THE QUESTION OF STRATEGY AND TACTICS – WHAT’S NEXT FOR THE IMMIGRANT RIGHTS MOVEMENT IN 2007: By Nativo V. Lopez

http://aztlannet-news-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/question-of-strategy-and-tactics-whats.html

Link to Blog Version from Nativo Lopez with additional corrections=
http://www.mapa-ca.org/MiscPages/StrategyTactics.pdf
<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<><>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>

<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<><>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>

International Immigration Conference
Calexico, California
December 9, 2006

THE QUESTION OF STRATEGY AND TACTICS – WHAT’S NEXT FOR THE IMMIGRANT RIGHT’S MOVEMENT IN 2007

By Nativo V. Lopez
National President, Mexican American Political Association (MAPA)
National Director, Hermandad Mexicana Latinoamericana

· (Introduction – the following was taken from a presentation made at the International Immigration Conference held in Calexico, California on December 9, 2006 before delegates of immigrant and border right’s advocacy organizations from both the U.S. and Mexico, and therefore, reflects an assessment from the Latino experience about the U.S.-based immigrant right’s movement as this is expressed within the Latino communities, and is not intended to address the complete experiences of other immigrant communities).

Welcoming – I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks and congratulations to the conference committee, to Arturo Encinas and Rogelio Reyes, and the sponsoring organizations, supporters and contributors for their work in convening this conference and sharing with so many other individuals the opportunity to share experiences and ideas on addressing the complex question of immigration in the current political climate of our state and country.

We are at the close of 2006, and for those of us who have participated in various capacities in the immigrant right’s movement, we are called upon to help define the strategy and tactics to pursue in the continued fight to fashion new, fair, and humane immigration policy and law for the United States. There are many ways to define strategy, but for the purpose of this presentation, I would like to offer this definition: strategy is the art of being able to determine with precision at which stage the struggle is currently and formulate the tasks that are required to move it to its next stage. This would not be possible without a brief objective assessment of the actual state of affairs between our adversaries – the anti-immigrant xenophobes and their allies – and us. It is always about defining and being clear about WHO ARE WE, WHAT WE WANT, and HOW WE INTEND ON GETTING IT. In our specific case, today, so many people have asked – WHAT NEXT? I hope to offer some observations in this regard.

Review of this year’s developments. This year the United States witnessed the largest and repeated mass mobilizations of the immigrant communities, their families, friends, and allies to oppose the most extreme anti-immigrant legislation, perhaps, to ever be approved by one chamber of the U.S. Congress – H.R.4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005.. This legislation, authored and introduced by Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Republican from Wisconsin, not a state overrun by immigrants other then the old world European immigrants of yesteryear, sought to criminalize the immigrant and anyone touched by the immigration process in any manner. This legislation, then, became the rallying cry of broad social forces, immigrants at the forefront, to seek its definitive defeat. Literally millions marched and protested on at least three occasions, workers with their families and even many employers, persons of all political parties, less so from the Republican Party, a diversity of faiths, nationalities, languages, and cultural expressions, but in most cases the majority reflected the current composition of the immigrant population in the U.S. – Mexican and Latino, and to a lesser degree, Asian Pacific.

The nature of H.R.4437 – The Sensenbrenner Bill pieced together various provisions of an enforcement character, the most onerous of which was the felony charge for mere physical presence in the U.S. without legal status, and a felony charge for “aiding and abetting” an undocumented individual. This meant that a doctor, teacher, pastor, priest, social worker, charitable organization, such as Catholic Charities or Hermandad Mexicana Latinoamericana, could be charged with a felony count for providing assistance to its constituents. The 1852 Fugitive Slave Act, which made it a federal felony offense to aid and abet a fugitive slave seeking her freedom, is certainly analogous. This is probably the best example of overreaching politically by the Republicans in this Congress. The legislation also included provisions for more onerous employer sanctions, a felony charge; the U.S.-Mexico border wall of 700 miles; elimination of due process rights to fight deportation or appeal denials for permanent residence status and U.S. citizenship; significant increase in border troop enforcement; local law enforcement cooperation with the immigration authorities, and others.

How did such legislation get proposed and who are the political forces that proposed it? It should be understood that H.R.4437 did not surface out of a vacuum, but in fact, was the culmination of aggressive organizing by extremist political forces in and out of Congress. Most of its provisions had been previously proposed in single-piece legislative proposals by one or another member of the anti-immigrant Republican caucus over the past ten years, led by the likes of Congressman Tom Tancredo, (R-Colorado). It should also be considered as continuity legislation to that approved by the U.S. Congress in 1996 under President Bill Clinton’s administration, but a Republican-controlled Congress, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ( a serious comprehensive restrictive immigration measure, which significantly reduced legal rights and eroded the ability to adjust legal status while remaining in the U.S.) As a side note, this is similar to the passage (under the Clinton administration) of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which would eventually become the basis upon which the Patriot Act of 2001 was passed so quickly under the administration of President George W. Bush. This 1996 Clinton-sponsored legislation includes provisions curtailing the right of habeas corpus, exclude and deport “aliens” based on their association, criminalize fundraising in the U.S. for designated groups, and to allow the military expanded reign domestically under certain circumstances.

What struggles are being waged within the Republican Party and what class interests do they represent? Most of this extremist legislation is supported by all Republican members of Congress, and even a majority of Democratic members, such as the 1996 legislation (Democrats actually split on this measure, sixty percent opposed and forty percent in favor), the Real I.D. Act of 2005, and the Secure Fence Act of 2006, and various other restrictive measures.

