined by white women.
Instead, I would contend that the theorizing produced by Native women scholars and activists makes critical and transformative interventions into not only feminist theory, but also into a wide variety of theoretical formations. In this essay, I am not seeking to make representative claims about what Native women think about feminism. Rather, its purpose is to share some of the theoretical insights of Native women organizers currently engaged in social justice struggles.

Beyond the Nation-State

Post 9/11, Bush's evocation of sovereignty has prompted Judith Butler to define sovereignty as "providing legitimacy of the rule of law and offering a guarantor for the presentational claims of state power."³ According to Butler, the resurgence of sovereignty happens in a context of "suspension of law,"⁴ whereby the nation can, in the name of "sovereignty," act against "existing legal frameworks, civil, military, and international . . . Under this mantle of sovereignty, the state proceeds to extend its own power to imprison indefinitely a group of people without trial."⁵ Amy Kaplan similarly describes Bush's policies as rendering increasing numbers of people under U.S. jurisdiction as "less deserving of . . . constitutional rights."⁶ Thus, Bush's strategies are deemed a suspension of the law. It is said that his administration is unconstitutional, [End Page 309] thus eroding civil liberties and U.S. democracy. From this perspective, progressives are called to uphold the law, defend the U.S. constitution, and protect civil liberties.
The question, then arises, what are we to do with the fact that, as Native scholar Luana Ross notes, genocide has never been against the law in the United States?⁷ On the contrary, Native genocide has been expressly sanctioned as the law. And, as legal scholar Sora Han points out, none of these post-9/11 practices is actually extraconstitutional or extralegal. In fact, the U.S. Constitution confers on the State the right to maintain itself over and above the rights of its citizenry.⁸
Butler may be arguing that post-9/11 rule of law through sovereignty (seemingly displaced, in Foucault's analysis, during the rise of capitalism) has made a comeback as a legitimizing notion that works to extend state power. But this argument, as the work of Joy James and Rey Chow demonstrates, fails to consider how the state has always operated through sovereign power exacted through racial and colonial violence.⁹ Thus the argument that we are currently under a resurgence of sovereignty itself normalizes the history of U.S. sovereign power exacted against the bodies of indigenous peoples and peoples of color. In fact, a Native feminist analysis could be used to read Butler's Gender Trouble against her analysis of sovereignty. In Gender Trouble, she critiques theorists such as Lacan, Irigaray, and Wittig, who posit a naturalized, prediscursive, gendered body as the foundation by which to critique contemporary heteropatriarchal practices. She argues that the very process of theorizing a prediscursive body demonstrates that the body cannot be prediscursive and hence it cannot be represented outside of prevailing power relations. But positing the body as prediscursive, according to Butler, allows the theorist to disavow her or his political investments because the theorist is supposedly rendering an account of the body prior to power relations. Butler's critique could then be more broadly applied to a critique of "origin stories." That is, when we critique a contemporary context through an appeal to a prior state before "the fall," we are necessarily masking power relations through the evocation of lost origins. In even radical critiques of Bush's war on terror, the U.S. Constitution serves as an origin story—it is the prior condition of "democracy" preceding our fall into Bush's "lawlessness." The Constitution's status as an origin story then masks the genocide of indigenous peoples that is its foundation. Thus reading Butler against Butler, a Native feminist analysis might suggest that her analysis of Bush's policies is predicated on what David Kazanjian refers to as the "colonizing trick"—the liberal myth that the United States is founded on democratic principles rather than being built on the pillars of capitalism, [End Page 310] colonialism, and white supremacy.¹⁰ In this way, even scholars such as Butler and Kaplan, who make radical critiques of the United States as an empire, still unwittingly or implicitly take the U.S. Constitution as their origin story, presuming the U.S. nation-state even as they critique it. Consequently, the project of imagining alternative forms of governance outside of the United States remains impoverished within the field of American studies. Certainly, Native feminism should provide a critical resource for this project because the United States could not exist without the genocide of Native peoples—genocide is not a mistake or aberration of U.S. democracy; it is foundational to it.¹¹ As Sandy Grande states:

The United States is a nation defined by its original sin: the genocide of American Indians . . . American Indian tribes are viewed as an inherent threat to the nation, poised to expose the great lies of U.S. democracy: that we are a nation of laws and not random power; that we are guided by reason and not faith; that we are governed by representation and not executive order; and finally, that we stand as a self-determined citizenry and not a kingdom of blood or aristocracy . . . From the perspective of American Indians, "democracy" has been wielded with impunity as the first and most virulent weapon of mass destruction.¹²

From this perspective, the Bush regime does not represent a departure from U.S. democratic ideals but rather the fulfillment of a constitutional democracy based on theft and violence.

Rethinking Sovereignty and Nationalist Struggle

In these "postcolonial" times, terms such as sovereignty and nation have gone out of fashion within the context of cultural studies, postcolonial theory, political theory, feminist theory, and so on. Nationalism and sovereignty, it is suggested, inevitably lead to xenophobia, intolerance, factionalism, and violence. All sovereignty or nationalist struggles are headed down that slippery slope toward the ethnic cleansing witnessed in Bosnia.¹³ The assumptions behind some of this analysis are that nations can be equated with nation-states and that the end goal of a national liberation struggle must be the attainment of a state or statelike form of governance.¹⁴
Native feminism can provide a helpful vantage point for destabilizing normative notions of nations and nation-states. That is, the colonial context of indigenous women provides them an opportunity to critically interrogate the contradictions between the United States articulating itself as a democratic country on the one hand and simultaneously founding itself on the past and current genocide of Native peoples on the other hand. When [End Page 311] we do not presume that the United States should or will always continue to exist, we create the space to reflect on what might be more just forms of governance, not only for Native peoples, but for the rest of the world. Native women activists have begun articulating spiritually based visions of nation and sovereignty that are separate from nation-states.¹⁵ Whereas nation-states are governed through domination and coercion, indigenous sovereignty and nationhood are predicated on interrelatedness and responsibility. In opposition to nation-states, which are based on control over territory, these visions of indigenous nationhood are based on care and responsibility for land that all can share. These models of sovereignty are not based on a narrow definition of nation that would entail a closely bounded community and ethnic cleansing. So, these articulations pose an alternative to theories that assume that the endpoint to a national struggle is a nation-state and that assume the givenness of the nation-state system.
These Native feminist critiques of the nation-state are simultaneously critiques of the logics of heteropatriarchy within the structures of colonialism and white supremacy, as well as within the structures of liberation movements designed to dismantle colonialism and white supremacy. What their theorizing suggests is that heteropatriarchy is the logic that makes social hierarchy seem natural. Just as the patriarchs rule the family, the elites of the nation-state rule their citizens. Consequently, when colonists first came to this land, they saw the necessity of instilling patriarchy in Native communities, because they realized that indigenous peoples would not accept colonial domination if their own indigenous societies were not structured on the basis of social hierarchy. Patriarchy in turn rests on a binary gender system; hence it is not a coincidence that colonizers also targeted indigenous peoples who did not fit within this binary model. In addition, gender violence is a primary tool of colonialism and white supremacy. Colonizers did not just kill off indigenous peoples in this land, but Native massacres were always accompanied by sexual mutilation and rape. As I have argued elsewhere, the goal of colonialism is not just to kill colonized peoples, but also to destroy their sense of being people.¹⁶ It is through sexual violence that a colonizing group attempts to render a colonized peoples as inherently rapable, their lands inherently invadable, and their resources inherently extractable.
Because even many Native sovereignty and other social justice movements have not sufficiently challenged heteropatriarchy, we have deeply internalized the notion that social hierarchy is natural and inevitable, thus undermining our ability to create movements for social change that do not replicate the structures of domination that we seek to eradicate. [End Page 312]

Practicing Native Feminist Politics

Today, indigenous peoples are striving to operationalize nonheteronormative visions of organizing through the process of revolution through trial and error. That is, rather than presume a vanguardist perspective on revolution, the philosophy behind this work is that we all need to be part of the collective process of determining how we can create a more sustainable and just world by sharing our struggles, our successes, and our failures. We must be committed to our long-term vision, but we must also be flexible with our strategies, understanding that our strategies will change constantly as we strive together for a more just world.
Adjoa Jones de Almeida and Paula Rojas's contributions to The Revolution Will Not Be Funded detail this organizing philosophy of "Taking Power, Making Power" that is influential in indigenous-led social movements in Latin America and is spreading among many women of color organizing groups in the United States and Canada.¹⁷ On the one hand it is necessary to oppose corporate and state power (taking power). However, if we only engage in the politics of taking power, we will tend to replicate the hierarchical structures in our movements. Consequently, it is also important to "make power" by creating those structures within our organizations, movements, and communities that model the world we are trying to create. These "autonomous zones" can be differentiated from the projects of many groups in the United States that often try to create separatist communities based on egalitarian ideals in that people in these "making power" movements do not just create autonomous zones, but they proliferate them. These movements developed in reaction to the revolutionary vanguard model of organizing in Latin America that became criticized as "machismo-leninismo" models. Those models were so hierarchical that, in the effort to combat systems of oppression, they inadvertently re-created the same systems they were trying to replace. In addition, the revolutionary vanguard model of organizing was inherently exclusionary because not everyone can take up guns and go to the mountains to become revolutionaries, including many women, who often care for families. So movements came to develop organizing models that are based on integrating political organizing into one's everyday life so that all people can participate. For instance, a group might organize through communal cooking, but during the cooking process, which everyone needs to do anyway in order to eat, they might educate themselves on the nature of agribusiness.
At the 2005 World Social Forum in Brazil, participants from Chiapas reported that activists within the movement began to realize that one cannot [End Page 313] combat militarism with more militarism, because the state always has more guns. However, if activist groups began to build their own autonomous zones, proliferating them until they reached a mass scale, eventually there would be nothing the state's military could do. In other words, if the mass-based peoples' movements begin to live life using alternative structures of governance and stopped relying on the state, then the power of the military would become obsolete. Of course, during the process of making power, there may be skirmishes with the state, but conflict is not the primary work of these groups. And as we see these movements literally take over entire countries in Latin America, it is clear that it is possible to do revolutionary work on a mass scale in a manner based on radical participation rather than on representational democracy or a revolutionary vanguard model.
The practice of making power then speaks to the need of building a fun revolution. I was a cofounder of Incite! Women of Color Against Violence, a national organization of feminists of color who organize around the intersections of interpersonal gender violence and state violence through direct action, grassroots organizing, and critical dialogue. Organized in 2000, Incite! currently has approximately fifteen chapters and affiliates in the United States. When we began to develop our structure, we looked to a variety of organizing models for inspiration—not only to groups on the left, but also to Christian Right groups to see why they seemed to be so effective. An Incite! member attended a Promise Keepers rally with me as part of my academic research, and one of our conclusions was that Christian Right events were much more enjoyable (scary politics aside) than were the leftist events we typically attended. At the Promise Keepers rally, there was singing, comedy, sharing, and joy; whereas on the left, we attend long, boring meetings, eat bad food, and yell at each other for being counter-revolutionary—and then we wonder why no one wants to join! In the new spirit, one year, instead of holding a conference, we organized a multimedia tour throughout the United States that featured performance artists, singers, dancers, filmmakers, and others, who not only performed but also helped community groups use arts and media as tools for organizing. In addition to being educational, the events offered massage, day care, good food, and other activities to make the work an act of celebration. The idea behind this work is, how do we build movements that engage our whole selves, and in which we get back as much as we give? What this theorizing of Native feminist activists suggests is that by starting to build the world we want to live in, we create a revolutionary movement that is sustainable over the long term. [End Page 314]

Conclusion

Native feminist theorizing points to the importance of disarticulating Native organizing and Native studies—and by extension ethnic studies as well—beyond a politics of multicultural representation. As Elizabeth Povinelli has so aptly demonstrated, the liberal state depends on a politics of multicultural recognition that includes "social difference without social consequence." Alternatively, we can understand Native feminism as rooted in the colonial condition of Native women who put squarely on the table the importance of thinking beyond the heteropatriarchal nation-state in our vision of liberation not just for Native peoples, but for everyone.

Andrea Smith Andrea Smith is the author of Native Americans and the Christian Right: The Gendered Politics of Unlikely Alliances (Duke University Press 2008) and Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide (South End Press 2005).

Notes

1. Sandy Grande, Red Pedagogy (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004). See also M. Annette Jaimes and Theresa Halsey, "American Indian Women: At the Center of Indigenous Resistance in North America," in State of Native American, ed. M. Annette Jaimes (Cambridge, Mass.: South End Press, 1992), 311–44.

2. See Andrea Smith, Native Americans and the Christian Right: The Gendered Politics of Unlikely Alliances (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2008).

3. Judith Butler, Precarious Life (London: Verso, 2004), 52.

4. Ibid., 55.

5. Ibid., 57.

6. Amy Kaplan, "Where Is Guantánamo?" American Quarterly 57.3 (September 2005): 853.

7. Luana Ross, Inventing the Savage: The Social Construction of Native American Criminality (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1998), 15.

8. Sora Han, "Bonds of Representation: Vision, Race and Law in Post–Civil Rights America" (PhD diss., University of California, Santa Cruz, 2006).

9. Rey Chow, The Protestant Ethnic and the Spirit of Capitalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002); Joy James, Resisting State Violence (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996).

10. Davis Kazanjian, The Colonizing Trick (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003).

11. Andrea Smith, Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide (Cambridge, Mass.: South End Press, 2005).

12. Grande, Red Pedagogy, 31–32.

13. See Craig Calhoun, "Nationalism and Civil Society: Democracy, Diversity, and Self-Determination," in Social Theory and the Politics of Identity, ed. Craig Calhoun (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 1994): 304–35; Duncan Kennedy, "A Cultural Pluralist Case for Affirmative Action in Legal Academia," in Critical Race Theory, ed. Kimberlé Crenshaw, Neil Gotanda, Gary Peller, and Kendall Thomas (New York: New Press, 1995): 159–76; Thomas Scheff, "Emotions and Identity: A Theory of Ethnic Nationalism," in Social Theory and the Politics of Identity, 277–303; Andrew Vincent, "Liberal Nationalism: An Irresponsible Compound?" in Nations and Nationalism, ed. Philip Spencer and Howard Wollman (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2005), 77–100; and Norbert Wiley, "The Politics of Identity in American History," in Social Theory and the Politics of Identity: 130–49.

14. For instance, Mark Beissinger argues that a nation whose existence is not affirmed through "state action" "can hardly be said to exist"; "How Nationalisms Spread: Eastern Europe Adrift the Tides and Cycles of Nationalist Contention," in Nations and Nationalism, 264.

15. Smith, Native Americans and the Christian Right, and Conquest.

16. Smith, Conquest.

17. See Incite! The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Nonprofit Industrial Complex (Cambridge: South End Press, 2007)

Video: Border Patrol 6 (BP6) Solidarity

2011-03-20T19:29:00.000-07:00

Focus on Bigger Picture in Shadow of Victory

2011-03-18T15:25:00.000-07:00

Yes, it's encouraging in some ways that Arizona Senate rejects 5 illegal-immigration bills, yet of course this is no reversal of SB 1070 or anything before it. As my partner noted to me, it's likely that it was more the pressure from the businesses than the people that made an impact this round, though I'd like to think that protesters are at least an annoyance if not worse to the politicians deciding the fate of so many.

I would like to point out, as I have in previous posts though perhaps buried within my writing, that the overarching goal of anti-immigrant legislation is not to remove all immigrants. It is to criminalize them so as to make them more exploitable and controllable. As many of you understand, migrants provide cheap labor. They would to some extent, even if they were not "illegal", as they have been in the past. But criminalizing them more and more keeps them in the precarious position that makes them easily exploited. Of course what makes them "illegal" is their presence in this country, which implies that the law makers want them out--and some probably do. But where blatant racists and business owners' interests come together is the interest in criminalizing a permanent underclass.

Let us not forget, however, that the prison industrial complex, the private prison industry in particular, directly profits from the criminalization of migrants. This is a more direct and observable player in this game, especially where it connects with those in government like Russell Pearce and Jan Brewer as I discussed in What came first: the Racism or the Profit Motive? On Private Prisons' push for SB1070. Then on a larger scale, with more funds and power, are the defense contractors who have been pushing for securing the border with walls and a variety of technological equipment.

As I wrote in Ending criminalization of people of color must be priority,

Tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants, like those whose faces I could barely see, are held in detention centers and jails. SB 1070 has not yet gone into effect. This has been going on for so long and will only continue to do so as long as activists only insist upon ending racial profiling and stopping SB 1070 or even all racist bills/laws if it stops before calling for an end to the border and criminalization of people of color. There are so many undocumented immigrants who are living in our cities whose voices are overpowered by those who want to maintain the status quo. There are so many indigenous people near the border or even throughout this state whose voices are not heard, who are also impacted by the border and will also be impacted by SB1070 and so much more.

