Beware the Funders of Immigrants’ Rights

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]

Biometrics Still Likely to be Part of Reform

I wrote several months ago about how biometrics (methods for uniquely recognizing humans based upon one or more intrinsic physical traits) is part of the push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. This is UNACCEPTABLE and is likely to only lead many who are for civil liberties to oppose immigration reform only on this point. Those of you who are interested in Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) not only must oppose militarization of the border, but also this form of national identification. (I personally don't have hope for any acceptable CIR going through, but I am concerned about the ramifications for migrants the fight over this bill will have).

While details are still sketchy, Schumer and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have proposed that the new Social Security card be swiped by employers through a machine to match a fingerprint or some other personal biometric feature against data stored on computers. Those who refuse to cooperate or otherwise knowingly hire unauthorized workers would face fines and even prison (Source).

As some of you know, local libertarian and constitutionalist groups and individuals have publicly opposed Pearce's SB 1070, the anti-immigrant bill, because the bill allows the federal government access to personal, county, or state information. Mark Lerner of Consitutional Alliance wrote:

This language in no way prohibits law enforcement from sharing the personal information of citizens of the United States during the "vetting process". I contend that the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) has made their intentions clear. They want the personal information of Americans either through direct electronic access or indirect access. I appreciate that currently the "federal government" has much of our personal information already. The fact is "that information" is spread out over many departments and agencies of the federal government. DHS wants a more centralized system and thus we have witnessed the Real ID Act 2005 and now the PASS ID Act.

Because the standards for both Real ID and PASS ID are the adopted standards of two international organizations, AAMVA and the ICAO, the driver's license would become not simply a national ID but more accurately and international ID. International standards are only used to facilitate global information sharing (Source).

Many people oppose Real ID and other such things, and especially when biometrics becomes involved. We know that there are many problems with E-Verify, but will adding facial recognition or fingerprinting make things better or worse? Aside from any errors involved, it is clearly an invasion of privacy. As a blogger writes regarding CIR, "A great concern of mine (and a multitude of others) is the inevitable intrusions upon the liberties of the American people. Just look at the name: Biometric National ID card. What does this tell us? It will enable the government to scrutinize our every transaction and move. It will be a 24/7 GPS (Source)."

A lot of these folks are not ones who care about the situation immigrants are or would be facing (many blatantly oppose "amnesty"). They are concerned for their own interests. They come out against an anti-immigration bill (many probably reluctantly) because of the Real ID issues, and they'll come out against CIR because of the same.

My friends at firesneverextinguished.blogspot.com have discussed the possibilities of contradictions among right-wingers:

We also need to be thinking about our opposition and our potential allies. At the Tempe Tea Party rally libertarians stood outside flyering against Pearce's law. This continues to be an important breach in the front of white supremacy and we must recognize it. We must continue to engage it and we must continue to push on that contradiction so that others are emboldened to break with the racist trajectory (Source).

I agree with this, but I am not so optimistic that this shows a complete break with the racist trajectory, as we will see when biometrics is included in CIR. In fact, it is likely that the biometrics will provide a stronger argument against CIR across the political spectrum. I even wonder whether it is meant to turn even more people against so-called amnesty for migrants.

Here's an interesting analysis I quoted in my previous blog post on biometrics:

This national ID move is either a labrynthine [sic] charade designed to give Obama and the Democrats a way out of their commitment to immigration reform-even the conservative, punitive “get tough approach of CIR”- or a very dangerous move to continue the Bush surveillance project under the guise “immigration reform.”

I would add my suspicion that these senators would be or are getting kick-backs from the companies that would provide the technology/information systems that would be involved (Lockheed and Boeing perhaps?), but I believe the overwhelming reason is that the federal government wants to build up the police state by having more centralized information available to different law enforcement agencies. After all, we can see that with Homeland Security's "Secure Communities".

Since things like this is really decided upon by the legislature, the people have little input. There just might be enough support among them to pass CIR with biometrics if this is true:

In explaining the only current bipartisan reform proposal, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., has called such a high-tech Social Security card "a linchpin" in efforts to win support in Congress for fixing an immigration enforcement system that many agree is broken. Immigrant advocates are pushing for action on immigration reform this year, and the Obama administration has expressed support, though many analysts doubt the current political climate is conducive (Source).

Still, what will the Tea-Party-like response to "Obamacare" be to CIR? Surely the racists will grab hold of the tea-party and organize it against CIR, and obviously not just because of the privacy issue. I argue that yes, we should push on the contradictions, like Phoenix Insurgent has written, but while we may be able to divide them on Pearce's bill, they will unite against CIR. I believe that while yes, people are motivated by self-interest, if we continue to do nothing but legitimize it by using it where we can against racist organizing, when can we actually get less people to be motivated the self-interest that is overwhelmingly funneled towards racist and divisive ends? At what point do we challenge people's racism as well? After all, much of their racism is based on fear and lies that people in power feed them.


Read my older blog post on biometrics here

Biometrics Part of Immigration Reform?

How soon will it be that anyone who refuses to submit to an iris scan will end up in a detention center? Or at least we'll be unemployed...

I mentioned the biometrics as part of immigration reform in my "Freedom Not Reform" article recently, but i didn't even take it as seriously as i think it now needs to be taken.

Some promoters of immigration reform are insisting that biometrics technology will be necessary to keep everyone in line. Man, what a great way to get all those who value civil liberties to unite against giving undocumented immigrants a way to become legal- even those who would like to see legalization. Is Schumer getting kickbacks from the biometrics industry? Someone needs to look into this. And what's the status of the Real ID, anyway?

So what is this going to look like: will there be an anti-biometrics movement?

I found some interesting commentary on a blog called "Of America": "This national ID move is either a labrynthine charade designed to give Obama and the Democrats a way out of their commitment to immigration reform-even the conservative, punitive “get tough approach of CIR”- or a very dangerous move to continue the Bush surveillance project under the guise “immigration reform.”

Biometric technology opens new security frontiers

And it could become the dominant way for Americans to identify themselves if Congress moves ahead with efforts to create a biometric employee-verification system to ensure that only U.S. citizens and legal immigrants get jobs.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who chairs the Senate's immigration subcommittee, has said that a verification system based on fingerprints, iris scans or some other form of biometrics must be part of any comprehensive immigration-reform bill.

The plan is controversial with civil libertarians, who say it poses a threat to Americans' privacy. But supporters say it is the only reliable, tamperproof way to stop the identity theft and fraud that plagues the current E-Verify system.

For such a proposal to work, Americans would need to provide their fingerprints or other biometric information to the government to help create a federal database that employers could use to identify would-be workers as legal U.S. residents...