PAT BUCHANAN AND LOU DOBBS. Notwithstanding the voting record, I believe that we can observe a fissure within the Republican Party, ever so slight, in relation to extremist immigration policy and legislation. There are different political forces at play and in struggle within the party, even though the majority DOES support enforcement measures. This is reflected in the position President George W. Bush has taken in support of “guest-worker” programs and options, and even some form of legalization for those currently in the U.S. His position can be considered integral to the globalist view, the so-called free traders, and advocates of global corporate expansion, reach, and control. On the other hand, probably the most prominent ideological positions of the closed-door restrictionist view, the vociferous anti-Mexican and anti-Latino posture, are reflected in the rants of author Pat Buchanan and CNN host Lou Dobbs. This is what Buchanan had to say about current immigration policy. This is taken from his recently published work – ‘The State of Emergency – The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America’ – “From the fifteenth to the twentieth centuries, the West wrote the history of the world. Out of the Christian countries of Europe came the explorers, the missionaries, the conquerors, the colonizers, who, by the twentieth century, ruled virtually the entire world. But the passing of the West had begun.” (Page 1) “And as Rome passed away, so, the West is passing away, from the same causes and in much the same way. What the Danube and Rhine were to Rome, the Rio Grande and Mediterranean are to America and Europe, the frontiers of a civilization no longer defended.” (Page 2) “Against the will of a vast majority of Americans, America is being transformed. As our elites nervously avert their gaze or welcome the invasion, we are witness to one of the great tragedies in human history. From Gibbon to Spengler to Toynbee and the Durants, the symptoms of dying civilizations are well known: the death of faith, the degeneration of morals, contempt for the old values, collapse of the culture, paralysis of the will. But the two certain signs that a civilization has begun to die are a declining population and foreign invasions no longer resisted.” (Page 5) And lastly, “We are witnessing how nations perish. We are entered upon the final act of our civilization. The last scene is the deconstruction of the nations. The penultimate scene, now well underway, is the invasion unresisted.” (Page 6). And Mr. Dobbs does not hail far behind Buchanan in his thinking and daily tirades. Another consideration, however, explains that split within the Republican Party in relation to immigration policy, and that has to do with the growing Latino electorate and the desire of the moderate wing of the party to attract this electorate to its ranks. In this sense, any Republican-sponsored immigration policy should be seen as “compassionate” (even within the context of being an enforcement policy) and not anti-immigrant, at least not anti-Latino immigrant.

In the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Tom Tancredo is the worst/best example of the anti-immigrant caucus, comprised of 70 to 100 members of the House at any given time depending on the legislative proposal. Do these extremist forces within the Republican Party represent the majority of America? I am of the opinion that these extremist views and forces do not represent the majority of Americans or of the Republicans themselves. However, they do represent the core extremist wing of the party. This is their most loyal base.

It is noteworthy that before the November elections, political consultants to Republican Party candidates counseled against going over the top with the anti-immigrant message. This was based on their own polling of the diversity of political constituencies including the Republican Party. They encountered that the majority of all constituencies does not support a policy of mass deportations; does favor a policy of offering legal status to those already in the U.S. – a path to citizenship (as it has been dubbed); and does favor some form of guest-worker program. Thus, the position held by President Bush.

This is what the Ruiz Column, titled – “Anti-immig pols wrong” – published December 13, 2006 in the New York Daily News, had to say about the matter -
But if those anti-immigration, pro-repression hard-liners still need more proof of how badly they misread public opinion, they would do well to look at two new polls.

The Denver-based Vernon K. Krieble Foundation released the results of a poll on Dec. 4 which leaves no doubt about how much better Americans understand the immigration problem than many elected officials.

By a two-to-one majority (64%- 34%), voters say a more efficient system of visas for future workers would do more to control the border than increasing law enforcement.

"Candidates who thought running against illegal immigrants would be a winning strategy were clearly wrong," said foundation President Helen Krieble. "Our national leaders need to stop trying to make political hay of this issue, and solve the problem. The voters have made it clear that they get it; now it's time to get to work."

That politicians need to leave demagoguery and irrationality behind became crystal-clear when three rabid anti-immigrant congressional candidates went down in flames in the November elections.

Rep. J.D. Hayworth of suburban Phoenix; Rep. John Hostettler, chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration; and self-described Minuteman candidate Randy Graf, whose campaign in southern Arizona's 8th Congressional District was little more than immigrant bashing, were soundly defeated.

Voters wanted leaders with a greater sense of fairness and understanding about the reality of the immigration crisis.

On Nov. 21, Quinnipiac University released another national post-election poll that came to very much the same conclusions.

Nearly seven out of 10 voters (69%), the Quinnipiac poll found, favored a program that would open a road for undocumented immigrants to advance toward citizenship over a period of several years - an approach close to what President Bush and the Senate have proposed, but contrary to the House Republican leadership's position.

Like the President and the Senate, Americans also want tighter border security and to reduce future illegal immigration, Quinnipiac found.


The November 2006 elections bear out this counsel. According to a December 26, 2006 article published in the New York Times, House Republican Jeff Flake of Arizona stated, “…the elections had disabused many Republicans of the notion that opposing legalization and guest worker plans would win widespread support. “That illusion is gone,” Flake said.
Congressman Flake is currently involved in meetings with other moderate Republicans and Democrats to craft new immigration legislation to be introduced in early 2007, however, not along the lines dictated by Mr. Sensenbrenner.

How was the immigrant’s rights movement successful in defeating H.R.4437? The strategy of broad unity was fundamental to bringing together all those political forces that would have been adversely affected by H.R.4437. The felony provision helped us make the case. The unprecedented attempt to criminalize immigrants and their service providers or supporters, and or employers, was a central incentive to unite opposition forces. This felony provision put the Republican Party on the defensive after the massive demonstrations of March, April and May. There actually began a debate and blame game amongst themselves (more the moderate voices of the Party) on the question. They correctly concluded that this was an over-reaching provision that allowed their opponents to build a broad opposition and pro-immigrant movement.

How the Democratic Party struck a compromise, and how the auxiliary organizations divided the movement? Over the last ten years the Democratic Party has moved to the political center and even to the political right on the immigration question. While many Democratic politicians and candidates may verbalize platitudes when they are before their minority Latino or Asian Pacific electoral constituents, the voting record tells another story. Probably the most glaring example of this was the vote of Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez in favor of the Real I.D. Act of 2005, the first national identification law in the U.S. and the measure which precludes states from issuing driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants. Sanchez is the first female and Latina Democrat to win a congressional seat in Orange County – having defeated right-winger Robert Dornan in the rancorous disputed election of 1996 wherein Dornan and the Republican Party alleged voter fraud and illegal voting by immigrants. She was carried to victory on the backs of the 100,000 new immigrant U.S. citizens (resulting from the amnesty program under the Immigration Reform Control Act of 1986 law), many of whom had the opportunity to vote for the first time in 1996. After the massive historic marches this year, she was quoted criticizing the marches and declared that voter registration would have been a better approach. This comes from a congresswoman who has not invested in nor committed significantly to voter registration in her own district over the past ten years (nor has the Orange County Democratic Party, for that matter) and as a result has witnessed a decline in the voter registration margins between the Democrats and Republicans.