We must not buy the rhetoric that if it weren't for this right-wing attack on immigrants, things would be just fine. Even before so many people were worried they'd be deported at any moment, they still had to work shitty jobs for low wages. Even before so many border patrol agents or national guard invaded O'odham land, there were still many problems faced by people in the border regions, or just with brown skin in general. Let's address the reasons so many are forced here in the first place and why so many people of color are in prisons, who profits, how settlers can decide who does or doesn't belong, and how does it all come crumbling down?

Border Patrol Headquarters Occupation Protesters to Fight Charges Group Calls for Further Action Against Border Militarization

2011-02-22T13:18:00.000-08:00

from: http://survivalsolidarity.wordpress.com/against-border-militirization/

NEWS RELEASE
DATE: Monday January 31, 2011
Email: stopbordermilitarization[a]gmail.com
Border Patrol Headquarters Occupation Protesters to Fight Charges Group Calls for Further Action Against Border Militarization
Tucson, AZ— On February 23, 2011, 2:00 PM at Tucson City Court, five of the six protesters who locked-down and occupied the US Border Patrol (BP) – Tucson Headquarters on May 21, 2010 are going to trial fighting one count each of “criminal trespassing”. One of the six has chosen to take a diversion.
The action was taken, in part, to demand that BP, Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE), their parent entity, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Obama administration end militarization of the border, end the criminalization of immigrant communities, and end their campaign of terror which rips families apart through increasing numbers of raids and deportations.
Alex Soto, one of the arrestees and member of O’odham Solidarity Across Borders states, “As we did not enter the BP headquarters alone but with prayers of O’odham elders and community supporters, we are asking for support once again for our continued stand against border militarization. Our messaging is the reality for everyone that is forced to feel the pain that borders inflict upon us in our daily lives. The Border Patrol is not the only agency responsible for the militarization of the border – and it’s subsequent destruction of Indigenous and migrant communities – or the only benefactors of border militarization.” Soto states.
In a previous release O’odham Solidarity Across Borders and O’odham elders stated, “The development of the border wall has lead to desecration of Tohono O’odham ancestors graves, it has divided communities and prevents O’odham from accessing sacred places. Troops and paramilitary law enforcement, detention camps, check points, and citizenship verification are not a solution to “issues” of migration. Indigenous Peoples have existed here long before these imposed borders, elders inform us that we always honored freedom of movement. Why are Indigenous communities and the daily deaths at the border ignored? The impacts of border militarization are constantly made invisible in the media, the popular culture of this country and even the mainstream immigrants rights movement which has often pushed for “reform” that means further militarization of the border, which means increased suffering for Indigenous communities. Border militarization destroys Indigenous communities.”
Since the creation of the current U.S./Mexico border, 45 O’odham villages on or near the border have been completely depopulated.
According to the migrant support group No More Deaths, from October 2009 to Sept. 2010 there have been more than 250 deaths on the Arizona border alone.
Actions toward ending border militarization and the decriminalization of
our communities:
- Immediately withdraw National Guard Troops from the US/Mexico border
- Immediately halt development of the border wall
- Immediately remove drones and checkpoints
- Decommission all detention camps and release all presently held
undocumented migrants
- Immediately honor Indigenous Peoples rights of self-determination
- Fully comply with the recently signed UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples
- Respect Indigenous People’s inherent right of migration
- End NAFTA, FTAA and other trade agreements
- Immediately repeal SB1070 and 287g
- End all racial profiling
- No BP encroachment/sweeps on sovereign Native land
- No raids and deportations
- Immediate and unconditional regularization (“legalization”) of all people
- Uphold human freedom and rights
- Support dignity and respect
- Support and ensure freedom of movement for all people
Put this message in action and help end the attack on Indigenous and migrant communities. Take these messages to the street where you are. If you can, join us inside and outside the court room in Tucson at
2:00pm. on February 23, 2011. Tucson City Court is located at 103 E. Alameda St. Tucson, AZ.
Additional ways to take action in your community to bring awareness to the impacts of the militarization of the border and criminalization of our communities:
1. Directly intervene by:
- Protesting institutions and agencies directly responsible (a
brief list available at: www.survivalsolidarity.wordpress.com
- Being part of (or starting) Border Patrol, ICE, National Guard, Minutemen watch groups in your community
- Stopping ICE vehicles from deporting migrants
- Providing aid for migrants crossing the border
2. Pressure political officials:
Janet Napolitano
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528
Comment Line: 202-282-8495
3. Organize or attend an awareness or benefit event:
An awareness and benefit show will be held in Tucson on February
22nd at Dry River Infoshop.
A discussion on border issues will be held in Flagstaff, AZ on
February 22nd at Taala Hooghan Infoshop.
4. Donate to Border Action Defense Fund:
www.borderopposition.blogspot.com
5. Support local Indigenous struggles for self-determination and
freedom of movement.
In particular, bring awareness to Indigenous communities on the US/Mex border that have been militarized.
To view the occupation video and for additional resources please visit:
www.oodhamsolidarity.blogspot.com
www.survivalsolidarity.wordpress.com

National Guardsmen Caught in Drug Smuggling Bust

2011-01-18T20:28:00.000-08:00

So they say the border isn't safe and that's why we need the national guard there, but then when national guardsmen are involved in a huge drug-smuggling ring, the former AZ attorney general says, "The involvement of uniformed military personnel and children show the extent to which the cartels will go to pursue their illegal schemes." It doesn't show the extent that national guard statesmen can go because they're not looked at with suspicion?

The involvement in the drug trade by military, police, border patrol, prison guards, not to mention the CIA and such, has been extensive. It is ridiculous that migrants are the ones stereotyped as drug smugglers (yes there are drug smugglers from south of the border just like there are white drug dealers in middle class neighborhoods) and when people with some sort of authority get involved in the drug trade it supposedly speaks more to "the extent to which cartels will go". Similarly, I point out in Ex-ICE Officer Charged in Drug-Smuggling, there is much more sympathy towards officials than towards Mexicans. As though Mexicans are naturally corrupt, while officers get corrupted by the former.

No it couldn't be American demand, plus greed, poverty, capitalism, and the fact that drug smuggling (and human smuggling) is illegal that causes people to get involved in the trade. And it wouldn't be the impunity, authority, and trust afforded officials that allows them to participate in the drug trade more effectively because of their position that causes them to be involved. One wonders what the drug trade would look like if nobody tied to the government ever participated in it.

It's especially unfortunate that the drug trade negatively affects the Tohono O'odham and then on top of that, they have people who are "protecting the border" also negatively affecting the community, in addition to some involvement in the drug trade. People transverse the entry port in the Tohono O'odham Nation and surrounding areas because of tightened border controls in other more urban regions. It will be interesting whether this will be an excuse to tighten border security on T.O... just before the Unity Run too...

Anyway, here's the article: Authorities bust major marijuana smuggling ring.
And Ex-ICE Officer Charged in Drug-Smuggling is worth reading too, in my opinion, even though it's a little old.

Private Paramilitary-Style Training Camp Approved for Border

2011-01-14T11:57:00.000-08:00

A company called Wind Zero got approval to build a huge private complex for paramilitary-style training, similar to the camp proposed by Blackwater (now Xe).

According to Narco News' $100 Million Drug-War Garrison Approved for U.S.-Mexican Border, the company's founder, former Navy SEAL sniper, U.S. intelligence agency operative and author Brandon Webb said in a YouTube video:

Mexico is very close to civil war right now; it doesn’t take much to buy off somebody and next thing you know, the president is assassinated and then what? A civil war breaks out, and we have a million Mexican citizens crossing the border into the U.S., and it’s the same situation that you have in Afghanistan and Pakistan. You have all these refugees coming across and Pakistan’s like, “What do we do with this?”

It’s not outlandish for that scenario to happen. So how do you prepare for that? You got to train these guys, and that’s law enforcement and the military.

The article notes that there are likely to be plans to operate drones, aka unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) out of this facility.

Currently, under the oversight of the Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection agency, about a half a dozen Predator B (Reaper) drones are now operating along the southern U.S. border and coastal regions of the U.S., from Florida through Eastern California.
And it seems the Mexican government itself is operating UAVs, or drones, over the U.S.-Mexican border. A recent news story revealed that a Mexican drone dropped out of the sky earlier this month and crashed onto an El Paso, Texas, street...

The U.S. and Mexican governments are already operating joint military missions targeting so-called “kingpin” narco-traffickers. As evidence of that reality, the Washington Post recently reported on a State Department cable made public through WikiLeaks that supports facts reported by Narco News in June 2010...

Would it be any surprise if the U.S. and Mexican governments, via private contractors and/or government operations, also are coordinating drone missions along the border?

(It's worth noting as well that Miami Police have recently purchased a drone for the use of keeping tabs on the residents as well.)

About the training "camp" Narco News continues:

Beyond its usefulness as a drone operations and training center, the planned Wind zero camp also will offer plenty of other features necessary for training special operations soldiers and/or paramilitary forces.
The camp, which would be developed in three phases at a cost of up to $100 million (some $15 million for Phase 1), also will include numerous shooting ranges allowing for some 57,000 rounds of ammunition to be fired off daily; a mock-up of an urban neighborhood for practices assaults; a 6-mile dual-use race track for teaching defensive and offensive driving (and for private-pay recreational use); and enough housing and RV camper space (along with a 100-room hotel) to accommodate a small battalion of warriors.

The article states that residents of the town, in addition to the Sierra Club have opposed this project, but, "Wind Zero marshaled the support of numerous law enforcement agencies in the region that would be able to make use of the facility for training purposes."

Tucson Shooting Overshadows Border Shooting

2011-01-11T14:07:00.000-08:00

Before Congresswoman Gifford and others were shot in Tuscon, Arizona , 17 year old Ramses Barron Torres was shot and killed by a bullet originating in Nogales, Arizona. There have been no national moments of silence for the apparently unarmed teenager. No memes speculating on the sanity of the shooter(s) or if violent rhetoric played a role. That’s probably because Ramses Barron Torres is Mexican and was shot by U.S. Border Patrol.

These points, made by Maegan La Mala on VivirLatino recently are ones that didn't really occur to me, even though I try to be aware of these sorts inconsistencies on the part of the media as well as the left. The article explores some of the stories around the circumstances surrounding Torres' death. But even if Torres had been throwing rocks, even if he had been on the US side of the border, the shooting was still unjustified. Certainly violent rhetoric played a role in this shooting, as it did in the shooting in Arivaca a year and a half ago.

Border patrol agents, like cops, get away with shootings and other violence on a regular basis. Even Ramos and Compean who were sentenced to prison for shooting at a man on the border (he didn't die), got their sentence commuted by Bush. It will be interesting to see what comes of this shooting. Either way, though, the outcry (as it is reported by the media as well as how it is coming across on the part of activists) is not nearly what it is in response to this shooting in Tucson. Yes, it is different that it was so out of the ordinary and that it was several people who were shot at once, but just because immigrants already live in a state of fear for their lives does not mean it's any less painful or traumatic.

The Fascists Already Have the Keys and the Handcuffs

2010-11-17T19:37:00.000-08:00

I've heard that even with the success of protesters holding up the nazis for over an hour from starting their rally last weekend, some folks still insist that they should just be ignored. True, they wouldn't have had an audience and perhaps no media coverage had no one showed up to oppose them. While I'm interested in what the opposition may have accomplished as far as the NSM's enthusiasm or ability to organize in this city goes, I am also interested in some differences in media coverage and what that might mean.

Last year, observations were made that at least one TV channel's coverage simply characterized the NSM rally as an anti-immigrant rally (well, that probably wasn't their wording). They showed the seig heils and uniforms and such, but they made no reference to their extremist politics. I thought this was good in a way- blurring the lines between swastika-wearing NSM extremists and the extremists who wear suits or police uniforms and deny their racism is probably a good thing. Especially since most of those who oppose the NSM tend to ignore the other anti-immigrant rallies and tea-party rallies (much of which overlap). On the other hand, it is important for people to know that there are actual nazis in town (okay, a lot of the ones who actually organize are from out of town, fortunately) and that nazis LOVE SB 1070. The resistance against the NSM march and rally brought this out into the limelight.

Not so long ago, NSM members JT Ready (not in NSM anymore but affiliated is what we hear) and Harry Hughes (both attended this last NSM rally), called on others to patrol areas of Pinal County to for migrants. Phoenix Insurgent writes in reference to Stephen Lemons' column, "one of the things I picked up on was Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu's failure to denounce the Nazi composition of the patrols. Sure, he says that he doesn't think the patrols would be helpful, but it seems as if Babeu, like the local media (with the exception of Lemons), has opted to treat Ready's little Nazi crew as legitimate, giving him a pass on his white supremacist beliefs and his many violent threats. Consider the fact the two media headlines about the event identify the NSM in the title only as a 'militia', not as Nazis or even a 'Nazi militia'. A more honest characterization would surely change the way people view the action" (Source). The Feathered Bastard has also pointed out how newscasters are hesitant to call Nazis what they are.

This weekend, however, the media is being much more clear about who was being opposed. "Neo-Nazi march met by protesters in Phoenix" was Channel 3's headline. "Police Arrest 2 In Clash With Neo-Nazis" was Channel 5's. Channel 10: "Neo-Nazis Protest in Downtown Phoenix".

In some ways it is useful that they are being identified as neo-nazis. In other ways, we mustn't fall into the tendency of seeing the nazis as separate from the other anti-immigrant folks. Within the anti-immigrant movement, they are the fanatics making the others look more legitimate, more reasonable. If we only focus on them, we lose sight of the bigger picture, just as focusing on Arpaio draws opposition away from the other police who make even more arrests but without making a show of it. This comparison also brings up the other point about separating white supremacists from institutional white supremacy/racism, which I brought up in my last post. As pointed out by a sign in a photo on the Prison Abolitionist blog, "The Fascists already have the Keys".

We should consider the ways in which focusing on the fascists legitimizes the other forms of white supremacy- those with more power. This is not to imply that the folks resisting the nazis otherwise ignore these other forms--in fact the protest was in many ways just as much against the police as the nazis. The relationship between the two is explained at the Fires Never Extinguished blog as well, but of course the issue with the police is not only their protection of and participation with nazis, but their role being mostly to enforce the color line such as through police brutality and murder as we saw in the case of Oscar Grant earlier this year.

I hope to see the kind of enthusiasm that surrounds protesting nazis also shown in cases of police brutality and prison issues in the future. There is something to say about how resistance affects the general population's view of things, not to mention the ability of those systems and people to function in the first place.

What came first: the Racism or the Profit Motive? On Private Prisons' push for SB1070

2010-10-29T12:02:00.000-07:00

The private prisons' involvement in passing SB1070 illuminates an aspect of the anti-immigrant tendency that complicates things and is often overlooked. Often the finger is pointed at racism as the cause of atrocities like SB1070, without looking at the bigger picture. This is not to say that racism plays no part, even as a basis on which the prison industrial complex functions, but the prejudicial views of Russell Pearce or the minutemen for example are not necessarily the main guiding force here. This is particularly interesting when we consider the potential of white people to reject racism and see it as manufactured rather than intrinsic.

I'm glad that news is being spread of the role of the private prison industry in the passing of SB1070. A few months back, Governor Brewer's connections with the Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private prison company in the US were exposed, although of course they denied any underhandedness. Now more information is coming out about the influence of private prisons in the new Arizona law, as NPR's new report details. While I don't think there should be prisons in the first place, private prisons are particularly alarming in that this is the kind of thing that can happen when someone stands to profit (of course let's not lose sight of the ways the government profits from repression in different ways).

The private prison industry has profited greatly in the past few years despite the economic downturn. The Detention Watch Network says that "The U.S. government detained approximately 380,000 people in immigration custody in 2009 in... about 350 facilities at an annual cost of more than $1.7 billion." And the racists say that immigrants are a burden on the economy- how about the border enforcement? Keep in mind here that this discussion is only on the detention centers- not on the border security technology and the wall, and other aspects of security which are all making people lots of money, including companies that have already made a shitload of money off the war.

An article that came out a few months ago (Wall Street and the Criminalization of Immigrants)
discussed the lobbying efforts of CCA and the GEO group and how it paid off through more attacks on immigrants, who now fill the private detention centers.