Senate Bill 2611 (taken almost straight from the previously proposed Kennedy-McCain legislation, but re-wrapped under the surnames of other federal legislators – Hagel and Martinez) was the Democrat's legislative answer, or compromise to H.R.4437. But, what did it contain? This is important to note because I predict that the legislative fight in 2007 will be developed along similar lines. We must be prepared for what the Democrats have in store for us, notwithstanding the political party shift that occurred in November.

THE GREAT AMERICAN BOYCOTT. By May of this year, certainly after the Great American Boycott on May Day, we can safely say that H.R.4437 was definitively defeated. It could not find a corresponding home in the Senate. Just before May Day, Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic Party Minority leader, declared that H.R.4437 was DOA, dead on arrival. Considering that the Republicans held all the keys to the committees of both houses, and could control the agenda on any piece of legislation, it would have been better to forego any new legislative version and wait it out until after the November elections, wait out the lame duck session, and come back the following year with a new fresh approach, under a new Congress, and supported by a motivated and mobilized constituency. This was the counsel of the majority of grassroots leaders throughout the country. However, it was not to be. Shortly after Senator Reid's comments, a number of political players went into action to work out compromise legislation, much to the dismay and opposition of the grassroots. These included the top hierarchy of the Catholic Church, the Democratic Party leadership, Senator Edward Kennedy’s office, the National Immigration Forum, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), amongst other minor organizations and Latino elected officials.

The compromise legislation came to be known as the Hagel-Martinez Bill, named after the authors (Chuck Hagel – R-Nebraska and Mel Martinez – R-Florida), with the number S.2611. This was the Democrat's, and moderate Republican's, version of the "path to citizenship" for those who could meet certain demanding criteria (an estimated three million), removal and possible re-admission at some later date for millions of others (by waiving their legal rights), and the absolute deportation of millions more. It also called for the codified elimination of certain current legal rights, particularly the right to appeal unfavorable petition determinations and deportation orders, the construction of a border wall (only 300 miles instead of 700), more onerous sanctions against employers, a massive guest-worker program with no possibility of legalizing one's status, indefinite detentions, cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities, and many other enforcement measures. This bi-partisan legislation passed the Senate with a majority vote by the Democrats, but was rejected in conference committee by the Republican members from both houses. The compromise broke down on the watered down "path to citizenship" and guest-worker provisions. The majority of Republicans wanted enforcement-ONLY measures, even though, the Democrats, and the auxiliary organizations, were willing to entertain enforcement-PLUS measures.

While it cannot be ascertained whether they played a central role in lobbying Senator Reid to accept the compromise approach, the leaderships of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), UNITE-HERE, United FarmWorkers (UFW), the leadership of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and others advocated strongly in favor of this approach and legislation, notwithstanding growing opposition within their respective base membership.

A divided immigrant right’s movement - Ultimately, this compromise divided the immigrant right’s movement. In the run up to May Day, the religious and political elites of the country absolutely opposed any militant strike actions by the immigrant mass movement. In unison they used the corporate media, Spanish language included, to declare and counsel against any such notion of boycotts or general strikes. Even President Bush, in unprecedented fashion, made a call for the populace to ignore the call for a general boycott and strike. The truth of the matter is that the movement did not begin with the elites and the hierarchies, and therefore, it was not beholden to them. It had a logic, tempo, and rhythm of its own. The demands arose from the grassroots, and while it certainly had a spontaneous character to it, the organized contingents of the movement had and have been involved in organized action for the past twenty-plus years. And, as we all know, the May Day actions were a resounding success throughout the country. The masses of immigrants responded to their own message and not that of the hierarchies and elites. In city after city, commerce, traffic, schools, and production came to a screeching halt. The immigrants demonstrated their inherent economic value to the economy and country, and their willingness to take militant, but non-violent direct action to pursue their demands. In the spring, a Pew Research Center report confirmed that 63 percent of Latinos saw May 1st as the beginning of a mass social movement to win their rights.

But, by then, the fix was already in. Nevertheless, the right-wing of the Republican Party was not up for a compromise. It was enforcement-ONLY or nothing for them. And, they prevailed. That was fine with us because we neither wanted S.2611. But, all of this helps us understand the role of the Democratic Party, its legislative leadership, the role of the auxiliary organizations, the role of some of the unions, and the timidity of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. This is important because it provides a basis for what we can expect as we enter 2007 and the new Congress - Democratic Party-controlled.

After June 2006, the strategy of the Republican Party switched to a piece-meal legislative approach - death by a thousands cuts for us. And, they prevailed with the support of the majority of the Democrats. Two Republican initiatives bear out my observation. One, legislation to increase the border patrol budget and troop strength to an additional 6,000 officers - bringing the total to 18,000, and second, the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which translates into the construction of the border wall - 700 miles to the tune of $10-15 billion. These are now both laws that were included as provisions in either H.R.4437 or S.2611.

The most massive demonstrations in the history of the United States, more massive and numerous and national in scope than the civil rights movement, the labor movement, the feminist movement, and the peace movement, and, while we defeated H.R.4437, we were unable to prevent the compromise approach of the Democratic Party or the piece-meal enforcement strategy of the Republicans with the complicity of the Democrats. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 demonstrated an ironic perversion of affirmative action - wherein the two female Senators from California, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, the lone African American Senator from Illinois, Barak Obama, and the lone female Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton, all four Democrats, voted in favor of this offensive and racist measure. The last two Senators are Democratic presidential aspirants in 2008. Save us from the liberals!

TODAY WE MARCH, TOMORROW WE VOTE. One of the most chanted slogans in the marches of May was - "today we march, tomorrow we vote." It was a clear reflection of the people's will to move the immigrant right’s agenda to the electoral arena, specifically to defeat the xenophobe Republicans. No doubt the Democrats liked this slogan. It played right into their hands. The Democratic Party could absolutely not take back the Congress without an energized Latino vote in their column. Labor and Latino organizations talked about the prospect of registering one million new Latino voters. Alas, this was unrealistic and without adequate resources it was nothing more than a pipe dream - un sueño guajiro.