The lobbying paid off for both companies, in huge revenue increases from government contracts to incarcerate immigrants. From 2005 through 2009, for every dollar that GEO spent lobbying the government, the company received a $662 return in taxpayer-funded contracts, for a total of $996.7 million. CCA received a $34 return in taxpayer-funded contracts for every dollar spent on lobbying the federal government, for a total of $330.4 million... One problem for major investors seeking huge gains from the for-profit prison business was that revenue rates couldn’t keep rising because federal agencies didn’t have enough personnel to arrest and process more immigrants than the expanded number they were now handling. It became apparent that the only way to significantly raise revenue through increasing the numbers of people picked up, detained and incarcerated was to hire more law enforcement personnel.
The private prison industry now needed a new source of low-cost licensed law enforcement personnel. CCA and GEO then turned to state governments as the focus of business expansion. Both companies stepped up efforts to acquire contracts with state and local governments that were entering into lucrative agreements with the Department of Homeland Security to detain immigrants in state and local detention and correctional facilities.
The result of this shift in business focus is exemplified by CCA’s role in Arizona’s SB 1070 and both CCA’s and GEO’s roles in other legislative efforts aimed at dramatically increased numbers arrests of undocumented immigrants in over 20 states. Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer, who received substantial campaign financing from top CCA executives in Tennessee and employs two former CCA lobbyists Chuck Coughlin and Paul Sensman, as top aides, signed SB 1070 into law on April 23.
On Friday, July 30, 2010 the Republican Governors Association, which so far this year has received over $160,000 in contributions from CCA and GEO, and their respective lobbyists, sent out a nationwide solicitation written by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer requesting contributions to fund an appeal of the partial injunction issued by a judge against SB 1070. (Read on).

The NPR report that just came out explains that CCA (and GEO group) also has some of their people in an organization called American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) that Russell Pearce is also part of (described as a conservative, free-market orientated, limited-government group), and that this group developed SB1070 (limited government, my ass). What is confusing is where Kris Kobach, the lawyer who works for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) comes into it, since he is said elsewhere to have authored the bill, although I know i'm not the only one wondering this. I imagine FAIR has connections to private prisons, although I am not doubting FAIR's genuine (not profit-driven) white supremacist views, even if many of their participants and funders are driven by profit and desire for law and order.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce says the bill was his idea. He says it's not about prisons. It's about what's best for the country...
But instead of taking his idea to the Arizona statehouse floor, Pearce first took it to a hotel conference room.
It was last December at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C. Inside, there was a meeting of a secretive group called the American Legislative Exchange Council. Insiders call it ALEC...

It goes on,

Thirty of the 36 co-sponsors received donations over the next six months, from prison lobbyists or prison companies — Corrections Corporation of America, Management and Training Corporation and The Geo Group.
By April, the bill was on Gov. Jan Brewer's desk.

In some ways, personal racism is convenient for exploitation for more profit: scare people into thinking immigrants are a threat (is Lou Dobbs and Fox news paid by CCA?), put them in private prisons, thereby creating profits for the private prison industry. Yet, this implies that white supremacy existed before profit motives, which isn't quite accurate. Although colonialism and accompanying attitudes about non-Europeans existed, these prejudices and such weren't so hardened along these imaginary race lines (just look at how the Irish were treated before being gradually included as white). The concept of race was created on top of existing hierarchies, in the interest of maintaining order and capitalism. Since i'm not feeling very articulate right now, I will leave you with a long quote from a friend's blog giving more insight into how white supremacy developed (see below). This was written in response to the National Socialist Movement's efforts last year to organize here, and incidentally they will be back in a couple weeks to rally. While I believe there should be visible opposition, I don't believe that it is any more important to protest the nazis than it is to protest the police, or the prison industrial complex. Like Peggy wrote, "The NAZIS putting all my people in prison are the ones I want to run out of town." I think most people who show up to these protests, at least the anarchists, tend to agree, although in practice it may not appear so. Groups like Anti-Racist Action (ARA) have been long criticized nationally for focusing on white supremacists while institutional racism is the larger threat. In fact if you think about it, if everyone is focusing on the 20-30 neo-nazis or the occasional hate crimes happening more and more across the country, we're not focusing on the state-sanctioned murders that happen everyday (and what if we include the deaths caused by border security as well?)

In this description of the origins of white supremacy, you can see that the private prison industry is a prime example of the ways that white supremacy benefits capitalism.

The system of white supremacy is a cross-class alliance between rich whites and working class whites, the objective of which is the maintenance of the exploitative system of capitalism. White supremacy, by providing some meaningful, but in the grand scheme of things, petty privileges to whites, seeks to undermine class unity. These privileges are petty not because they aren't real and sometimes meaningful, but because those that accrue to the white working class are much closer to the ones that non-white people get than they are to the ones that adhere to rich whites. That is, Bill Gates gets to exercise way more benefits of whiteness than the lowliest Nazi scumbag.

In exchange for accepting these privileges, however, whites agree to police the rest of the non-white population. That's the reason white supremacy was created. Originating as an English imperial ideology for the conquest of Ireland and the rest of what we now call Britain, it moved to North America after the rich English elites had trouble with what we would now call a tri-racial alliance against them. Natives, English indentured servants (most of them transported here for petty crimes against the emerging capitalist system in England) and African slaves had a tendency to realize quite quickly in the so-called "New World" that they had much more in common with each other than with the pale-skinned, blue-blooded ruling class that lorded over them. So, they kept getting together and trying to overthrow those titled bastards. Again and again.

This was naturally a problem for the elite, so a hierarchical racialized system was created to divide this class, and to empower the wealthy. It was encoded in law. Whites were given several important privileges. Firstly, they were entitled to a limit on their servitude, while that of Africans was made permanent. Likewise, whites were given access to cleared Indian lands. The new role for whites demanded they act as police and, in relation to the native population, as soldiers. Therefore, a white man was obligated to serve in slave patrols and had the right to demand papers from any Black person he encountered. Likewise, no Native had any rights a white person was required to respect. Here in Arizona, Mexicans were repeatedly disenfranchised and expropriated of their land by white militias, vigilantes, soldiers and early police formations (Arizona Rangers were notorious). All this was backed up by the rich white elite who wanted to exploit Arizona's resources. (Source).

See also this older article: How the Jailing of Migrants Drives Prison Profits.

UPDATE: see this video which is meant to partly answer the question of the title: Private Prisons in a Wider Context: Video

Invasion by Birth Canal? The fourteenth amendment and its opponents’ motivations

2010-08-30T16:50:00.000-07:00

(for zine version click here)

Invasion by Birth Canal?
The fourteenth amendment and its opponents’ motivations
by stacy/sallydarity

Russell Pearce, the Arizona Senator who pushed the “Support Our Law Enforcement” immigration bill (known in Arizona as SB 1070), complains about the automatically-given U.S. citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants. “This is an orchestrated effort by [illegal aliens] to come here and have children to gain access to the great welfare state we’ve created,” he huffed.[1]

Doesn’t Pearce’s comment sound eerily similar to that of this Southern legislator, pre-civil rights movement? “In 1958, Mississippi state representative David H. Glass introduced a bill mandating sterilization for any unmarried mother who gave birth to another illegitimate child. Glass explained that his objective was to reduce the number of Black children on welfare: …‘The negro woman, because of child welfare assistance, [is] making it a business, in some cases of giving birth to illegitimate children.’”[2]

Pearce, probably feeling empowered by SB 1070’s semi-success (or at least its public support), is working on a controversial plan to “push for an Arizona bill that would refuse to accept or issue a birth certificate that recognizes citizenship to those born to illegal aliens, unless one parent is a citizen”[3]. Perhaps also inspired by the anti-immigrant fervor, Senators John Kyl and Lindsey Graham are proposing that the U.S. Senate review the Citizenship Clause of the 14th amendment. The idea of withholding citizenship to children born of undocumented parents goes back to 1991 when Elton Gallegly proposed the idea to the California congress, followed by several other unsuccessful attempts.[4]

Birthright citizenship is said to reward illegality and encourage procreation for the purpose of accessing the privileges the U.S. has to offer, such as welfare. The underlying attitudes follow an ongoing pattern of attacks on the reproductive freedom of women of color. This is all part of an effort to contain, exclude, and criminalize undocumented immigrants--specifically women due to their reproductive potential. Appealing to Americans’ sense of being cheated, the topic of welfare has been used politically with hidden racial motives. People of color and immigrants have been criminalized even though immigrants’ draw on public services is insubstantial. The topic of overpopulation draws on white Americans’ fear of being outnumbered or overpowered and has been used to control women’s fertility, especially restricting the reproductive freedom of women of color in the U.S and internationally. The problems of poverty and environment are said to necessitate the containment of certain populations, while in actuality the major perpetrators of these problems seek to limit the self-determination of targeted populations to continue to profit off them and their resources.

Birthright citizenship takes on the issue of who belongs—no matter their contribution, and no matter how their country of origin has been impacted, to the benefit of the United States . “Attacks on legal and illegal immigrants’ rights to public services…are all targeted at immigrant women’s ability to have and raise children. As Dorothy Roberts notes, ‘The value we place on individuals determines whether we see them as entitled to perpetuate themselves in their children. Denying someone the right to bear children—or punishing her for exercising that right—deprives her of a basic part of her humanity. When this denial is based on race, it also functions to preserve a racial hierarchy.’”[5]

Race and Welfare

Pearce claims that the use of welfare by undocumented immigrants and their children is a reason for limiting access to citizenship for children born in the U.S. despite the fact that “Many studies have found no significant causal relationship between welfare benefits and childbearing.[6] Although there are various reasons more migrants settle in the U.S. now compared to the more seasonal coming and going of the past, increased border security has been a main reason for the difficulty to cross, causing many to just stay and have their families join them. “Immigrant women of color and their children are targeted because of white anxieties about a racially pluralized society. Whereas Mexican immigrant men have been perceived as temporary laborers, the presence of Mexican women and children suggests permanence…”[7]

Another Mississippi representative in the time period of David H. Glass quoted in the introduction, said of the motivations to withhold welfare from Black people, “When the cutting starts, they’ll head for Chicago .”[8] It is interesting how this parallels with the objective of FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) and collaborators like Russell Pearce to implement “attrition through enforcement”, which, significantly, was written into the Support Our Law Enforcement Act (SB1070) as the purpose of the law. Attrition entails making it so difficult to live here (the U.S. or Arizona specifically) that the targeted population “chooses” to leave. This has been an increasingly common tactic given that physically deporting all the undocumented would be extremely difficult, while causing migrants to self-deport would perhaps go more smoothly and in the meantime the police state can be strengthened. Attrition through enforcement involves increasing the powers of police to ask about immigration status, thereby increasing the number of arrests and deportations and the fear that spreads to others at risk for deportation, causing them to leave (which has been somewhat successful in Arizona ).

This is nothing very new. Earlier laws like California ’s Prop 187 and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act were designed to restrict access to basic needs provided by welfare in order to cause migrants to leave. This, in addition to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act in 1996 reveal that in fact there isn’t much of a welfare state in the first place.[9]

Welfare is a hot-button issue; useful in rallying citizens who feel cheated out of their tax dollars. In fact, it is likely that the dubious statistics given by Elton Gallegly in 1991 related to his anti-birthright citizenship crusade largely contributed to the fact that, “By the time California’s Proposition 187 appeared on the 1994 ballot, arguments about immigrants’ use of public services were commonplace.”[10] Because of the media and political forces, to many, especially white people, welfare conjures images of lazy people of color undeservingly benefiting from handouts, even though most people on welfare are white.

Russell Pearce loves to repeat the incoherent phrase, “Illegal is not a race, it is a crime,”[11] in response to accusations of racism. While it’s not worth scrutinizing “Illegal…is a crime”, “illegal” does imply race. Likewise, “‘Welfare’ has become a code word for ‘race.’ People can avoid the charge of racism by directing their vitriol at the welfare system instead of explicitly assailing Black people,”[12] or in the case of border states in the last couple decades, immigrants from south of the border as well. I argue, as others have, that the connection between crime (or ‘illegal’) and race goes back to slavery era, but ironically the end of slavery in particular. The 13th amendment reads, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States …” (my emphasis) which gave incentives to Southern businesses to have Black people convicted of crimes such as vagrancy.

As can be seen from these examples and examples below, the treatment received by immigrants, particularly from south of the border, is similar to the treatment seen by Black people. Although Latino/Hispanic people are often categorized as white, the way people are treated (criminalized and/or deemed parasites) has more to do with race than a clearly-defined racial or ethnic boundary (race is not biologically based, but socially constructed). Pearce denies that his concerns about so-called “anchor babies” have anything to do with race, yet “anchor baby” is as racially charged as “illegitimate child” or “crack baby”, especially in relation to language around welfare.

Dorothy Roberts wrote that the welfare system “was never intended to end poverty, let alone provide adequate subsistence for the poor.”[13] Mimi Abramovitz added, “Enacted in 1935, when capital accumulation, patriarchal authority, and reproduction of the labor force, as well as the overall social peace, were threatened by the collapse of the economy, the rise of working class militancy, and destabilization of the family system, the Social Security Act institutionalized the role of the state in maintaining families, the labor force, and the general welfare of society.[14] While this is important, the way the story about welfare is told versus the way it plays out is more telling about the motivations of the story-tellers who are interested in excluding and containing migrant populations.

In recent decades, women of color have been associated with welfare and continuously attacked for their alleged abuse of it. However, their vulnerability to exploitation renders them cheap labor. Mothers who are considered worthy can either afford to stay at home or to have their household duties such as childcare taken care of by migrant women, whom are considered unworthy mothers (unworthy also, of a living wage, as white women’s unwillingness to organize with nannies and maids illustrates[15]). In Disposable Domestics, Grace Chang writes, “[Immigrant women workers’] labor—caring for the young, elderly, sick, and disabled—makes possible the maintenance and reproduction of the American labor force at virtually no cost to the US government. At the same time, this labor is extracted in such a way as to make immigrant women’s sustenance of their own families nearly impossible.”[16] The cost she is referring to is very specific, but we must not overlook the cost to the US government (rather, the taxpayers) where it involves the criminalization of migrants to maintain this economic and social structure. I argue that the attacks on birthright citizenship are part of this effort.

Criminalized migrants can be coerced into working in intolerable conditions and for low wages due to the threat of arrest and/or deportation. This criminalization of migrants (which costs billions of dollars throughout each branch of government) is, in effect, welfare, hand-outs, or subsidization for the wealthier classes so they can make even more money and be better consumers.   This is aside from the other subsidies, tax breaks, etc., which accounts for more than four times the amount spent on welfare for the poor, much less for undocumented immigrants.[17]

Because certain wealthy individuals and businesses—particularly in the service industry which cannot be outsourced—don't want a total absence of migrants, here lies an interesting clash between the racists and those who employ migrants (not that the two are mutually exclusive). As somewhat of a compromise, criminalization is more likely intended to maintain a permanent underclass, though perhaps at a smaller number (a guest-worker program is another desired arrangement to accomplish this). Racism, and the more nuanced nativism that perhaps better describes the attitudes about undocumented immigrants, benefit businesses who wish to exploit all workers, by keeping people from uniting. Racists/nativists like Pearce may be conscious actors in this scheme, but more likely just a product of it, so he probably won't back off until Arizona is truly free of undocumented immigrants and their kids. Nevertheless, in the meantime the criminalization of migrants continues to benefit capitalism overall.

Since the reality is that the cost of social services to immigrants is insubstantial, clearly those who complain about undocumented immigrants on welfare aren’t interested so much in saving money or withholding incentives for migration and reproduction. But yet their version of the story about welfare functions well to rouse popular (white) support for the criminalization and exclusion of people of color.[18] Raising the welfare issue in relation to birthright citizenship serves to justify these true intentions.

“Race Suicide”, Population, and Reproductive Choice

With the white birthrate in the early 1900’s rapidly declining, president Roosevelt warned (white) Americans of “race suicide” (echoed by Nixon later) and actually called white women who were unwilling to procreate “race criminals”.[19]

It is likely that this sort of anxiety played a role in fueling the “pro-life” movement and anti-gay sentiment, which resonates with religious fundamentalists in a politically useful way. Hours after California’s Proposition 8 banning gay marriage was declared unconstitutional, Michael Savage went on a brief tirade on his radio show about the lower birthrates of nations that allow gay marriage .[20]

The desire to control women’s sexuality and reproduction harkens back at least to the era of the witch hunts, when capitalism’s beginning in Europe demanded more workers (partly due to population crisis as a result of disease), which led to the construction of monogamous heterosexual marriage as natural through the forced dependence of women on men, and criminalization of sexual acts that were not for the purpose of reproduction.[21]

An already-existing gender hierarchy led to the reining in of women’s bodies, but the development of capitalism, then the desire to protect the white race later on, and then the ongoing attempt to keep women in their place continually prompted control over women’s bodies and roles. Putting significance on the biological and social differences between men and women benefits capitalism in much the same way as the divisions between races continue to benefit capitalism and the state, by keeping people from uniting and rebelling. The lines drawn between people by nativist, nationalist, and white supremacist notions fuel fears of being outnumbered by outsiders. Women are targeted because of their reproductive potential, but their treatment is different depending on their race.

We can see within the anti-immigrant movement the concern over women’s reproductive freedom and its relationship to race. In an article called “Aborting and Importing—Is Immigration the Replacement for Native Born Population?” the Arizona-based author writes, “Unlike any culture in history, we are aborting our children. Have we bought into the Self-Hate so much that we are committing a protracted national and cultural suicide? ...Consider once again that we are aborting our native born population and importing their replacements… Unchecked immigration is no substitute for a healthy birthrate.”[22]

While many oppose abortion because it leads to the death of what they call “our culture”, some promote abortion as part of the population control movement. This movement attempts to solve overpopulation, often justifying it as a necessary effort to save the environment, but focuses on populations of color without saying so. We can see right through John Tanton, who says he specifically got involved several decades ago with Planned Parenthood to make his “contribution to the conservation movement” (although he apparently felt it didn’t go far enough).[23] The propaganda campaign against undocumented immigrants has been a decades-long effort that can all be tied to Tanton. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “[Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Center for Immigration Studies (CIS)], and Numbers USA are all part of a network of restrictionist organizations conceived and created by John Tanton, the ‘puppeteer’ of the nativist movement and a man with deep racist roots… He has met with leading white supremacists, promoted anti-Semitic ideas, and associated closely with the leaders of a eugenicist foundation… He has made a series of racist statements about Latinos and worried that they were outbreeding whites. At one point, he wrote candidly that to maintain American culture, ‘a European-American majority’ is required.[24] He and his organizations have influenced and financially supported various individuals and initiatives, including Russell Pearce and SB 1070.

It came to someone’s attention not so long ago that a few US-based doctors were advertising in Mexico about their obstetrics services. In an article about it, Steven Camarota, research director at CIS (founded by John Tanton), “said authorities should crack down on these doctors who are putting greed ahead of the best interests of their own country. Just publishing the names of the doctors would likely bring the practice to a halt, he said.” There were various comments on the online article that exemplified the hysteria about Mexicans having children in the US, such as this one in which the commenter posted a doctor’s address and wrote, “We need to hold a mass rally and PROTEST this situation!! This is as bad as actually INVITING a foreign pregnant national to come to the USA for childbirth and therfore [sic] securing US Citizenship for that baby which will lead to more Mexicans coming in...And so on and so forth!!”[25]

Glaring are the similarities between the attitudes shown here and of those who protest abortion clinics. Clearly a contradiction arises in the anti-immigrant movement in relation to abortion. While Tanton and other racists have in the past promoted abortion and birth control as a solution to “population problems”, many of their anti-immigrant allies unconditionally oppose freedom to choose abortion. In “Greening the Swastika,” Rajani Bhatia explains why the “population-environment right” might de-emphasize birth control and abortion. “For the anti-immigrant, population-environment lobby, birth control can only marginally affect population growth rates. Therefore, their main response to population and environmental problems is to prevent ‘the highly fertile’ from entering United States borders,”[26] which is something the attack on birthright citizenship is meant to accomplish. This is a useful position considering the desire to both maintain/form alliances with conservatives while also courting the Left through environmental endeavors. Despite border security having more emphasis than birth control, there is still an ongoing attack on the fertility of populations of color throughout the world, because there are other interests that consider brown populations as threats.

Some feminists, concerned about the power of the pro-life movement, have made a troublesome alliance with organizations interested in population control in the Global South because they promote family planning. Betsy Hartmann asks, “Yes, but what kind of family planning, and for what purposes?”[27] This predicament might remind one of Margaret Sanger, the “pioneer” of birth control, who allied with the eugenics movement (which influenced John Tanton and other promoters of population control) in order to promote access to birth control. Unfortunately it has led to major assaults on the reproductive freedom of women of color, which the mainstream pro-choice movement has been largely blind to even though various women of color have pointed it out.

Opposition to abortion is clearly not incompatible with desires to control the population of peoples of color. Loretta Ross, in “The Color of Choice” explains, “The only logic that explains this apparent moral inconsistency is one that examines precisely who is subjected to which treatment and who is affected by which reproductive policy at which time in history. Women of color have little trouble distinguishing between those who are encouraged to have more children and those who are not, and understanding which social, political, and economic forces influence these determinations.”[28]

Angela Davis points out that despite the lack of access to abortion for many poor women, “they may be sterilized with the full financial support of the government.”[29] We can see the effects of reproductive policy in the not too distant past, much of which was influenced by eugenics, or simply the racism of the day. “During the 1970’s it is estimated that up to 60,000 Native American women and some men were sterilized… Puerto Rican women were also sterilized at astronomical rates by U.S. tax dollars. During the same time, several Mexican American women were sterilized at a County hospital without much explanation or information. A national fertility study conducted by Princeton University found that 20 percent of all married African-American women had been sterilized by 1970.”[30]

The attack on birthright citizenship is used as another weapon against the reproductive freedom of women of color, though perhaps not so objectionable a way as mass-sterilization. Still, the brutal attacks on women’s choice did not end decades ago. The coercive promotion of long-acting contraceptives Norplant and Depo Provera is a more recent example of the lack of concern for the reproductive freedom and health of women on welfare. Norplant was developed by the Population Council (started by John D Rockefeller III[31] and linked to the eugenics movement) that promotes family planning in the Global South. In the early 1990s, Norplant was marketed to poor women and made available through Medicaid and state-funded clinics, costing states $34 million even while other social services were cut. Despite a number of side effects, some of which are very serious, healthcare workers had the prerogative to refuse to remove the device, some were not trained how, and the removal procedure is more difficult than the implantation.[32]

One purported reason for women’s fertility becoming a target is that if poor women bred less, there would be less poverty. If we were to ask what poverty is and what it is caused by, the answer would lead us to systematic deprivation imposed through discrimination, the law, and through force particularly in the United States . Internationally and nationally, we see the consequences of resource/labor extraction as part of colonialism, capitalism, and neo-liberalism, such as the increase in the growth of cash crops for export, the loss of land, the privatization of natural resources, etc. The efforts to supposedly end poverty through population control (welfare could apply here too) is actually an attempt to decrease the threats that Black/Brown and poor people’s desires for freedom and equality (or even just survival) represent to these systems. Native people in the US and communities all across the Global South continue to be an obstacle to resource extraction, and have been attacked more recently via their reproduction (mass-murder is now frowned upon, but ‘population control’ is mostly acceptable).

Appeals to environmental concerns make for an even more agreeable campaign for population control. However, Andrea Smith breaks it down: “As the U.S. extracts resources from the Global South, people naturally follow these resources to the U.S. Yet, some mainstream environmentalists complain that the U.S. is now ‘overpopulated’ by immigrants... But the impact of an immigrant family living in a one-bedroom apartment and taking mass transit pales in comparison to that of a wealthy family living in a single family home with a swimming pool and two cars. Much of the environmental decline in this country has nothing to do with population growth or individual consumer choices.”[33] Clearly women in the Global South make an even smaller impact on the environment.

Smith continues, “Rather than being caused by overpopulation, significant environmental damage is actually caused by the environmentally destructive Western development projects, such as hydroelectric dams, uranium development, militarism, and livestock production. These projects ultimately benefit the wealthy living in industrialized countries, which are responsible for producing over 75 percent of the world's pollution. Development projects also cause unparalleled environmental damage, such as damming programs that flood entire biosystems or projects that rely on massive deforestation…Any damage done by indigenous people, peasants, and Global South farmers cannot compare to the damage done by multinationals and the World Bank, so the claim that stopping the ‘overpopulation’ of peasants and indigenous peoples in Global South countries will ‘save the environment’ is baseless.”

Because of the fear that “countries with large youth bulges were roughly two and a half times more likely to experience an outbreak of civil conflict than countries below this benchmark… many on the Right and on the Left want to restrict the growth of developing world populations, and in this context, ‘family planning’ becomes a tool to fight terrorism and civil unrest.”[34] Dangerous birth control methods were largely pushed on women throughout the Global South (many were tested on, before the contraceptives were approved by the FDA) like they were to women on welfare in the United States.

When populations are contained (in size and/or activity) it is easier for those (institutions, investors, neo-liberal projects) who wish to impose their will on these populations or the land on which they reside. It is and has been the “systematically developed” strategy of institutions such as the Rockefeller Foundation, U.S. State Department, and the World Bank to put “the blame for poverty and hunger in the colonized countries on the poor themselves… The World Bank put pressure on governments asking for loans to take specific social and economic action to reduce fertility and to raise the status of women, socially, economically and politically. ‘Raising the status of women’, however, when spelled out in concrete policy measures, amounts mainly to educating women in order to increase their productivity, and to increasing their knowledge of contraceptives and their readiness to accept birth control measures.” This ‘raising the status of women’ is an insult due to the fact that one of the results of colonization is that women lost most of their knowledge of natural birth control and abortion methods which had existed for centuries, thereby removing their true choices and replacing them with the hand-picked so-called choices[35] (not to mention that the conditions inflicted on these populations, including higher infant mortality rates, have led populations to reproduce more out of necessity[36]).

The rhetoric around raising the status of women and increasing their knowledge and choice parallels capitalists’ calls for limited government, which is meant only to remove controls on the free market, yet is usually accompanied by increases in police, military and other controls over the people who are targeted for containment (we can see this nationally and internationally). “[The] emphasis on individual choice… obscures the social context in which individuals make choices, and discounts the ways in which the state regulates populations, disciplines individual bodies, and exercises control over sexuality, gender, and reproduction.”[37] This calls not for the regulation of the free market, but the removal of the power and protection provided by the state.

There are other weapons of the free market and the state as well. Chang argues “that the First World agencies deliberately engineer the destruction of the Third World social services via [structural adjustment policies (SAPs)] to render Third World debtor countries ultimately vulnerable to their First World creditors. This facilitates the commodification of the Third World women for labor export as it becomes impossible for women to sustain their families at home under the devastation of SAPs and they are forced to migrate, often to work as domestic servants in the First World .”[38] Migrants are then scape-goated for the problems that are in fact caused by Capitalists and neo-liberal projects like NAFTA.

We can see an overlap between population control and the denial of welfare in their functions to limit the population of people of color. Whether or not these campaigns are effective to limit the growth of those populations, the campaign also functions to shift or secure the blame on poor people of color while the true culprits go un-opposed by anyone besides the targeted populations. The “overpopulated” people and those on welfare are blamed for poverty, justifying their criminalization and constraints on their reproduction. Central to the desire to change the 14th amendment are these attacks on the reproductive freedom of women of color, no matter how the politicians attempt to legitimize it.

A Loop Hole for Criminals?

Russell Pearce and others believe that the 14th amendment was not intended to provide citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants. But no matter how objectionable their reasons, I tend to suspect that if the authors of the Citizenship Clause could have foreseen the issue of large amounts of unauthorized people coming from south of the border, they might very well have taken a different position. Indeed, Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania objected to the Citizenship Clause. He stated, “[I]s it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race [sic]? Are they to be immigrated [sic] out of house and home by Chinese?”[39] Fortunately he was outnumbered. At the time, in 1868 there was hardly the concept of an “illegal alien” and no numerical limitations on immigration. People did not have to obtain a visa to enter the U.S.—they would simply show up and be inspected and hardly anyone would be turned away. Additionally, there were no controls at the border and for quite a while immigration from Mexico was ignored or encouraged. The first “illegal immigrants” were those barred by the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. Of course it is more convenient to believe that the European ancestors of U.S. citizens living here did it the “right way” even though there really wasn’t a wrong way to do it unless they lied about their health or their political beliefs.

No matter how noble some would like to think the authors of the constitution are (most owned slaves and sanctioned it), and the amendments (some hated the Chinese), if the authors of the 14th amendment could see into the future, it is likely they would’ve re-worded the amendment. Of course I am not arguing here that the children of undocumented immigrants should not have citizenship, I’m just being real. That said, I also suspect that if Russell Pearce had been in government after the civil war, he would’ve opposed providing citizenship to the children of freed slaves. He writes, “American citizenship is a privilege, not a right”.[40]

The concept of citizenship and the rights it entails deserve examination. For example, why is it rarely questioned that settlers get to determine who belongs and who doesn’t? How does citizenship and immigration law discriminate against those who are not part of heterosexual families? Although I do not delve into these subject as much as I’d like to, the attitudes about worthiness regarding who gets to reproduce and what the consequences are for those who migrate speaks much about the ideas about citizenship. In many ways, especially as the efforts to change the amendment are concerned, citizenship currently provides legal status for those born here—and for most others, not just exclusion, but automatic criminalization. The question of who deserves citizenship rights or that such a thing should exist in the first place is more complex when considering the impact U.S. interests have had here (genocide, slavery, sexism), and in many of the countries that people migrate from. Take for example the way the Mexican government was coerced into changing their constitution (Article 27) in the interest in joining NAFTA, or how NAFTA, in combination with U.S. corn subsidies, has put thousands of Mexican corn farmers out of business, leading to their necessary migration to survive. I argue also, that the border is illegitimate based on the fact that migration is natural and that the ruling class desires borders and laws only to protect the wealth they have stolen from others.

The anti-immigrant movement has had little or no qualms about using extremist tactics which change the debate in their favor. Shifting attention onto defending those who are already considered legal makes more difficult the defense of those who are “illegal”. This is similar to the division created in the fight for the Dream Act in which some migrants are seen as worthy while others are marginalized.

This discussion and potential change of the Citizenship Clause may considerably change the way Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) would look, if it were to pass in the next few years. Would the government legalize some immigrants while making the others’ children illegal? It is especially troubling that Lindsey Graham, who has been pushing CIR, is one of the men moving this birthright citizenship question forward in congress. Considering also that the Immigration reform in 1986 made it harder for women to become legal than men, we will likely see more of the same, especially with the spotlight on this “invasion by birth canal”.[41]

How possible is it that birthright citizenship could change? Could it lead to retroactive enforcement? What will the opposition look like? Romantic oratory about the sanctity of the constitution, or something that takes into account the points I bring up here? And if they fail in changing the amendment, will they still have succeeded at shifting the debate in their favor?

[1] hoguenews.com/?p=10680

[2] Roberts, Dorothy. Killing the Black Body. 213-214

[3] “Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100521/pl_ynews/ynews_pl2192

[4] Lindsley, Syd. “The Gendered Assault on Immigrants”. Policing the National Body.

[5] Lindsley, Syd. “The Gendered Assault on Immigrants”. Policing the National Body. 191-192

[6] Roberts 219

[7] Lindsley, Syd. “The Gendered Assault on Immigrants”. Policing the National Body.

[8] Roberts 214

[9] Chang, Grace. Disposable Domestics. 8-12

[10] Lindsley, Syd. “The Gendered Assault on Immigrants”. Policing the National Body.

[11] http://www.russellpearce.com/text/immigration.htm

[12] Roberts, Dorothy. Killing the Black Body. 111-112

[13] Roberts 203

[14] Abramovitz, Mimi. Regulating the Lives of Women: Social Welfare Policy from Colonial Times to the Present. 1996. 216

[15] Chang

[16] Chang 13
In the book Disposable Domestics, Grace Chang provides a picture of the theories behind welfare’s role in stratifying women’s roles. “Abramovitz proposes that the welfare state mediates the conflicting demands of capitalism for women to provide two functions: to remain in the home to reproduce and maintain the labor force, and to undertake traditionally ‘female’ low-wage work in the paid labor force. Abramovitz argues that the state resolves this conflict by encouraging and subsidizing some women to remain home and nurture the current and future workforce while forcing others into low-wage work. This division is achieved through patriarchal poverty policies or practices predicated on racist assumptions that some women (that is, white women) are fit to be mothers and homemakers and thus ‘deserve’ subsidies allowing them to remain in the home. Other women (that is, women of color and immigrant women) are deemed ‘unfit’ nurturers—indeed, are thought to be undesirable reproducers—and thus are viewed as better suited to fulfill the demands for certain kinds of market labor… [Evelyn Nakano] Glenn argues that women of color have historically relieved privileged white women of much of the burden of reproductive labor by performing both private household and institutional service work. Moreover, she argues, women of color’s performance of reproductive labor for others frees dominant-group women to pursue leisure or employment, thus making possible the privilege and ‘liberation’ of white women” and as Chang adds, “to preserve the traditional nuclear family”.[16]
Chang also discusses how white women have been unwilling to organize with women of color for fair wages for household workers (maids, nannies, etc.), because if they did, those in their demographic would have a harder time being able to afford their own help so they can continue to be liberated working women. Such are the limitations of mainstream feminism.[16]

[17] Zepezauer, Mark. Take the Rich Off Welfare. South End Press, 2004

[18] As Martha Escobar explains, “During the 1990s the unworthiness of immigrants, voiced within the language of public charge produced around Black motherhood, carried over the connotation of ‘criminal,’ an identity crystallized by their assumed ‘illegal’ entrance into the U.S., rendering immigrant brown bodies as perpetual criminals… Migrant women’s criminalization is multifaceted, but two large contributing factors are their ‘illegal’ border-crossing, automatically criminalizing them, and their imagined reproduction of future ‘criminals’”. Escobar, Martha “No One is Criminal” Abolition Now! p61

Another example of the criminalization of women of color being clearly linked to their ability to reproduce lies in this quote taken from a webpage on birthright citizenship linked directly from Russell Pearce’s website: “Research shows that one of the biggest challenges immigrant-receiving countries face is the assimilation of the children of immigrants…” said [Steven] Camarota. “With immigrants accounting for such a large, and growing, share of births, America is headed into uncharted territory. We simply don’t know how these children will assimilate—but it is clear that the stakes for America are enormous.” http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back805release.html

The policies for dealing with poverty and other poverty-related problems are not meant to solve the problems, but to criminalize those cast as a nuisance for those in power (just look at the disproportionate number of people in US jails and prisons). The discontinuity between the stated morality-related motivation behind concern over women’s reproduction and the resulting criminalization is exemplified in the treatment over “crack babies”. Dorothy Roberts writes, “The prosecutions are better understood as a way of punishing Black women for having babies rather than as a way of protecting Black fetuses.” She goes on to say that the sad images “that induced pity for the helpless victim were eclipsed by the predictions of the tremendous burdens that crack babies were destined to impose on law-abiding taxpayers.” She points out however that one can’t tell if a crack baby will suffer any adverse effects and that proper health care and nutrition for drug-dependent mothers could minimize or prevent harm for the babies, which clearly isn’t a priority for the state as criminalizing the mothers.