The Democratic Party did not make the resource commitment in this direction and the labor movement focused on labor families, not necessarily on Latino families. No new terrain was really pursued. The Latino and immigrant communities would have to pursue the electoral strategy with their own meager resources, unless these intersected with the Democratic forces - such as occurred in the race to defeat Congressman Richard Pombo from Stockton, California, and two important races in Arizona, Rep. J.D. Hayworth, from the Phoenix area, and candidate Randy Graf, the self-described Minuteman. Nevertheless, the Republicans had done enough to estrange the Latino electorate from its favor and the result in November was a significant drop of the Latino vote percentage to the GOP - between 11 and 15 percentage points. Exit polling conducted by the Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project in numerous states indicated that Latinos supported Democratic candidates by 70 percent and Republican candidates by 26 percent. The Republicans were punished by the Latino electorate and the Democrats reaped the benefits. According to the Willie C. Velasquez Institute, in 2006 Latino voters grew to 9.9 million registered voters, a record setting off year cycle increase of 1.7 million compared to 2002 (8.2 million). And, more importantly, Latino turn-out increased by 1.1 million votes cast (5.8 million) compared to 2002 (4.7 million).
The main issues on the minds of Latino voters, according to the exit polls, were the economy/jobs, the war in Iraq and immigration. The conclusion that the Democratic Party can draw from this result is that a major investment was not necessary to gain the Latino vote - they had no where else to go - even when you consider that Democrats supported anti-immigrant Republican-sponsored legislation. Nevertheless, half of Tancredo's most vociferous allies in the House were defeated in the elections, although many of their Democratic replacements are not considered much better on the immigration issue. Latino's expectations for change have been significantly raised as a result of the elections - both in terms of ending the war in Iraq and in approving fair immigration reform legislation. In an interesting aside, the same Pew Research Center report indicates that Latino’s rating of the Democrats’ immigration policies fell from 39 percent to 35 percent, while the number of Latinos who believe that neither party has good immigration policies rose from 7 percent to 25 percent.

The New York Times of December 26, 2006, mentioned earlier stated the following – “Hispanic voters, a swing constituency that Republicans covet, abandoned the party in large numbers. Several Republican hardliners, including Representatives John Hostettler of Indiana and J.D. Hayworth of Arizona, lost their seats. After the dismal showing, House Republicans denied F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. of Wisconsin, the departing chairman of the Judiciary Committee and an architect of the House immigration approach, a senior position on any major committee in the new Congress.” This is a significant rebuke to a senior member of the House and by the Republican Party.

REPUBLICAN THUMPING. In this sense, the Latino electorate, while growing in the independent column, was not much different than the general Democratic electorate as this relates to the war and what they expect from the new Democratic-controlled Congress. The Democrats will have a thirty vote margin in the House and a two vote margin in the Senate. President Bush declared this a "thumping." Shortly after the elections there were two new developments. One, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld resigned (a reflection of the general electorate’s opinion of the war situation). Second, Senator Mel Martinez was selected to head the Republican Party (a reflection of the Latino electorate’s opinion of Republican candidates’ immigrant bashing). Both reflect adjustments in strategy, but not necessarily substantive change in the direction of the administration. I would say that the war, political corruption, and moral hypocrisy got the best of the Republicans. The people want change. President Bush reaffirmed his commitment to pursuing victory in Iraq, but he did hold out the prospect of common ground with the Democrats in relation to immigration reform. It is interesting that the issue of immigration did not make the cut in terms of soon-to-be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's list of legislative priorities. She immediately took impeachment off the table, and declined to make any commitments about stopping congressional funding for the war. The power of the purse resides on the House side, and this is one lady who is a spendthrift when it comes to war. Her list of priorities included an increase in the federal minimum wage, Medicare prescription price reform, war related investigations, hearings, and oversight, no extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy, and others, but absolutely nothing said about immigration reform. Without a doubt, the complete list of priorities corresponds to the material social interests of Latinos, but immigration is central to the integrity of our families.

This is a preview of the coming dynamic that we can expect in relation to the leadership of the Democratic Party. We are still viewed as the peons on the political plantation by these people. And, we will have to fight for everything we want from this new Congress. This even includes on the issue of the war in Iraq.

THE STATE OF ARIZONA. The state of Arizona is currently the epicenter of the anti-immigrant nativist movement, and we should recognize the same and act accordingly. We are all familiar with the scorched nastiness of the anti-immigrant forces during the 1990s in California - Proposition 187, the no driver's license legislation, no access to university education for immigrant youth, denial of healthcare services, Proposition 227 to eliminate bilingual education, Operation Gatekeeper along the U.S.-Mexico border (again 1996 legislation under the Clinton), but focused at the San Diego-Tijuana nexus, the rise of the border deaths phenomena, and the rise of the hate-mongering radio shock jocks. This resulted in spurring on increased U.S. citizenship acquisition, voter registration, the unprecedented election of Latino legislators (27 percent), and the minority status for the Republican Party in California. Their last big hurrah was the re-election of Governor Pete Wilson in 1994. We have defeated the worst of these measures and are slowly building on the electoral gains made over the past decade to roll-back the remainder.

However, entering the 21st Century, the epicenter moved to Arizona. This also is a border state, and Operation Gatekeeper forced the flow of undocumented migrants to the most dangerous terrain along the border - the deserts of Arizona, which are known for extreme high and low temperatures. The most current information indicates that more then 4,500 individuals have lost their lives attempting to enter the U.S. through this route. The virulent measures so common in California during the 1990s have become fashion in Arizona. While the so-called racist Minutemen hail their birthplace as Orange County, their first display of vigilantism occurred in Arizona. Anti-immigrant ballot initiative after ballot initiative has been put before the Arizona electorate. Driver's licenses are denied to immigrants. Thousands of vehicles are confiscated and towed away by local authorities daily. The sheriff of Maricopa County has applied an anti-smuggling law to both the smuggler and the passenger - a felony complicity charge. Proposition 200, which denies basic services to immigrants, and imposes a universal identifier for voting purposes, was approved in the previous election. And, the November election resulted in the approval of four state measures to further prohibit services to immigrants, even though two of the most xenophobic Republican candidates were defeated at the polls. Nonetheless, each measure has been met with increased organizing by the immigrant communities, and their allies of labor, church, Spanish language media, immigrant and human right’s organizations and coalitions. The fight-back has been fierce. Currently, new strategies are being applied for sustained organizing amongst immigrant families to resist the worst forms of repression. Demographics (both in terms of population and political party affiliation) continue to shift away from the xenophobes and their political allies, but in the meantime immigrant workers and their families will continue to suffer the brunt effects of the wave of anti-immigrant policies, laws, and practices. The national immigrant right’s movement must join the movement within Arizona (on its own terms) to turn-back the ugliness of the period. A defeat of the anti-immigrant movement in Arizona is a defeat for these forces everywhere.

Current state of the immigrant right’s movement - The national immigrant right’s movement is characterized by various local, regional, and national networks and coalitions. Some areas are more mixed in terms of the participation of diverse nationality groups, then others. California is probably more homogenous in terms of the predominance of its Mexican and Latino participation and leadership. Nevertheless, literally all immigrant-origin groups are represented in some form within the movement. While there may not be organic unity, there certainly does exist an alignment of views on the type of immigration reform desired by most.

The Catholic Church (under the banner of its 'Justice for Immigrants' campaign) has generally opted for favorable measures, but has clearly indicated a willingness to accept enforcement provisions, more onerous employer sanctions, for example, in exchange for some form of legalization. It also supports guest-worker programs, preferably a form that allows ultimate legalization for the participant. It is most closely identified with the legislation offered by Senators Edward Kennedy and John McCain - commonly referred to as the Kennedy-McCain Bill. The local parishes throughout the country that attend to the spiritual needs of their immigrant constituency have played a consistently progressive role in defending that constituency and have repeatedly protested in favor of more far-reaching reform than the hierarchy has advocated.

On the other hand, Protestant, particularly evangelical denominations, generally more inclined politically towards the Republican Party, have begun to play a more active role in supporting generous immigration reform. This is dictated by their growing church constituency - for the most part of first generation immigrant stock. This potentially can be pivotal as a counter-weight to the right-wing core Republican constituency which opposes the immigrants and favorable immigration reform.

The labor movement – the Kennedy-McCain bill has also won adherents from the unions mentioned earlier - SEIU, UNITE-HERE, and UFW, ironically all from the new labor federation - Change To Win (CTW), ostensibly the more militant, progressive and pro-immigrant. The AFL-CIO, on the other hand, has staked out a position closest to the progressive immigrant right’s movement - opposed to employer sanctions, no guest-worker programs, and legalization for all. Some CTW affiliates, such as the Teamsters, Laborers’, and United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), are more aligned with the AFL-CIO views. Local affiliates of both federations have been actively involved in the national immigrant right’s movement, and even comprise a significant part of its leadership. Their leaders are generally more adamant and perceptive in articulating correctly the demands of the local immigrant constituencies. A growing rank-in-file movement within the first three unions mentioned opposes the compromise approach or support for bracero-type programs. This will be revealed in greater strength during 2007.

The auxiliary organizations mentioned earlier, National Council of La Raza (NCLR) and the National Immigration Forum, in particular, amongst others, are closest to the Democratic Party, corporate donors, and government contracts, and have historically been considered more inclined to accept trade-offs - enforcement in exchange for visas - under the argument that "this is the best we can get under the circumstances." The problem is that to them the circumstances and political climate always look ominous, and therefore, they have a greater propensity to compromise before they wage a fight. The greatest perceived strength is their location in Washington, D.C., and therefore, their proximity to the federal legislators, corporations, lobbyists, private foundations, and national media. The local affiliates within these organizations, which are closest to the grassroots and depend on the local communities to sustain themselves financially and politically, are inclined to be more independent and take positions corresponding more to the interest of the local constituents. This is the case of LULAC, which is membership and chapter-based. Although, recent changes in the national leadership of this particular organization appear to move it in closer sync with local mandates.

The home-town associations - In the largest metropolitan areas there are Mexican Federations, the home-town associations, which are active civically, but look more towards their towns of origin than the local political scene. However, that is rapidly changing. Some of the most prominent leaders of the immigrant right’s movement nationally have surfaced from these associations. The influence of the Mexican government, both state and federal, also plays a role in curbing the political independence of the associations, specifically when it comes to taking a critical look and advocacy in relation to the same governments. This was clearly observed during President Vicente Fox's administration and in the run up to the most recent presidential campaign in Mexico. Felipe Calderon, the PAN candidate, now president, certainly did his homework with the associations, and will continue to strengthen his influence amongst and over them.

The U.S. business community has also weighed in on the immigration issue in a big way. For several years now it has melded together its Essential Worker Coalition comprised of corporations, agribusiness, and with the collaboration of some unions - SEIU, UNITE-HERE, and UFW. It has actively advocated for immigration reform, especially in favor of a massive guest-worker program, but to allow such workers to labor in other industries than just agriculture. The U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (its national office and state affiliates) has also been active in advocating for favorable immigration reform – opposed to employer sanctions and supportive of full legalization.

The local immigrant right’s coalitions - While these networks have been at work for a number of years, local immigrant right’s and civic organizations and coalitions, with both immigrant member composition and political activists, have labored tirelessly over the years on behalf of immigrants, opposed local, state, and federal anti-immigrant measures, policies and legislation, and have sought to build base constituencies within the immigrant communities. Nationally, coalitions with calendarized names (March 10th, May 1st, March 25th, April 9th, etc.) brought together local groups to launch the fight against H.R.4437. This, truly, is the well from which the mass mobilizations sprung forth during 2006. This is the strength of the movement. And, they have worked to weave together regional and national networks of collaboration to hammer out a national strategy which corresponds to the true interests of the immigrants, their families, and their posterity. Probably the greatest weakness of these coalitions, and the movement for that matter, however, is their lack of resources, which makes the prospect of political independence ever more difficult. What they lack in resources, though, they make up for in ingenuity, steadfastness, and audacity.

The Spanish language media has obviously played a generally progressive and supportive role, but more often than not, an auxiliary role - at times spurring on mobilization and at other times attempting to brake and even demoralize the movement. Much has depended on their corporate ownership, the political inclinations of the disc jockeys, the influence of advertisers, and the ability of the immigrant right's coalitions to leverage and move them in the right direction. It should be understood that the role of this medium has its basis on two legs – one, the vast majority of the front-line employees are of immigrant stock, and their personal experience mirrors that of the community; and second, it’s a question of self-preservation - their market. Those most adversely affected by anti-immigrant legislation, policy, etc. constitute the consuming (and listening) market of these corporations. Bill Clinton, once said it best – “it’s the economy, stupid.”