Often these mothers end up in jail, allegedly to keep them from taking drugs, yet “women in prison often live in filthy and overcrowded spaces, eat poorly, are exposed to contagious diseases and violence, get little or no prenatal care, and have easy access to drugs—hardly a protective environment for a developing fetus.” To top things off, the state often takes the children away from their mothers which is often more harmful. The state is clearly not interested in treatment or dealing with underlying causes of drug-use. They would rather put women (women of color at higher rates) in jail. All this, despite the fact that the rate of substance abuse was slightly higher for white women than for Black women, and Black women were ten times more likely than whites to be reported to the authorities, not to mention that crack is racialized compared with other drugs, including cigarette smoking which arguably is more harmful in pregnancy. Roberts, Dorothy. Killing the Black Body 154-161

[19] Cline, Wendy. Building a Better Race:Gender Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom, 2001. 11

[20] Savage Nation radio show. August 4, 2010

[21] Federici, Sylvia. “Caliban and the Witch”.

[22] “Aborting and Importing—Is Immigration the Replacement for Native Born Population?”

[23] "Eugenics, Population Control and Racism- Inside Numbers USA , Roy Beck, FAIR, John Tanton, Pioneer Fund, and Planned Parenthood" http://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/eugenics-population-control-and-racism-inside-numbers-usa-roy-beck-fair-john-tanton-pioneer-fund-and-planned-parenthood/

[24] "Eugenics, Population Control and Racism- Inside Numbers USA , Roy Beck, FAIR, John Tanton, Pioneer Fund, and Planned Parenthood" http://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/eugenics-population-control-and-racism-inside-numbers-usa-roy-beck-fair-john-tanton-pioneer-fund-and-planned-parenthood/

[25] http://www.azstarnet.com/business/319358

[26] Bhatia, Rajani. “Greening the Swastika” Policing the National Body

[27] Hartmann, Betsy. “The Changing Faces of Population Control” Policing the National Bod.y 283

[28] Ross, Loretta. "The Color of Choice" The Color of Violence

[29] Davis, Angela. Angela Y. Davis Reader. 217.

[30] Puck, "Strong Hearts and Poisoned Waters: The Exclusion of Women of Color and the Reproductive Rights Movement in the U.S." http://www.anarcha.org/sallydarity/strongheartspoinsonedwaters.html 2004

[31] Hartmann, Betsy. Reproductive Rights and Wrongs.

[32] Roberts, Dorothy. Killing the Black Body 108-131

[33] Smith, Andrea. Conquest

[34] Ross, Loretta. “The Color of Choice” The Color of Violence

[35] “The power neo-liberalism is willing to give to poor women is the power to make the ‘right’ choices: to have fewer children, to become mini-entrepreneurs or low-wage workers, to buy more consumer goods.” Hartmann, Betsy. “The Changing Faces of Population Control” Policing the National Body. 264

[36] Hartmann, Betsy. Reproductive Rights and Wrongs.

[37] Silliman, Jael. “Policing the National Body: Sex, Race, and Criminalization” (Introduction). Policing the National Body. xi

[38] Chang 16

[39] “WSJ lets AZ state senator rewrite history in attack on birthright citizenship.” Media Matters
July 31, 2010 http://mediamatters.org/research/201007310005

[40] Pearce, Russell. “The Question of Birthright Citizenship” http://frontpagemag.com/2010/06/24/the-question-of-birthright-citizenship/

[41] This phrase is attributed to Barbara Coe, who has also been seeking to limit birthright citizenship. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/13/local/me-illegal-immigration13

Citizenship is Based on Theft, Domination, and Criminalization

2010-08-25T21:48:00.000-07:00

If for some reason it had not yet been time to really address the concept of citizenship, now is the time. Once congress is back in session, birthright citizenship will be the next hot topic of debate. The 14th amendment gave ex-slaves and their children the citizenship they did not have before, and has since applied to anyone born on US soil (aside from a few cases), including the racist-tizzy-inducing undocumented immigrants' children, called by the derogatory term, "anchor babies".

The focus on birthright citizenship, if it does not succeed in changing the 14th amendment, may have a chance at shifting the debate in the favor of the racists. They not only want to remove all undocumented immigrants from the country, but their children as well. While they claim that their concern is over the law ('Illegal is not a race, it's a crime', Pearce says) as of right now, the so-called "anchor babies" have not committed any crime, yet they are to be ousted as well. The immigrants' rights movement will find it necessary to focus on defending the children of undocumented parents and retreat from the defense of undocumented immigrants themselves. This may look similar to the hierarchy created between the more deserving and the less deserving created by the debate around the Dream Act. We cannot allow them to shift the debate in this way. We need to shift it in the direction of questioning the concept of citizenship and the legitimacy of the country in the first place.

So we must ask, what does citizenship mean? We should especially ask this in the context of the fact that the US is on stolen land. What does it mean for some settlers to seize a bunch of land and declare that they are citizens and the original peoples are not (it took a while for indigenous people to be counted as citizens even after ex-slaves were included), and then continue to do this to many people who are in fact more indigenous to this continent most of the settlers are. Not only are they withholding citizenship and the rights and privileges it entails; they are criminalizing most of the folks who reside in the US who are not citizens. This means detention centers, deportation, fear, etc. Citizenship is based on theft, domination, and criminalization.

Certainly there are many of us who are counted as citizens who do not have allegiance to the US government. However, in many ways citizenship is about loyalty to this system. In what ways can we call this into question? This all deserves much more attention and discussion.

Please also see my article "Invasion by Birth Canal?"

US out of North America!

Video: Welfare for the Rich: Criminalized Migrants

2010-08-15T14:53:00.000-07:00

I made a video version of this blog post.

Survival Solidarity: Stronghold Zine

2010-08-11T16:15:00.000-07:00

From within the Stronghold publishing/distro cell of Survival Solidarity a new zine arises. Far from perfect, close to nothing…. Stronghold is brought to you in the loving memory of every “Strong Hearts” zine. Stronghold is dedicated to every life of the wild Sandhill Crane ever taken in vain. We also dedicate it to the spirit of every warrior that has lost their life in the war against borders, colonization and the fight to protect all things sacred. May each page be a spit into the face of past, present and future repression.

pdf: STRNGHLDfnl

Read more...

Immigration Reform Proponent Opposes Citizenship for "Anchor Babies"

2010-08-04T13:16:00.000-07:00

In the course of research for an article I'm writing on birthright citizenship, I see that Senator Lyndsey Graham, who had been a strong proponent of Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) opposes the interpretation of the 14th amendment that provides US citizenship to everyone born in the US (Source).

I have already pointed out various ways that proposed CIR is deeply problematic, but here's another example of why people mustn't call for Immigration Reform without clarifying some points--or perhaps not calling for reform at all.

Opposition to birthright citizenship is part of the ongoing attack on the reproductive freedom of women of color, is motivated by racism and capitalist interests. Despite the problems with the concept of citizenship and all that it entails (voting, access to welfare, etc.), this sort of attack must be opposed.

I was unaware that this issue was coming up in the US Senate where Republicans are proposing a change to the 14th amendment or at least the interpretation of it. While I knew that Russell Pearce didn't come up with the idea, I had been focusing on what he was saying about it. I believe that semi-success of SB1070 has made republicans feel empowered to bring up this birthright citizenship issue up despite the failures of similar efforts in the past. This will be interesting indeed.

Communique: Tucson Interstate Temporarily Blocked!

2010-07-31T13:24:00.000-07:00

from http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2010/07/77544.php

Sigue en español abajo:
DIRECT ACTION DISRUPTS ARIZONA RACISM!

Partial justice is no justice at all! Despite Judge ruling to block parts of SB 1070, racial-profiling, raids, deportations and the militarization of the border will continue unchallenged. This is why today we shut down Interstate 19 (I-19)

July 29, 2010 Tucson, AZ—On the morning that SB1070 is scheduled to take effect in the state of Arizona and three days before Obama deploys 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, a group of concerned community members blocked traffic on I-19 south of Ajo Rd. in Tucson, AZ. A blockade of tires covered in tar and broken glass were placed across both southbound lanes along with a banner reading “Stop All Militarization! The Border is Illegal!” This blockade is a temporary shutdown of the very road that is used to deport people deemed “illegal” as well as a direct disruption of the flow of capital. By blocking I-19 we have halted the transportation of migrants and the profits Whack-n-hut and Corrections Corporation of Amerikkka make by these inhumane acts of separating families, communities and loved ones. This morning we interrupt the privatization of the criminalization of people of color.

The State of Arizona ruthlessly disrupts and terrorizes the lives of non-white communities on a daily basis. SB 1070 is yet another example of how migrants and people of color are criminalized. Today’s action is a declaration of resistance to the criminalization of affected communities and the militarization of indigenous land.

Neither SB 1070 nor the deployment of National Guard troops to the border do anything to address the root causes as to why people migrate. U.S. economic policies and wars have displaced and impoverished millions of people all over the world. Capital-driven policies, such as NAFTA, create poverty. These policies and laws not only consume and exploit land and people, but they also displace us from our homes, forcing us to migrate in order to survive. If policymakers were serious about stopping “illegal immigration,” they would end these capitalist exploitations and stop their military invasions abroad.

We want an end to the militarization of indigenous land, I.C.E. raids, deportations, the attacks on ethnic studies, violence against women and queer people, the expansion of prisons and immigration detention centers, empire, the border wall and the genocide at the Arizona-Sonora border that has claimed the lives of over 153 people during the first 8 months of this fiscal year alone.

Today we interrupt the flow of Arizona’s traffic to bring attention to the following points:

ABOLISH ALL OF SB 1070 AND OTHER ANTI-MIGRANT LAWS.

STOP ALL MILITARIZATION. NO NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS ON INDIGENOUS LAND.

BORDERS AND THE ARIZONA GOVERNMENT ARE ILLEGITIMATE.

NO HUMAN BEING IS ILLEGAL—THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM IS TO BLAME.

WE WANT RESPECT AND JUSTICE FOR ALL PEOPLE.

We affirm our dignity and promote the well-being of all people. We stand for solidarity, peace, self-determination and autonomy. We assert the rights of all people everywhere to feel safe and live free of oppression and state violence.

**************************

************************************

ACCIÓN DIRECTA INTERRUMPE EL RACISMO DE ARIZONA!
A pesar de la decisión de la Juez de bloquear componentes polémicos de la medida SB 1070, el perfil racial, las redadas, deportaciones y la militarización de la frontera continuaran sin ser desafiadas. Es por eso que hoy bloqueo la Interestatal 19 (I-19).

29 de Julio 2010 Tucson, AZ—En la mañana que la SB 1070 esta programada para entrar en vigor en el estado de Arizona y tres días antes de que Obama desplegue a 1,200 tropas de la Guardia Nacional, un grupo de miembros comunitarios bloquearon el tráfico hacia en la I-19, sur de La Calle Ajo en Tucson, AZ. Un bloqueo de llantas cubiertas con alquitrán y vidrio quebrado fueron colocadas en los dos carriles que van hacia el sur. En la carretera se ubicó un cartelón que declara “¡Alto a toda la Militarización! ¡La Frontera es Ilegal!” Este bloqueo es un paro temporal de la misma carretera que es usada para deportar a personas consideradas “ilegales”, al igual que es una interrupción directa del flujo de los productos y mercancía. Al interrumpir el tráfico de la I-19 hemos logrado suspender el transporte de migrantes y las ganancias que empresas como Wackenhut y Corrections Corporation of Amerikkka ganan al cumplir actos inhumanos como separar a nuestras familias. Esta mañana nosotr@s interrumpimos la privatización de la criminalización de las comunidades de color.
El Estado de Arizona sin piedad perturba y aterroriza a diario la vida ñde nuestras comunidades. La SB 1070 es otro ejemplo de cómo los migrantes y las personas de color somños criminalizadas. La acción de hoy es una declaración de resistencia a la criminalización de nuestras comunidades y la militarización de tierras indígenas.
Ni la SB 1070, ni el desplegue de tropas de la Guardia Nacional hacen nada para combatir las causas de por qué la gente emigra. Las guerras y las pólizas económicas de los EE.UU. han desplazado y empobrecido a millones de personas en todo el mundo. Pólizas impulsadas por ganancias, como el Tratado de Libre Comercio, causan la pobreza. Estas políticas y leyes no sólo consumen y explotan la tierra y la gente, pero también nos desplazan de nuestros hogares, obligándonos a emigrar para sobrevivir. Si los políticos tuvieran la seriedad de frenar la "inmigración ilegal", pondrían fin a su sistema económico que empobrece al mundo y acabarían con sus invasiones militares en el extranjero.
Queremos poner un fin a la militarización de tierras indígenas, redadas, deportaciones, los ataques a los estudios étnicos, la violencia contra las mujeres y gente gay, lesbiana, bisexual, transgenero, la expansión de las cárceles, los centros de detención, el imperio, el muro fronterizo y el genocidio en la frontera entre Arizona y Sonora, que ha cobrado la vida de más de 153 personas durante los primeros ocho meses de este año fiscal. Hoy interrumpimos el flujo del tráfico de Arizona para llamar a la atención los siguientes puntos:
SUPRIMIR COMPLETAMENTE LA SB 1070 Y OTRAS LEYES ANTI-MIGRANTES.
FRENAR TODO LA MILITARIZACIÓN. FUERA TROPAS DE LA FRONTERA.
LAS FRONTERAS Y EL GOBIERNO ARIZONENSE SON ILEGITIMOS.
NINGUN SER HUMANO ES ILEGAL—ESTE SISTEMA ECONÓMICO ES EL PROBLEMA.
QUEREMOS RESPETO Y JUSTICIA PARA TODAS LAS PERSONAS.
Afirmamos nuestra dignidad y promovemos el bienestar de todas las personas. Estamos a favor de la solidaridad, la paz, la auto-determinación y la autonomía. Afirmamos el derecho de todos los pueblos del mundo a sentirse seguros y vivir libres de la opresión y libres de la violencia estatal.

What's Happening This Week

2010-07-26T14:08:00.000-07:00

Here's what i know about so far for this week:
Read the Call put out

July 28th: The Comunidad Resiste
and a "Policing the Police" Training

July 29th Day of Action

9am action at Wells Fargo Plaza at 100 West Washington Street; decentralized non-violent civil disobedience and direct action throughout the city, throughout the day.

8 am March to 1st ave and Washingon~ We will be gathering at Cesar Chavez Park throughout the day

9 am rally at Wells Fargo 1st ave and Washington

4 pm rally at 4th ave. jail (4th ave and Madison)

July 29 and/or 30: Arpaio is doing a crime suppression sweep. Contact phoenix copwatch for more info or go to the "policing the police" training listed above.

Call-Out for End of July in AZ

2010-07-16T13:12:00.000-07:00

End NAFTA!

NO to continued invasions on O'odham land!

NO to environmental destruction to secure the border!

Border Security = Militarization

Transformative Justice NOT the Police State!!

NO to forced divisions between us and our brothers and sisters based

on immigration status (or anything for that matter)!

by Sum

Arizona is the site of the worst immigration legislation so far. SB 1070 (aka Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act) further criminalizes and targets undocumented immigrants- increasing fear, harassment, arrests, and sanctioning state-sponsored hate. This is only one part of a war on migrants and a larger war on people of color and the poor. This law has been a catalyst for a round of civil disobedience actions in and outside of Arizona. While higher numbers and stronger opposition by decentralized action is needed in Arizona, the struggle should not be focused solely on SB1070. Capitalism, neo-liberalism, imperialism, and state power are root causes of migration and of oppression. This bill has been in the making for hundreds of years and now is the time to expose this by taking to the streets!

We’re calling for anarchists and other anti-authoritarians making plans to participate in creative actions here in Arizona! We are interested in solidarity, creativity, broadly-focused analysis and direct action. Many folks from the RCP to ANSWER in addition to the more moderate and conservative elements of the immigrants’ rights movement are organizing and promoting their pseudo-solutions here. We are not concerned with managing the struggle or with maintaining reputations worthy of scholarships and political office. This message against borders, for freedom, and breaking down all the borders between us (gender, sexuality, race, etc.) is necessary now more than ever.