The right-wing Minutemen - The local immigrant right's coalitions have also had to contend with the "Minutemen" phenomenon, a populist right-wing anti-immigrant movement funded by conservative private foundations and ideologues, and encouraged and egged on by the radio and television shock hosts, such as Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly, and their ilk. This minuscule movement has attempted to wrap itself up in the American flag and present itself to the American public as patriotic and as patriots. It could be nothing further from the truth. It has all the makings of a neo-fascist political current, and has been rightly opposed and protested by the true patriots and freedom fighters - mostly young activists, Socialists, and white pro-immigrant sympathizers.

The national networks - Most of the local and regional coalitions have come together under the umbrella of two national networks - WE ARE AMERICA and the National Alliance for Immigrant’s Rights (NAIR). The former is influenced principally by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), UNITE-HERE, the National Immigration Forum, the Center for Community Change (a liberal Washington, D.C.-based private foundation), and the NCLR, however, composed of local coalitions, advocacy organizations, churches, and local unions. The latter is comprised truly of the grassroots organizations and coalitions composed of the immigrants themselves. We belong to the latter forces, but we continue to seek areas of collaboration with the former. The WE ARE AMERICA coalition brings together other local and regional immigration coalitions, which were also actively involved in the mass mobilizations locally. The April 9th mobilizations were a good example of their national scope and strength. In effect, many of the local coalitions participate in both national network and coalition formations. This is universally respected - as it should be.

NAIR continues to formalize its network of coalitions (in many cases named by the first calendar date of their major actions) and organizations, and develop its strategy and the corresponding tactics. What most characterizes NAIR is its voluntary participation, its tireless commitment to its base immigrant community, and its political independence. NAIR convened a national conference in August 2006 (Chicago, Illinois) wherein it formalized its existence before 800 delegates representing 400 organizations from 27 states. This came on the heels of two other successful regional conferences.

The basic ten points of unity of NAIR include the following:
1. immediate unconditional legalization for all undocumented currently in the U.S.;
2. no mass deportations;
3. no arbitrary, mass or indefinite detentions;
4. no employer sanctions;
5. no guest-worker programs;
6. full labor rights, civil rights, and civil liberties;
7. no militarization of the border;
8. no border wall;
9. no criminalization of workers; and
10. increased family reunification visas.

These are the makings of alternative immigration legislation that NAIR seeks to pursue in 2007 in collaboration with other coalitions and networks, particularly the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (NNIRR), which is probably one of the oldest immigrant right’s networks in the U.S., and which has advanced many very progressive pro-worker and pro-immigrant policy positions with broad national support.

However, we recognize that their are diverse opinions within the immigrant right’s movement, and we seek to forge unity with all political currents, organizations, unions, and churches, that support the immediate legalization of all undocumented persons in the U.S. This should be our common goal, our minimum basis of unity and collaboration. We can certainly reaffirm what unites us as a national alliance while we forge unity with all others who minimally agree that immigrants represent inherent value for America and the fair exchange to them for all that they contribute to the greatness of this country is a legal recognition of permanent status, and eventually, U.S. citizenship. This is the least that this country can offer and bestow.

We will continue to disagree on enforcement issues, guest-worker programs, the efficacy of employer sanctions, and other provisions. And, we should continue to debate these issues. However, this should not be an impediment to unite around the legalization of the estimated 12 million hard working immigrants within our midst. This is our imperative.

Some of the other important national and regional networks and formations that have participated in and led actions - legislative, lobbying, service delivery, legal defense and litigation, and local and national advocacy - include the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (NNIRR), the National Alliance of Latin American & Caribbean Communities (NALACC), the Human Rights Border Working Group, Justice for Immigrants (Catholic Church), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), the Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, and others.

In October 2006, an important organizational development occurred that may have a very positive outcome for the immigrant right’s movement. The National Latino Congreso was convened in Los Angeles, California, led principally by the Willie C. Velasquez Institute and the Southwest Voter Education and Registration Project (SVERP), and four other national organizations (MALDEF, NALACC, LULAC, the National Hispanic Environmental Council, the Latin American Council for Labor Advancement (LACLAA), and Earth Day Network. For an entire week it addressed among other relevant issues, immigration. The resolution approved by the Latino Congreso on the matter very much reflects the main outlines of the platform proposed by NAIR. The Latino Congreso will seek to play a leadership role on the issue of immigration, and probably its most valuable contribution will be in incorporating organizations whose principal focus of activity is not that of immigration, such as the environmental advocacy movement, voter registration and mobilization, local elected officials, and others.

Additionally, this year the World Social Forum convened a Border Social Forum in Juarez, Mexico, led principally by the Centro Obrero of San Antonio, Texas. The forum was well attended and addressed the issue of immigration in all its magnitude, particularly as this manifest itself along the border. The World Social Forum will convene its international presence and advocacy in Atlanta, Georgia during July 2007. This will be an opportunity to spread the pro-immigrant message, the fair trade over free trade perspective, develop organizational relations, and promote multilateral solidarity actions.

CURRENT POLITICAL CONDITIONS. While the current political conditions and climate may not be optimal for the character of change that the movement desires, it certainly is not what it was at the beginning of 2006. Two events that influenced the change of conditions and climate were: 1) the immigrant mass mobilizations; and 2) the November elections and the party shift in the U.S. Congress. However, it would be simplistic and disingenuous to conclude that the first led to the second. The Iraq war and the uncompromising manner in which the Bush administration is conducting the conflict, and the resulting economic impact on the U.S. and the future implications, were the pivotal factors in the elections. Nevertheless, the political shift in the Congress, while still very tenuous, bodes somewhat better for federal immigration reform, albeit, the task will not be easy. The leadership of the Democratic Party would clearly prefer to not address the issue. The movement's challenge will be to force the Democrats to embrace fair and humane immigration reform (in counter-distinction to "comprehensive"), while pushing back the extremist xenophobes in and out of Congress. The window of opportunity is 2007. To the degree that the fight exceeds that calendar, the prospect of success will be improbable - due to the presidential elections in 2008. The broad-strokes picture is that immigration restrictionists will be in a weaker position in the 110th Congress. The hard-line restrictionists who were in a position to block immigration reform in the House in particular, have either been booted out of office, or by virtue of the Republicans’ loss of control of the House, and thus of the committees, have been demoted, according to the National Immigration Forum. Committee assignments related to the issue of immigration and border security, for example, will pass to the likes of Senator Edward Kennedy in the Senate, to Congressman John Conyers (a long-time ally to immigrants) to chair the important House Judiciary Committee (in place of Congressman Sensenbrenner, if you can imagine that), and possibly the liberal-leaning Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of California to chair the Immigration Subcommittee. This certainly represents opportunities for us.