Here in Arizona, we are broadening the struggle beyond SB 1070 and just migrants' rights (see examples of recent actions below). The immigrant rights movement has touted Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) as the answer. A big part of the CIR plan is heightened border security. Border security means militarization, which will only get worse if border security is part of CIR. The border, some of which is a constructed wall, divides O'odham land, preventing or complicating border-crossing for many members of this indigenous community. They are now required to carry passports, they get their personal belongings searched at checkpoints going back and forth from visiting family and attending gatherings, and some O'odham people have been violently threatened at gunpoint by Border Patrol.

The federal government militarizes and builds walls along the border, runs the detention centers caging hundreds of thousands of migrants, and has plans for more border security. Their intentions are not benevolent, even if some folks are “legalized” through reform. We mustn't call for the federal government to swoop down and save Arizona or any other state facing similar legislation when they are equally part of the problem. If we limit our goals, when will all this end? The border and immigration law are illegitimate in the face of the colonization of this land.

In connecting with each other in this struggle we must also deepen our connections to our communities. Our everyday interactions can break the borders of skin privilege, class, settler privilege, and resolve conflict stemming from cultural differences as we work together.

While you are here, recognize that you are on O’odham land. Familiarize yourself with the resources below, and determine how you can take action and support indigenous resistance in Arizona. Come with courage, respect, and humility. Let’s get creative!

There is limited information about plans so far, but the bill will go into effect before we know it (July 29 pending any obstacles). There will be actions throughout the month, but July 28-30 is critical for support. Sherriff Arpaio is planning to raid the county with another “crime suppression operation” July 30th. We must keep organizing against whiteness/white supremacy promoted in the interest of capitalism and the state. We must strategize on creative solutions to demilitarize the border. Continuing in the months ahead, we will actively target icons within this system of violence, and organize for the liberation and self-determination of our communities.

Meet up in Civic Space Park July 28th 7pm 424 North Central Ave.

Please view these resources:

Check out these recent actions for an idea of what’s been going on here::

no one is free until everybody is free

"When we support each other in actions and tense situations, when we act together to protect the most vulnerable among us, when we can face the potential violence of the system in community instead of alone, we undermine fear.

When we cease complying out of fear, we force the system to actually enforce its decrees. This is costly in terms of money, materials, and the undermining of public support. We force the system to reveal the underlying violence that supports it." - Starhawk

Need assistance with housing rideshares and participating despite ability?

Desire to give/need by providing daycare, LGBTQ solidarity, to feed the masses, medic skills, fundraising, legal assistance, wanna connect a skillshare, and whatever else you can think of-

Contact: breakthruborders@riseup.net

SB1070: Will Be Stopped, but Worse Will Come from Feds

2010-07-05T15:39:00.000-07:00

Here's my prediction about SB1070. It may or may not go into effect on July 29th, but I think it will be stopped in some way, probably by the federal government. Then the federal government will come up with some Comprehensive Immigration Reform that is as bad or worse than SB1070, but not as blatantly horrible. It will provide a few crumbs for certain folks- perhaps to buy off the some of ones with the most capacity to build resistance, but it will involve more border security and attrition through enforcement (with a new gentler formula). We are also possibly going to see a guest worker program and perhaps some sort of id that involves biometrics.

After Prop 187 in California passed it was found to be unconstitutional. Yet it was important historically because it set things in motion. In particular, the federal government passed welfare reform that instituted restrictions on welfare to immigrants that mirrored some of prop 187.

The excerpts at the end of this post, from Border lines blog discuss the reasons the federal approach to immigration is not likely to be much different from AZ's.

This is why I say This is bigger than SB1070. We have people coming to Arizona from out of town, doing this Arizona Freedom Summer (beware the RCP) and thirty actions in thirty days sorts of things, but need to be clear that SB 1070 is not the main issue here. People keep voting for Sheriff Joe and racist legislation- there need to be some efforts to change minds and/or undermine the strength of racism here. As I've mentioned before, if we don't look beyond the pieces of legislation and the bad sheriffs and the raids, the economic situation that so many face is overlooked. We also have a criminal "justice" system that seeks to criminalize people they see as a problem- particularly people of color, whether immigrants or not. In seeking to move immigration reform along, some folks think it's okay to further militarize the border even when it already harms the communities such as the O'odham down at the border.

For more reading on these topics (especially if you're new to these issues in AZ), see This is Bigger than SB 1070. Whether or not my prediction comes true, this is still bigger than the latest law. It was too big before.

From Border Lines blog:

It’s likely that SB 1070 will be judged, in whole or in part, as unconstitutional and will never be fully implemented. Even so the Arizona law marks another step forward in the consolidation of the attrition through enforcement strategy, just as its Legal Workers Act of 2008, which the courts have upheld, signaled the deepening dimensions of immigration law enforcement...

The Arizona law highlights a deepening conundrum for the federal government. By no means is DHS opposed on principle to having local law enforcement join in immigration enforcement. But it does insist that such cooperation be on the terms it sets. Having opened the door to federal-local cooperation, DHS is finding it hard to control the eagerness of localities to join in the immigrant crackdown...

With its Support Local Law Enforcement Act, Arizona not only adopted the “attrition through enforcement’ framework of the restrictionist institutes. It also adapted parts of the federal playbook for immigration enforcement: identifying new ways to increase what DHS calls “law enforcement partnerships” and extending the federal government’s own focus on the expanding category of “criminal aliens.”

Rather than waiting for DHS to reach out and expand its own federal-local collaborative programs, Arizona politicians have asserted the state’s right to enforce existing federal immigration laws. In the view of the supporters of the new law, the main problem they are attempting to address is not some inadequacy in federal immigration law. Rather it’s the failure of the federal agencies to adequately enforce the law...

The federal government has not explicitly endorsed ["attrition through enforcement"], but its actions are closely attuned with this restrictionist agenda.

Even as the White House and DHS continued to insist that only a CIR strategy will fix the broken immigration system, it has systematically moved to make it increasingly difficult for unauthorized immigrants (illegal border crossers and those overstaying their visas) and for legal immigrants who have violated criminal laws (mostly drug use) to live and work in the country. At the same time, DHS has steadily strengthened border control through increased checkpoints, increased agents, and increased border-control infrastructure...

The Obama administration has also proved an ardent advocate of increased federal-local cooperation in immigration enforcement. Among other things, it has strongly supported collaborative programs initiated by the Bush administration such as Operation Community Shield, Criminal Alien Program, Fugitive Operation Teams, Operation Stonegarden, Border Enforcement Security Taskforces (BEST), and the 287(g) program – all of which involve local police and sheriff deputies in the enforcement of immigration law.

In addition, the Obama administration has consolidated and promoted the Secure Communities program, which was developed under DHS Secretary Chertoff as a pilot project to encourage and facilitate the checking of the immigration status of all those arrested by local law enforcement. Secure Communities is advancing rapidly under Secretary Napolitano, who has prioritized the detention and removal of all those DHS and the Justice Department identity as “criminal aliens.”

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the DHS agency responsible for immigration investigations and interior enforcement, has a special program to promote what its calls “law enforcement partnerships.” ICE Access (Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security) “provides local law enforcement agencies an opportunity to team up with ICE to combat specific challenges in their communities.”

Established in 2007, ICE Access underscores the increasing outreach of DHS to local law enforcement officials in immigration and other homeland security matters. The program supports “a multi-agency/multi/authority approach that encompasses federal, state, and local resources, skills, and expertise.”

Welfare for the Rich: Criminalized Migrants

2010-06-30T14:57:00.000-07:00

I'm interested in this birth right issue: the anti-immigrant folks want to change the interpretation of the 14th amendment to keep children of undocumented immigrants from becoming citizens. There are some interesting parallels and overlaps with the rallying cries around overpopulation and welfare abuse. Much attention is put on immigrants' reproduction and the "jackpot" they would receive. (While reading Russell Pearce's website, I learned that another derogatory name for those called "anchor babies" is "jackpot babies").

While I don't believe that as many people are taking advantage of welfare as many claim are, I believe it is currently necessary to people's survival. That said, I don't believe it is the answer to the root problems (and was designed to avoid dealing with root problems), and so I look to other answers other than to fight for access to welfare, especially since, if I understand correctly, welfare isn't intended for or available to undocumented immigrants even if the democrats had more sway.

In the course of my reading and thinking about this issue- the counter-argument to the anti-immigrant folks' that welfare is an incentive for migrants to have children in this country, I realized that the criminalization of migrants (which costs money in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches) is, in effect, welfare, hand-outs, or subsidization for the wealthier classes so they can make even more money. Criminalized migrants (those who automatically break the law by not being in the country through the mostly unattainable official/legal channels) are immensely exploitable. Because of the threat of arrest and/or deportation, they can be coerced into working in dangerous, low-paying jobs, with long hours and limited breaks, no overtime pay, kept from organizing for better conditions and wages, and in many cases, even held against their will to labor.

While racists are crying that too many women of color are having babies and living off welfare, many mostly-white upper middle class and rich women have undocumented women taking care of their kids for them, at very low costs. In the book Disposable Domestics, Grace Chang discusses how white women have been unwilling to organize with others for fair wages for household workers (maids, nannies, etc.), because if they did, they and their constituents would have a harder time being able to afford their own help so they can continue to be liberated working women. Such are the limitations of mainstream feminism.

In effect, the government subsidizes reproductive labor (other than actual childbirth) for the wealthier classes, while withholding it from many women of color (despite what many say, in reality even citizens have a hard time getting adequate welfare), especially undocumented women. This subsidy, which could be called welfare, applies to nearly any situation in which an undocumented migrant is working, since they are rarely paid and treated adequately. It is a little silly to call it "welfare" because these folks don't have to worry about their personal welfare, but because of the rhetoric surrounding welfare as hand-outs, as socialism in some ways, the rich certainly get welfare in different forms. For example, the book Take the Rich Off Welfare, sites a number of subsidies, tax breaks, and more. As far as I recall, the book does not discuss criminalized migrants as welfare, although I think it covers prison labor, which is very much related, as is the slave labor of the past.

Criminalizing migrants is tricky, since the consequence to the migrants is supposed to be that they would be arrested, deported, and/or they would choose to leave- thereby leaving no exploitable labor for the businesses. The businesses (as well as private entities) don't like that! This is an interesting clash between the racists and those who employ migrants (not that the two are mutually exclusive). I believe that SB1070, although motivated by racism, is not totally meant to render Arizona free of undocumented workers. Overall, criminalization functions to render them exploitable, not absent. Remember the Sensenbrenner bill? I don't know where Sensenbrenner stood as far as his personal dislike for undocumented immigrants, but he was behind a very harsh federal immigration reform and it turns out he profits off the criminalization of migrants. Russell Pearce, the legislator who pushed the bill, and Kris Kobach, the lawyer who actually wrote the bill, seem to mostly be motivated by racism.

I believe that racism is spread in the interest of keeping workers divided so that businesses can continue to exploit them all (some more so). I don't think racists like Pearce are conscious actors in this scheme, so he probably won't give up until Arizona is truly free of undocumented immigrants (and their kids). Nevertheless, in the meantime (and hopefully he won't be successful), the criminalization of migrants continues to benefit businesses overall. Let's keep in mind here too, that we as average people also benefit from the cheap labor that keeps the cost down on most of the items we buy. If those items are imported, it's usually cheaper again because the labor has somehow been coerced through criminalization or threat of criminalization.

Billions of dollars are being spent on immigration enforcement. The border wall alone will cost billions. Locally SB1070 will cost so much money, yet somehow it is justified too keep down the cost that immigrants supposedly have on society. While many of us understand that this is just a way to maintain the US as a mostly white country that can exploit the labor of all workers (white or not) by dividing and criminalizing many of them, it does not occur even to most of us that this criminalization is not just an act of hate or politics, but is subsidizing US business.

Don't need to write so much when others are

2010-06-17T13:23:00.000-07:00

Lately I haven't felt like I need to be writing as much because many great things are being said (and done) by others. Although I may not completely agree with every word, here are some excerpts of the more radical things being written. Please do click on the title to read the whole text of each piece.

Statement of those arrested at Border Patrol Headquarters at Davis-Monthan Air Force Bace in Tucson, Arizona

The development of the border wall has lead to desecration of our ancestors graves, it has divided our communities and prevents us from accessing sacred places.

Troops and paramilitary law enforcement, detention camps, check points, and citizenship verification are not a solution to migration. We have existed here long before these imposed borders, my elders inform us that we always honored freedom of movement. Why are our communities and the daily deaths at the border ignored? The impacts of border militarization are constantly made invisible in the media, the popular culture of this country and even the mainstream immigrants rights movement which has often pushed for “reform” that means further militarization of the border, which means increased suffering for our communities.
Indigenous communities such as the O’odham, the Pascua Yaqui, Laipan Apache, Kickapoo, and Cocopah along the US/Mexico border have been terrorized with laws and practices like SB1070 for decades. Indigenous people along the border have been forced by border patrol to carry and provide proof of tribal membership when moving across their traditional lands that have been bisected by this imposed border; a border that has been extremely damaging to the cultural and spiritual practices of these communities. Many people are not able to journey to sacred sites because the communities where people live are on the opposite side of the border from these sites. Since the creation of the current U.S./Mexico border, 45 O’odham villages on or near the border have been completely depopulated.<

On this day people who are indigenous to Arizona join with migrants who are indigenous to other parts of the Western Hemisphere in demanding a return to traditional indigenous value of freedom of movement for all people. Prior to the colonization by European nations (spaniards, english, french) and the establishment of the european settler state known as the United States and the artificial borders it and other european inspired nation states have imposed; indigenous people migrated, traveled and traded with each other without regard to artificial black lines drawn on maps. U.S. immigration policies dehumanize and criminalize people simply because which side of these artificial lines they were born on. White settlers whose ancestors have only been here at most for a few hundred years have imposed these policies of terror and death on “immigrants” whose ancestors have lived in this hemisphere for tens of thousands of years, for time immemorial.

In addition, the migration that the U.S. government is attempting to stop is driven more than anything else by the economic policies of the U.S. Free trade agreements such as NAFTA have severely reduced the ability of Mexicans and others from the global south to sustain themselves by permitting corporations to extract huge amounts of wealth and resources from these countries into the U.S. This has led to millions of people risking the terror and death that so many face to cross into the U.S. looking for ways to better support their families. Thousand of women, men, children and elders have died crossing just in the last decade. If the U.S. really wants to reduce migration it should end its policies of exploitation and wealth extraction targeted at the global south and instead pursue policies of economic, environmental and social justice for all human beings on the planet, thus reducing the drive to immigrate.

The protestors are demanding:

-An end to border militarization
-The immediate repeal of SB1070 and 287g
-An end to all racial profiling and the criminalization of our communities
-No ethnic cleansing or cultural genocide
-No border patrol encroachment/sweeps on sovereign native land
-No Deportations
-No Raids
-No ID-verification
-No Checkpoints

-Yes to immediate and unconditional regularization (“legalization”) of all people
-Yes to human rights
-Yes to dignity
-Yes to respect
Yes to respecting Indigenous Peoples inherent right of migration

Raúl: A Call to Dream; a Call to Action and Rebellion

This is at a time when our community is the most radicalized and militant it has ever been, yet the most visible/radical element getting all the attention in the mainstream media is the DREAM Movement?! Dang. This begs the question: What’s wrong with the Left? What are we doing wrong? Instead of just critiquing the DREAM, why don’t we ask ourselves why we are allowing this NIGHTMARE called Amerikkka to continue unchallenged? Why are we allowing Border Patrol Pigs to taser, torture, terrorize and assassinate our people? How could it be that we idly sit by continuing our everyday lives uninterrupted as 7 year-old Brisenia Flores and her father are shot to death by White supremacists in Arizona or 14 year-old Sergio Adrian Hernandez is shot in the head by an agent in El Paso, Texas??? Why do we allow Arizona to be ground zero for police brutality against Latinos and the site of a quiet GENOCIDE against thousands of our sisters and brothers that have lost their lives crossing the desert—year after year after year??? How could we let this government get away with genocide and terrorism? What’s going on with our movement? Our strategy? Our tactics? Why are we letting this once in a lifetime opportunity to push our revolutionary visions to the forefront of the movement slip through our fingers? Where have our clenched fists gone? Why are we hiding behind our comfort? Where’s our dignity? Where’s our courage? Where is our commitment to our families and our visions of freedom? Whether it’s the DREAM Act or Immigration Reform, WE CANNOT depend or place our hopes on politicians of either party to be persuaded to side with justice or morality. If this is our strategy we will be waiting for a very long time and have lost from the very beginning.

Have we forgotten about the legacies of Harriet Tubman? Ricardo Flores Magon? Reies Lopez Tijerina? Assata Shakur? Robert F. Williams? Malcolm X? The Black Panther Party? Loilta Lebron? Silvia Rivera? Comandanta Ramona? If there was ever a moment to build on their legacies, it is now. Lobbying, voter registration drives, vigils and marches are obviously not gonna get us anywhere except backwards… nonviolent civil disobedience actions must continue, but that ain’t gonna get us much further either; not in violent Nazi-zona, not in violent Amerikkka.

Tucson: STATEMENT ON SB 1070 AND BEYOND

We stand for the empowerment of our communities, and our ability to protect ourselves. We stand against racist legislation, including SB 1070. We condemn the attack on ethnic studies, I.C.E. raids, violence against womyn and queer people, the expansion of the prisons, the border wall, and the militarization of our everyday lives.

Border militarization and the expansion of law enforcement destroy the earth, harm indigenous communities and create a terror campaign against migrants and communities of color in Arizona and beyond. The new legislation is part of a racist campaign that aims to create a terrorized and criminalized class that is more vulnerable to exploitation. Migrants are blamed for crime, unemployment, and the current economic crisis in order to distract the U.S. public from seeing what is really to blame for this crisis: capitalism—the system that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.

SB 1070 is a direct attack on our families, friends, neighbors, schools and communities.

SB 1070 is part of a history of colonial occupation. We live in a country founded on slavery, genocide and exploitation. The U.S. took over Native land and, in 1846, waged war against Mexico, established borders and imposed itself over the entire Southwest. SB 1070 comes from this legacy of colonial occupation.

SB 1070 is a symptom of white supremacy. SB 1070 is only the latest attack on people of color that makes Arizona an apartheid police state, where brown-skinned people are politically, legally and economically discriminated against and segregated.

SB 1070 does nothing to address the root causes of migration. U.S. economic policies and wars have displaced and impoverished millions of people all over the world. Money-driven policies, such as NAFTA, create poverty. Not only do they consume and exploit land, water, petroleum, and laborers (i.e., human beings), but they also displace us from our homes, forcing us to migrate in order to survive. If policymakers were serious about stopping “illegal immigration,” they would end capitalist exploitation and stop their military “interventions” abroad.

SB 1070 is the product of a system that oppresses people not only for being undocumented or non-white, but also for being poor, young, womyn, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer...

Demands:

* STOP APARTHEID LEGISLATION IN ARIZONA
* STOP RACIAL PROFILING AND POLICE STATE TERROR
* STOP THE MILITARIZATION OF THE BORDER AND OUR COMMUNITIES
* STOP THE RAIDS AND DEPORTATIONS
* WE WANT COMMUNITY SAFETY!
* WE WANT HEALTHY FAMILIES!
* WE WANT TO LIVE IN PEACE!
* WE WANT AUTONOMY!

The Calm Before the Storm….An Anarchist Perspective on Challenging the Violence of SB 1070.

Addressing the militarization of the O’odham border has become one of Arizona Anarchists main focuses this year. From the forming of the Diné, O’odham, anarchist/anti-authoritarian Bloc, to the recent Border Patrol lock-down we refuse to allow the invisibleness of Indigenous issue to continue. As you read this you can know for sure that there is a BP officer on the Tohono O’odham reservation looking for someone or something to target. The Tohono O’odham often have their houses raided by masked BP and homeland security agents. BP harasses elders travelling to sacred ceremonies and school children going to class; they steal the O’odhams horses and have even recently killed an O’odham youth. One of the most appalling facts that cease to see the light of day is how the building of the border literally dug up the bodies of O’odham ancestors. All this recent colonization comes on the back of 500+ years of Indigenous people being under attack. We say fuck that! It’s time to attack.

Reflecting on the Zapatistas struggle to the south of us we see one of the most obvious places to attack; that being any of the larger systems of infrastructure. Everyday, the results of NAFTA and “Free” Trade are felt in the bones of the people affected most by those policies.

The Non-Profit Industrial Complex Eats Reform and Spits Out DREAMs

The Non-Profit Industrial Complex is like the Prison Industrial Complex in that despite the name, it is a capitalist model based in struggling for money. While private prisons fight amongst themselves for contracts with the Federal government and cut corners that usually equal abuses against those housed behind concrete and barbed wire, non-profits fight amongst themselves for money given out by corporate tax shelters and cut corners by watering down what should be revolution for reform and the end result is abuse against those whom orgs claim to represent and help in their mission statements. And just like private prisons would rather have rival gangs attack each other and distract from the bigger picture, non-profit organizations, whether on purpose or by default, also engage in divide and conquer politics that serve to dilute struggles rather than strengthen them. Need an example? Just look at the latest beef between some orgs in the Comprehensive Immigration Reform movement and the DREAM Act students...

Every day it becomes clearer that the Democratic machine is no more friendly to immigrants and their demands than the Republican party, as under the Obama administration there has been an increase in deportations and detentions. “Common sense reform” has been killed by enforcement first which has become essentially enforcement only and none of the organizations have had the guts to admit that for now, Comprehensive Immigration Reform, in the form we were all expected to accept it, a bill, is dead. Admitting as much could very well mean that the reason for their organizations and budgets (which, full disclosure have paid for advertising here even), is also dead.

Group attacks border fence in protest of border patrol shooting

Protesters chain themselves at Santa Ana federal building to protest Arizona law

Anarchists attack ICE facility in Loveland, Colorado

6 people cited after protest at Border Patrol Headquarters

Police Brutality and Immigration

2010-06-02T15:22:00.000-07:00

More law enforcement violence against migrants:

In San Diego, a Mexican immigrant has died after customs officers repeatedly struck him with batons and shocked him with a stun gun as they deported him to Mexico. The victim, Anastacio Hernández-Rojas, had been detained after crossing over from Mexico last week. Family members say Hernández-Rojas has lived in the United States since he was fourteen and is the father of five US-born children. Customs officials say officers struck and tasered him after he began resisting his deportation. Witnesses reported seeing the officers kick and beat Hernández-Rojas. The San Diego Police Department says it’s investigating. (Source).

I've been thinking a lot about the inconsistency surrounding the participation of people with an awareness of police violence and terror with groups and individuals who work with the police. There are countless examples of excusing and reinforcing the role of the police in the context of the immigrants' rights movement. Calls for the sheriff to serve warrants, having cops in meetings, etc. despite the stories of police brutality (such as the one above and this local story from the winter), and the enthusiasm many cops- not just Arpaio and his deputies- have for ridding our cities of "illegals'. I could speak more on harassment, lies, and more surrounding the police involvement with activists, but it's not appropriate for blogging.

Anyway, here are some bits from INCITE! that I think should shed some provide some context for consideration of willingness to work with cops or groups that work with cops. Of course women and trans people are not the only ones who affected by brutality, but the particular situations are often overlooked. Also, this is a point where feminists must stand up against racist violence, whereas feminism has been mostly white-dominated and sometimes racist. When white feminists come to take part in the movements of people of color, they/we must not blindly follow the most prominent leaders of color, but at least be critical with the knowledge that we can gain from radical women of color.

Excerpts from INCITE! (Women of Color Against Violence) Law Enforcement Violence Against Women of Color and Trans People of Color Toolkit:

IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

While anti-immigrant forces have focused on alleged rapes by fellow migrants and “coyotes” as justification for stirring up racist anti-immigrant sentiment and calling for enhanced border enforcement and militarization, they have been notably silent on rapes by Border Patrol and other law enforcement agents, as well as the increased vulnerability to sexual abuse created by intensified anti-immigrant measures forcing migrant women into more desperate and desolate border crossings.

VIOLENCE IN THE INTERIOR
In addition, the federal government has begun to enter into “memorandums of understanding” with local police offices, deputizing local law enforcement agencies to act as immigration agents. In 2008, President Bush’s immigration budget called for $4.8 billion for interior enforcement of immigration law, which included funds to train state and local law enforcement officials in immigration enforcement.15 The increasing presence of immigration enforcement in the interior leads women of color to see law enforcement agents and the criminal legal system as further threats to their safety.

Haime Flores was stopped at a checkpoint and taken to a Border Patrol station. After it was determined that her documents were valid, the agents went on to detain her for six hours and order a search, during which a female agent inserted her finger into Flores’ vagina while three male officers laughed and joked. No contraband was found. Since 1996, the U.S. government has engaged in what it views as a “comprehensive interior enforcement strategy.”

The objective: to “protect” communities by identifying and deporting individuals in violation of immigration laws in non-border areas. Immigration law enforcement officials have conducted raids at schools, shopping centers, and workplaces, sweeping the area for undocumented immigrants.

In February 2007 ICE agents stormed into Nelly Amaya’s home. When she asked to see a warrant -- which the agents did not have -- they roughed her up, injuring her arm, as they frisked and arrested her, and took her away in her pajamas. While in detention she suffered an asthma attack, but was denied treatment.
She was released 10 hours later in her pajamas with no money in the dead of winter.

INS officer James Riley was arrested in May 1990, after conducting an unauthorized immigration “one-man raid at gunpoint at a Van Nuys bar.” Riley abducted and raped a 24-year-old woman from the bar after telling her that she was under arrest for lacking legal documents to be in the United States. One month later,
over seventeen women had filed charges against him, recounting similar abuse.
Saida Uzmanzor’s nursing nine-month old daughter was removed from her by ICE agents and placed in foster care after she was detained during a raid.
In December 2007, Miriam Aviles was pulled over by Tucson police and asked for identification. The officer called Border Patrol, and then induced labor in Ms. Aviles by physically forcing her into the Border Patrol vehicle. Ms. Aviles spent the night in immigration detention, and was not taken to a clinic until the following day, where she was badgered by a Border Patrol agent to “hurry up” and have her baby.

In 1996, Congress passed immigration reform legislation that led to the explosion of the immigration detention system. It is now the fastest-growing incarceration program in the country, leading the rapid expansion of the prison industrial complex in the U.S. In 2005, the Department of Homeland Security detained 237,667 individuals: an average of 19,619 per day.

VIOLENCE IN IMMIGRATION DETENTION
Victoria Arellano, an undocumented transgender woman with HIV, died in an ICE detention facility in California after being denied necessary medication to prevent opportunistic infections, despite organizing efforts by fellow detainees to obtain medical treatment for her.

Excerpts from INCITE! (Women of Color Against Violence) Police Brutality Against Women of Color and Trans People of Color Brochure:

Since the arrival of European colonists on this continent and the creation of slave patrols— the first state-sponsored law enforcement agencies in the U.S. — Native, Black, Latina, Asian, and Arab women and girls have been and continue to be harassed, profiled, strip searched, body cavity searched, raped, beaten, and murdered by agents of the state on a systematic basis. Also, as TransJustice asserts, “Gender policing, like race-based policing, has always been part of this nation’s bloody history.”

However, law enforcement violence against women of color and trans people of color is largely invisible in discussions about police brutality. Similarly, discussions about “violence against women” rarely if ever meaningfully address violence perpetrated by law enforcement officers. As a result, police brutality against women of color and trans people of color is often unacknowledged, leaving our voices largely unheard and our experiences unaddressed.

Invisibility occurs in part because government data on racial profiling and the use of “excessive force” by police is not broken down by gender and race and does not include information about sexual violence perpetrated by law enforcement officers. This conceals the fact that women and trans people of color experience racial profiling and police brutality in many of the same ways as men of color, and that sexual violence perpetrated by police is a silent yet systemic problem. For instance: Two studies of law enforcement license revocations in Missouri and Florida found that sexual misconduct was the basis for revocations in almost 25% of cases.

Police brutality against women of color and transgender people of color reveals a critical intersection of sexual and racial violence perpetrated by members of ALL sectors of law enforcement, including local and state police, immigration enforcement (such as ICE, Border Patrol, and Customs), Drug Enforcement Agents, the FBI, private security forces, and military forces. These stories are NOT isolated incidents, but are examples of a widespread and systemic problem of sexual, gender, & racial violence perpetrated by law enforcement. They deserve to be heard. Centering the experiences of women of color and trans people of color will create pathways to strengthening all of our movements against police brutality, domestic and sexual violence, gender violence, poverty, incarceration, and militarization.

Secure Communities Starts in June

2010-05-27T14:09:00.000-07:00

Somehow Secure Communities has been under the radar locally, even for me, and I've written about it a few times. I just came across an event which is a picket against ICE in San Francisco. The event info reads:

About S-Com: “Secure Communities”, beginning on June 1st, 2010, is a new police/ICE collaboration program that will automatically investigate the immigration status of anyone, citizen or non-citizen, who is arrested and fingerprinted for any crime, no matter the severity, by electronically crosschecking their fingerprints against an ICE database, then holding them in jail for ICE to detain them.

Considering this is very complimentary to SB1070, you'd think more people would be aware of it and talking about it. Basically, SB1070 further criminalizes migrants in AZ, thereby creating more "criminal aliens" to which Secure Communities applies. According to Border Lines blog:

Central to the mission of Secure Communities is the removal of criminal aliens. It is not commonly understood in the immigration debate that ICE’s definition of criminal aliens includes both legal and illegal immigrants who have on at least one occasion become object of the criminal justice system. Since 2005 ICE has been increasingly charging illegal border crossers with criminal violations that result in sentencing and imprisonment in federal prisons.

Using the term "criminal" seeks to justify the targeting of the migrants caught up in S-Com. This is part of the strategy. For example, during ICE's Operation Return to Sender, they purported to target criminals- the violent criminals, but also those involved in identity theft. But most of the arrests of people were absent of evidence of any crimes committed.

END BORDER MILITARIZATION CONTINGENT @ 05.29.10 National Day of Action Against SB1070 in PHX

2010-05-27T13:05:00.000-07:00

from O'odham Solidarity Across Borders:

END BORDER MILITARIZATION CONTINGENT
DEMANDING DIGNITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS FOR INDIGENOUS AND MIGRANT COMMUNITIES
National Day of Action Against SB1070
May 29, 2010

O'odham Solidarity Across Borders Collective sends you greetings from occupied O'odham lands,

We urge all who support indigenous nations and migrant communities to join us on Saturday May 29th at the National Day of Action Against SB1070 to demand that Border Patrol (BP), Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE), their parent entity, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Obama administration end militarization of the border, end the criminalization of immigrant communities, and end their campaign of terror which tear families apart through increasing numbers of raids and deportations.

This contingent is in support of the O'odham elders, and other indigenous elders that will be leading the march. It is a follow-up to last Friday’s (May 21st) Peaceful Occupation of the US Border Patrol Headquarters in Tucson, AZ. We hope to use this formation to voice the end of border militarization and racist, colonial laws that attack not just indigenous communities, but migrant ones too. We hope to project true Indigenous/Migrant solidarity in the face of the state's police oppression, and the immigration reform movement’s suppressive tactics to further marginalize the indigenous voice in border policies and colonial laws that affect us all.

The contingent also calls on the State of Arizona to repeal the racist Senate Bill 1070 that criminalizes immigrant communities on the state level, makes it illegal to transport or harbor an undocumented person regardless of family relationship, requires police agencies to engage in racial profiling, and ultimately is an attempt to ethnically cleanse Arizona of those with brown skin.

More...

This is Bigger than SB 1070

2010-05-24T19:04:00.000-07:00

I could spend time writing a whole article on the bigger picture surrounding anti-immigrant efforts in AZ and on a broader scale, but having limited time and having already written a lot on it, here are some things to read:

Freedom Not Reform: Native Struggle from Margin to Center and Reading up on O'odham border struggle

Ending criminalization of people of color must be priority and No Borders or Prison Walls

The Best Immigration Law is No Law at All

Freedom, not Reform: If we don’t demand it, it can’t happen

2007 Retrospective: The Local War on the Undocumented

Racial Profiling Focus is Still a Distraction

Changing the Minds of White Folks Whose Anti-Immigrant Fears have been Manufactured

And of course you can do a search or explore using the tags to see what I've written or posted over the course of the last few years.

Activists Lockdown & Occupy US Border Patrol Headquarters Demanding End to Border Militarization

2010-05-22T17:43:00.000-07:00

Video: Occupation & Lockdown of Tucson Border Patrol HQ

Activists Lockdown & Occupy US Border Patrol Headquarters Demanding End to Border Militarization, Protesters Cited and Released (2nd Press Release)

Mainstream Coverage of Tucson Border Patrol Occupation Newslinks.

Photos from Tucson Border Patrol Headquarters Occupation to End Border Militarization

OCCUPATION OF BORDER PATROL HEADQUATERS DAVIS-MONTHAN AIRFORCE BASE, TUCSON, AZ (Press Release/Statement)

O'odham Solidarity Across Borders blog

Ending criminalization of people of color must be priority

2010-05-22T17:28:00.000-07:00

Three separate times, tears welled up as, on the corner of Swan and Golf Links outside the Border Patrol headquarters in Tucson, a Wackenhut bus full of undocumented detainees drove by. The protest on this corner corresponded to the lockdown of 6 people in the BP office to protest militarization of the border.