Another consideration for the movement will be the impending struggle around the war in Iraq. What will the effects of a continued war in Iraq and the ensuing struggle within the U.S. have on the prospect for immigration reform? On the other hand, what connection should there be between the movement for an end to the war in Iraq and in favor of immigration reform? The immigrant right’s movement must find answers to these questions.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE – IMMEDIATE LEGALIZATION. The strategic objective of the movement is the legalization of the estimated twelve (12) million undocumented currently in the U.S. Within the context of pursuing this objective, the movement must address the other demands that arise from the very conditions of life and work of the immigrant communities. These are reflected in the ten basic points of unity (and demands) of NAIR.

The balance between legalization and enforcement - A most vexing consideration for the immigrant right’s movement is the balance between legalization and enforcement, at least as some have posed the question. Is a trade-off necessary? Must the immigrant communities accept onerous enforcement measures, and even the elimination of some of their rights, in exchange for some form of legalization? The premise of the platform elaborated by NAIR answers this question in the negative. However, the debate with ally forces will not be so easy. These include the Catholic Church, and probably other evangelical denominations, and some of the unions. For all intents and purposes, the most draconian enforcement measures were approved under the Secure Fence Act of 2006, although not completely funded. These measures were previously included in the S.2611 legislation. This is the legislation that was supported by many in the WE ARE AMERICA forces, particularly those based in Washington, D.C. (under the guise that it was the best possible compromise available), while rhetorically opposing its worst enforcement measures and some of the legalization deficiencies. It should be noted that the majority of local coalitions and entities that comprise the WE ARE AMERICA network publicly split with the national entities and opposed S.2611. This was most evident in a national conference convened by WE ARE AMERICA in Chicago, Illinois in August, 2006 wherein the house split on the question of S.2611 – the Washington, D.C.-based entities advocated in favor, and the local entities opposed.

The “guest-worker” program - The other element of discord swirled around the debate of the guest-worker provision. Again, NAIR opposes any form of guest-worker program. The WE ARE AMERICA coalition acquiesces to this provision under the argument that at least immigrant workers will have a legal permit to work, and theoretically could be represented by a union. This is certainly compelling to the worker who labors in the shadow without protection, but it is universally rejected by the labor movement - until of late. Three members of the CHANGE TO WIN labor federation now accept the existence of guest-worker programs as a pragmatic alternative to an undocumented status. The prediction is that the movement faces a similar dynamic and debate in 2007.

In the article, ‘No Way To Treat a Guest,’ Alec Dubro observes that the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) is quoted as declaring, “any guest-worker program must offer full worker protection and rights.” However, it couldn’t be otherwise. All workers, irrespective of their legal status, are protected by federal and state labor law, hour and wage standards. The bar put up by NCLR to accept the existence of guest-worker programs is no bar at all, or one certainly not exceptional for such a new class of legally subservient workers.

The previous U.S. and Mexican experience with a massive bracero program occurred from the 1940s to the 1960s. Wage and contract violations were rampant. Employers refused to hire local labor when they could depend on low wage bracero workers. The United Farm Workers of America (UFWA) was a mere figment of the imagination of one of America’s most ingenious and tenacious labor organizers, Cesar Chavez, during the existence of the bracero program. He fought it tooth and nail while leading the Community Service Organization (CSO), and continued after separating from this organization until the program’s ultimate demise.

Ernesto Galarza, author and farm-labor organizer, documented better than anyone the defects of the program in his seminal work, ‘Merchants of Labor.’ His own organizing efforts in the fields during the 1940s to the 1960s were dashed under the weight of the labor contracting scheme.

Bert Corona, Eduardo Quevedo, and Congressman Edward Roybal (all legendary Mexican leaders now deceased), the acknowledged founders and leaders of the Mexican American Political Association (MAPA) in 1960, made the termination of the bracero program a top priority with the founding of this national civic-political organization.

No one can deny that the period during which the bracero program was the most expansive (1940s to 1960s) corresponded to the era of organized labor’s greatest strength in terms of the percentage of the work-force represented by a union under a collective bargaining agreement (37 percent - and even higher in some industries), national and industry-wide contracts, and the recognition and respect of national political circles and industry. Nevertheless, with all of its strength, the labor movement was unable to prevent the scale of abuses and labor law violations under the program. It was eventually successful, however, in its advocacy to sunset the bracero era in the early 1960s.

Considering the state of the labor movement today, its much reduced representation of the work-force (13 percent, and only 6 percent of private industry), why would anyone have any illusions about the ability of labor to prevent similar abuses under any new labor contracting scheme? They absolutely should not.

In a recent statement, AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney had this to say in commemoration of International Migrants Day, celebrated December 18, 2006, “The U.S. government must implement an immigration policy that prioritizes workers’ rights. Unfortunately, the rights of migrant workers have been largely ignored in the political discussions concerning comprehensive immigration reform. Corporations continue to call on Congress to create a new large guest worker program, which will provide corporations with a constant stream of exploitable workers and create a secondary class of workers that will drive down workplace standards for all workers. As a nation that prides itself on fair treatment and equality, we should accept the standards of rights laid out by the UN convention on migrants and demand immigration reform that will guarantee that all workers who labor in our nation enjoy full protections of the law.”

“I want to be a bracero” or “Please sanction my employer” - And lastly on this topic, the “guest-worker” program is a benevolent sounding name, but when did this country ever treat the undocumented as a guest? And, if this is how the country treats its guest, you can only guess how the unwanted are treated. I personally participated in the largest mobilizations of literally millions of workers and their families in Los Angeles on various occasions, and have reviewed hundreds if not thousands of photographs of the marches country-wide. Never did I observe a poster, banner, or picket sign declaring “I want to be a bracero” or “Please sanction my employer.” On the contrary, the most common signs were “Immigrants are not criminals” and “Immigrants are not terrorists” and “Immigrants are good for America” and I want amnesty” and “No to border walls.” Simply put, these are the demands of the masses of immigrants who took to the streets full of hope, cheer, and goodwill. These are the demands that the leadership must heed.