The protesters who locked down said that as they were being booked, they saw the people standing, waiting in the "cage" to be processed and then sent off to a detention center or possibly deported, transported on these very buses we saw. A powerful moment was after the protesters had been released and had joined us on the corner, when a bus drove by and we all raised our fists, gave peace signs, and/or waved, knowing to some extent the fate of the prisoners, and wanting to show our solidarity, though limited by gestures.

Tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants, like those whose faces I could barely see, are held in detention centers and jails. SB 1070 has not yet gone into effect. This has been going on for so long and will only continue to do so as long as activists only insist upon ending racial profiling and stopping SB 1070 or even all racist bills/laws if it stops before calling for an end to the border and criminalization of people of color. There are so many undocumented immigrants who are living in our cities whose voices are overpowered by those who want to maintain the status quo. There are so many indigenous people near the border or even throughout this state whose voices are not heard, who are also impacted by the border and will also be impacted by SB1070 and so much more.

While racial profiling seems to be discussed in the media and by certain so-called spokespeople as a problem because it catches innocent/"legal" people up in it, it will be a problem because not only will SB 1070 make it easier and more justifiable to catch undocumented immigrants, it also allows the police to do what they have been doing for so long: treating all people of color as criminals. What tends to be overlooked is that people of color have been criminalized, in different ways in different contexts. The criminalization, whose enforcement is steadily increasing in the case of migrants, is used to paint people as law-breakers and justify their imprisonment and/or disenfranchisement (and here I don't just mean voting, but also any sort of means to make changes in their lives). Not only are certain acts of people of color criminalized or treated as worse crimes (such as the treatment of crack users vs. cocaine users), but the police are given a special position to deem people criminals even if they haven't done anything wrong.

Whiteness has made room for certain people of color to be model citizens (even cops or border patrol agents) to blur the line, but it is clear where the line is. If we don't question this criminalization, there will always be hundreds of thousands of people of color imprisoned in this country, or in constant fear of being ripped from their everyday life, if not even murdered by the state on occasion (even once is far too often). Racial profiling is part of this racial criminalization, and to be clear, perhaps we should use the latter term, unless we buy into this idea that those who have been convicted of crimes or those who we know have crossed the border illegally are being justifyably punished. When you hear or read the arguments for deporting or imprisoning undocumented immigrants it all comes down to the law for them, even though their racism often comes clearly through. There's no effort to examine the purpose of the (immigration) law among those who seem to have convinced themselves that race plays no part.

This criminalization not only puts people in jail but attempts to make it more justifiable to treat people of color inhumanely. The press release for yesterday's Border Patrol protest states, "Indigenous people along the border have been forced by border patrol to carry and provide proof of tribal membership when moving across their traditional lands that have been bisected by this imposed border; a border that has been extremely damaging to the cultural and spiritual practices of these communities. Many people are not able to journey to sacred sites because the communities where people live are on the opposite side of the border from these sites. Since the creation of the current U.S./Mexico border, 45 O’odham villages on or near the border have been completely depopulated." In addition, they state, "The impacts of border militarization are constantly made invisible in the media, the popular culture of this country and even the mainstream immigrants rights movement which has often pushed for 'reform' that means further militarization of the border, which means increased suffering for our communities."

It is important that we carefully remain critical of the elements of any social movement that are are more embraced by the mainstream media and politicians. The folks who did this protest did it in such a way as to risk federal charges to get national media attention, which they hardly got. In the meantime, messages about Comprehensive Immigration Reform and against racial profiling are more successful even when no arrests are involved. Of course calls to end criminalization of people and to stop border militarization are going to be marginalized! This is why they must at least be demarginalized within the social justice movements.

A friend of mine told me that her mother cried when listening to Al Sharpton speak against SB1070. I wonder if what he's been saying in the media is different from what he said at the public event (see First They Came for the "Illegals" but I only care about Racial Profiling). Either way, I will remain weary of anyone marginalizes undocumented immigrants to oppose laws that target them.

See also No Borders or Prison Walls for a longer essay on some of these issues.

Changing the Minds of White Folks Whose Anti-Immigrant Fears have been Manufactured

2010-05-14T14:57:00.000-07:00

To what extent are the racist ideas about immigration manufactured versus automatic in the average white citizen? How many of their opinions about immigration are formed based on messages in the media which are left unquestioned? How have people's opinions been shaped by changes to law and enforcement?

We know a few things for sure: capitalists and the state benefit from the divisions caused by ideas about outsiders vs. insiders and attitudes about people of color especially when it comes to criminality. We also know that there are blatant racists, many of whom are organized, who intentionally spread misinformation and biased messages, studies, and statistics about immigrants and other people of color. Fear is used to appeal to the loyalties of white people with other whites across class, against people of color.

In fact, it has taken decades of laws and messaging to barely convince enough people that to overstay a visa or traverse a man-made line is a crime worthy of any sort of punishment. For example, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and the larger Tanton Network it is part of have put millions of dollars and decades of effort to shape the American public's view of immigration and to change legislation. Much of this is so far from grassroots, it makes you realize that these ideas are manufactured in people. The ideas are not coming from the people- the people are just repeating what they hear on Lou Dobbs. So despite the fact that there are many armed white people convinced they’re being invaded, and so many people are receptive to the fear tactics, I have some hope that with effective counter-messaging, the majority of white citizens can at least be convinced not to join with blatant racists against undocumented immigrants.

One obstacle is that speaking moralistically of wrong and right, or appealing to compassion, is likely to be limited. No matter how many images of families torn apart, bible verses, or “what would you do in a desperate situation?” type questions, there may be little leeway in changing minds. There are certain concepts that are instilled in American citizens that must be overcome. Unfortunately, while our opposition uses simple phrases, the truth and the context of these issues are very complex. It is our responsibility however, to figure out how to convey the ideas in the best way possible.

There are armed, scared, angry people out there ready for a race war. It’s hard to say how many. And although the state might find them to be a threat on some level (a lot of these people are angry about their money going to the rich), they are also used by those in power to promote the divisions between races, insiders and outsiders, etc. These people support the efforts of the police to enforce the color line. The possibility of people uniting across race against the rich (which threatens both capitalism and the state in some ways though perhaps not in others) is a major threat to the social order.

Because of these armed and frightened folks, it is important that we find ways to minimize their power. What matters most is what side people would come down on (or perhaps what side they already come down on) at a time of crisis. There are some interesting ideas about this coming from the Phoenix Class War Council (particularly regarding pointing out contradictions regarding ideology of libertarians) but while their strategy isn't for everyone, we must also consider ways to bring more white people into the opposition to the anti-immigrant fervor. Of course, it is likely not worth debating with those who are coming out to anti-immigrant rallies, but the ones who believe the lies while being less politically active.

There have been various efforts to address the myths/lies about undocumented immigrants. “No, it’s not true that they don’t want to learn English or assimilate” they might say, but why should they have to? There are many ways that dispelling the myths just reinforce the status quo. In addition, some allies of undocumented immigrants fall into the trap of legitimizing the previously existing racial order by calling on the police to catch the "real" criminals, or, without criticizing the laws and the racist context in which they were passed, calling for the police to cease stopping people on the basis of their skin color.

Therefore, in trying to change minds without reinforcing or legitimizing much of the white supremacy, rule of law, and economic order, we need to have a critical analysis or multiple analyses within our messaging. What I feel may be necessary is to address white people who identify as anti-racist already, laying out the critical analyses, at least increasing the numbers of people who can debate with their family, co-workers, etc. Studying the rhetoric of the opposition is extremely useful, such as by listening to right-wing radio or watching the TV shows, but also being acutely aware of the ways that the left-wing does not adequately address the issue. What's left unsaid? What is being supported that shouldn't (such as border security/militarization).

I intend to expand on this more later (and have written on some of this in the past-see this flier or this older flier), but here's a working list of issues to examine with people:

The legitimacy of the law that makes immigrants "illegal", and the significance of it in relation to other laws, as well as in relation to other acts that are not against the law (such as crossing state lines)
The relationship between race and criminalization (as discussed in No Borders or Prison Walls)
The idea that cops and laws prevent crime, as opposed to actually creating dangerous situations (in relation to human trafficking and drug trafficking as the main examples
The reality of the economic burden and the bigger picture: capitalism, neo-liberal projects/globalization/NAFTA, etc., as well as the ways in which the government spends so much money to enforce immigration laws
The legitimacy of the border, the nation, and white/American entitlement to this land, the supremacy of "our culture" over others, including language
That the state, capitalists and white supremacists have a reason to manipulate and lie to the people to maintain and increase their power
The reality of "overpopulation" (see Concerned about Overpopulation?)

And then a few things to address critically to those on the left, such as the anti-racists I mentioned:

The federal government's plans for immigration and their position not as an ally against rogue sheriff's and bad laws in AZ, but as a proponent for mass detention and deportations that are already taking place, etc.
The blindness to the situation on and near the border, particularly among native communities such as the Tohono O'odham (see this)
The misrepresentation by leadership/politicians of the people they claim to represent, and the diluted messages they promote
Myopic views that don't include the larger situation of white supremacy, institutionalized racism ( particularly the role of the police), and colonialism
The legitimization of the economic order, such as in saying that migrants do the work that "Americans" don't want to do as though it is the migrants rightful place to do shit work. Is it okay for migrants to be exploited like they have been for decades as long as they aren't getting arrested or harassed?
The unwillingness to think big, accepting that we will have to settle for less than what will truly allow for equality and freedom (see The Best Immigration Law is No Law at All)

No Borders or Prison Walls: as it relates to racial profiling focus

2010-05-12T16:14:00.000-07:00

I started writing something that ended up being very similar to what I had written about a year ago, so I figured I'd re-post it since it is still very relevant.

I've written a number of posts criticizing the focus on racial profiling, since when it is discussed, particularly by various politicians, it implies that the profiling catches innocent people up in it, while the true criminals deserve to be caught. Yet, racial profiling is certainly an important issue and has been occurring since race has existed. In fact in many ways law enforcement is what has shaped race in the first place. I discuss this further in this article.

What I feel is important to bring into the racial profiling discussion is that most people seem to agree that it is wrong--in fact I believe it is technically illegal. But what has been happening is something that perhaps can be called racial criminalization. The intentional criminalization of people because they are not white. This is exemplified in immigration law where undocumented immigrants (mostly poc) are criminalized because of their situation as migrants who cannot attain legal status. But it's not only that they are automatically "illegal" when they cross the border or when their visa expires, etc., but that people place a significance on that particular crime vs. many other much more serious crimes. Additionally, as we can see with Arizona bill SB1070, the criminalization of these migrants is compounded with more laws that make them criminals- the trespassing part of the bill and the part that criminalizes day laborers. Read on.

No Borders or Prison Walls: Beyond Immigrants' Rights to Ending Criminalization of All People of Color

How bad do things have to be for a group of people to be afraid to leave their houses because la migra might pick them up and place their family members in separate detention centers to eventually deport them? Or that people crossing the border not only have to be concerned about the environmental dangers, but also the more recent upsurge of people who kidnap migrants, steal from them, assault them, and hold them for ransom. The police or ICE commit similar atrocities, but masquerading as heroes; “saving” the immigrants from the drop houses. Many citizens believe undocumented immigrants deserve the harm or misfortune inflicted upon them because they are here “illegally”.

Nearly any debate about “illegal” immigration comes down to one thing: the law is the law. They say illegal people have no legitimate claims in “our” country. Despite the many illegal actions that people take everyday without feeling an ounce of guilt (speeding, downloading music), being in the country “illegally” is seen as a crime against the citizens. Despite the fact that many of us see this law, like so many others, as illegitimate and hypocritical based on its historical roots and the context in which it is enforced, as a means to maintain an exploitable class, as enforcement of the color line, and as a tool of government to control people and quash dissent; we seem quite silent about what we think about it.

OSABC: Mexico: Human Rights Defender? Since when?

2010-05-11T21:47:00.000-07:00

From O'odham Solidarity Across Borders:

OSABC wanted to share last month's article from the Tohono O'odham Runner about the new restrictions of movement that the Mexican Government made into law in early March. These restrictions now require "U.S." citizens, to have a U.S. passport in order to travel more than 12 miles into Mexico. This was passed with no reason given, other than the spokesperson for the Mexican Consulate stating:
"We are not doing this to hassle Americans or bother them. It is to have better order, be more organized and provide better services".
OSABC would like to identify the contradiction in the Mexican Government's need for "paperwork" (U.S. Passport) within "its" boundaries, and its oppositional position in Arizona law SB 1070, which also requires "paperwork" within the state of Arizona. Both policies are a tightened regulation of the free movement of people.

More...

OSABC: ATTACK THE ROOT! : NO TO SB1070, NO TO BORDER MILITARIZATION, NO TO NAFTA-101

2010-05-11T21:41:00.001-07:00

Below is an introduction from the O'odham Solidarity Across Borders blog to the text of a flier that I participated in writing (which is also below) of which several copies have been distributed in Phoenix in the last couple weeks.

We just wanted to share a flyer put together by our good comrade Chaparral Respects No Borders, it sums up not just SB1070, but the overall threat that this bill represents. These threats are not new, but now bring to surface the global context of these threats: neo-liberalism. Border security is needed to ensure neo-liberal projects (NAFTA!), and really should be read for what it is: border "regulation/militarization" of indigenous land to ensure capital exportation of people and resources .

As you have seen, and will continue to see, politicians from both parties and reformist immigration activist organizations, push for "Immigration" Reform" which, directly or indirectly, calls for border "militarization". . As cited in an earlier piece, the "political" solution will bring forced removal and relocation of the many indigenous tribes that span "their" borders by means of a reinforced physical barrier. Regardless of the politics, pseudo-calls for movement unity and Pan-American Indigenous "Perspective" (the use of indigenous themes/imagines/icons of liberation, while ignoring the indigenous of the land they organize on), it must be clear that the immigration struggle is also an indigenous struggle.

In order for the state to pass immigration reform, it has called for the "securing" of the borders first, in order to manage the flow of migration. This securing includes and is not limited to a physical wall to be made on indigenous land (Tohono O'odham/Lipan Apache to name a few). The state's power to waive pre-existing laws ( such as NEPA, NAGPRA) in the name of security, directly attacks indigenous autonomy/sovereignty. We understand that our voice, the O'odham voice, is greatly undermined by the mainstream media, state/national politicians and sadly, even self proclaimed immigrant/human rights activists. Regardless of their politics, our voice will stay strong in the face of 21st Century marginalization/colonization.

Our people have survived and kept our him'dag (O'odham way of life) strong through three waves of colonial settlers (Spain, Mexico and United States). OSABC feels, in order to move forward, and attack the State's new wave of colonization, we must understand "where we are at". The very land we all walk on. This has, is and always will be O'odham jewed. If others cannot acknowledge the indigenous people of the land, and call for policies that attack them (O'odham! Yaqui!), such as Berlin Wall-like barrier, in the name of "reform/security", then we will witness the cycles of capitalist imperialism continue long into the 21st Century!

ATTACK THE ROOT, NOT EACH OTHER!

IN SOLIDARITY!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO BORDERS! NO RACIST LEGISLATION!

Migration is a natural thing, while the necessity of obstructions such as border walls are rationalized by those in power to deal with threats to security against a fortress built on the backs of other people. This fortress is the US, taken and secured by force, built up by slavery and attacks on liberation movements throughout its history. The border is therefore illegitimate and we need not and must not regard migrants as helpless victims to justify their crossing. Everyone should have the right to freedom of movement. Of course migration from south of the border has increased due to the economic and political impacts of neo-liberal projects such as NAFTA.

Homeland Security has nothing to do with making sure we all have homes. Especially when so many people are losing their homes, security should mean shelter, food, health care, safety. The governor is pushing for more National Guard on the border and Comprehensive Immigration Reform will likely include increased militarization. Communities, such as the Tohono O’odham, on the border are already severely impacted by militarization, while many migrants die crossing. This will only get worse. It needs to be opposed at all costs.

What is the threat? The first border patrol and physical barrier on the border are less than one hundred years old, yet some act like we’re doomed if we’re without a border wall. The billions upon billions of dollars to build a wall, buy border security technology, pay border patrol agents, detain hundreds of thousands of migrants, and deport them is hardly justified by the alleged costly impact migrants have on the economy. The impact of supposed over-population is nothing compared to the impact that big corporations- especially weapons manufactures- have on the planet.

Why we oppose the latest anti-immigrant bill, SB 1070:

It allows all police to enforce federal immigration law, allowing them to arrest someone without a warrant if they believe that the person is in the country illegally
Would create the additional crime of trespassing with which any undocumented immigrant could be charged in this state
Would penalize all migrants (legal or not) who don’t carry “an alien registration document”
Criminalizes day laborers and those who pick them up to hire them
Makes it a crime to conceal, harbor, or shield a migrant, including transportation, and also may include renting to migrants

No to increased border security! No to the created divisions between us and our brothers and sisters based on immigration status! No to continued invasions on native land! No to destroying the environment to build a wall! End NAFTA! We need alternatives to police and jails!