STRATEGIC ALLIES. Notwithstanding the contradictory positions within some of the leadership of the Catholic Church and the labor movement expressed previously, the mainstay strategic allies of the immigrant communities are one, the broader communities that comprise the extended families of the immigrant communities; second, the labor movement; and third, the churches that dot our neighborhoods. These represent the social refuge for the immigrants - their nuclear and extended families (the most common characteristic of the immigrant communities is the diversity of legal status represented in each family); the labor movement's very existence is premised on its ability to advocate for the social-economic advancement of all workers, and the strengthening of the organized sector is premised on strengthening the condition of the most vulnerable - the immigrant (similar to that of minority, women, youth, etc.); the spiritual renewal and hope that sustains the immigrant in the most difficult of times are the organized faith communities of the immigrant's life – the church.

The community-based organizations and coalitions that advocate for the rights of immigrants, either comprised by the immigrants themselves (membership organizations, for example) and/or activists represent the tireless fighters and the core leadership of the movement - at least representative of the most politically independent and consistently resolute.

There definitely exist a progressive wing of the Democratic Party, its most liberal segment, probably best represented by the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA), and the democratic progressive caucus in Congress (not completely homogeneous politically, and certainly not always consistently liberal) This wing of the Party can potentially be considered an ally. Much will depend on the movement's ability to pressure this sector to be consistent with its liberal principles, and be as loyal to its Latino and immigrant electorate as this electorate has been loyal to the Party. The Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (not all members comprise the congressional progressive caucus) also can be viewed as allies in the fight to the degree that they can be held accountable by and to the local constituents, and not the party leadership.

Nationally, the Green Party has a platform and TEN VALUES that are most consistent with the needs and desires of the immigrant communities. Unfortunately, the Green Party hasn't demonstrated an organized capability to be considered an electoral alternative by the Latino electorate, even in states where the Latino voter is increasingly registering as independent, such as California, or where the party is the largest, again, California. In fact, the independent column is the fastest growing percentage of the Latino electorate. Nevertheless, the independent segment of the Latino electorate and the Green Party can be mobilized to leverage the Democratic Party. Much of the Green Party's difficulties stem from the inherently undemocratic character of current political system. It is one of the most archaic and retrograde systems in the world, which excludes the majority voice of America, and which is not represented in either of the two main political parties, and therefore, not represented in the state legislatures or Congress.

Other strategic considerations - There are serious strategic considerations that the immigrant right's movement needs to contemplate if it is to be successful in broadening its political base. The reference is related to the environmental, feminist, peace, and labor movements, and the progressive social movements in the countries of origin of the immigrants. Relations with the African American community are also of strategic value and importance. Considering the demographic shifts that have occurred over the past twenty-five years and those projected in the future - in the U.S., the first four movements mentioned have no future if they do not embrace the growing immigrant communities as integral to their respective political and social base. This means meeting the immigrants on their own terms, addressing their specific and respective cultural, linguistic, and social class differences, and creating spaces within these movements wherein the immigrants find a friendly organizational home. These movements have reached a certain limit of growth, and have limited potential for further growth without incorporating the immigrant communities and their extended families within their fold. Similarly, the immigrant communities need these movements on their side and cannot be successful in accomplishing its goals without expanding its social base beyond the immigrant family.

The feminist movement, for example, has faced serious challenges in its endeavors to protect the right to choice over the past decade. The push back by the extremists and conservatives has been significant. The feminist movement is challenged to expand its own base, and deny the right-wing the ability to encroach on the immigrant communities under the false guise of "family values." It is interesting to note that the Christian conservatives and conservative Republican candidates or officials are great at lauding "family values" when it comes to the question of "choice," yet it smashes the immigrant family, its integrity and value, when the question of immigration policy and legislation is posed. The feminist movement, particularly that segment that focuses on women worker issues and concerns, poor women, single-female-heads-of-household, union women workers, and pro-choice advocates, has everything to gain and little to lose by embracing the immigrant movement. The opportunity for alliance between the feminist movement and the immigrant right's movement within this context is obvious.

The environmental movement cannot secure greater political gains for a green America without coloring its own movement a darker hue of green by incorporating the communities of color - the immigrants. Where do the “enviros” move in California without stepping over the Latino and Asian Pacific populace, which now represents fifty (50) percent of the state's inhabitants. These are the only segments of the electorate that are growing. Brown-fields, for example, cannot be addressed in California without addressing the urban needs of the Latino communities. No environmental ballot initiative in California can pass today without the support of these combined electorates. In effect, the passage of Proposition 84, considered one of the greatest environmental state bond initiatives in the state's history, was approved due to the overwhelming support by the Latino electorate. On the other hand, the anti-tobacco initiative failed due to the lukewarm support by this same electorate. The initiative's proponents had no Latino campaign. But, there is another reason for this consideration. The anti-immigrant extremists (founders of the Minutemen, conservative population zero foundations, white supremacists, and the corresponding elected officials) have viewed the environmental movement and the organized expression of the same (the Sierra Club, for example) as fertile ground for their racist message and advocacy. Population zero to them translates into closed borders, mass expulsions, border militarization, and criminalization in the interior. We are challenged to close off this space to the extremists.

The peace movement currently has made great strides in moving public opinion against the war in Iraq in a shorter time-span than was the case during the war in Vietnam, according to acknowledged peace veterans. During the period of the Vietnam War, the Latino population constituted less than seven (7) percent of the total U.S. population, yet accounted for twenty (20) percent of the fatalities. Today, Latinos comprise thirteen (13) percent of the U.S. population, and current fatalities mirror those of the previous era. Latino representation in the armed forces is disproportionate to its numbers in the population, notwithstanding the "volunteer" character of military service. Today's armed services depend on an economic draft. Latinos, similar to African Americans and poor whites, have every reason to oppose the war, and truly have little to gain from war. The peace and non-intervention movement has this challenge before it – to the degree that the peace message also encompasses advocacy to defeat the Patriot Act and other measures that crack down on immigrants, opposes the “terrorist” and xenophobic tendencies of American public opinion, fear and opposition of the “otherness” of America, and expresses support for movements of national liberation, self-determination, national sovereignty, and non-intervention in the affairs of other states, it will have every possibility of expanding its reach and find an echo with its message within the immigrant communities. On the other hand, the Latino community must not continue to allow the aggressive forays by military recruiters into its neighborhoods schools and offer legalization and citizenship status and money in exchange for military service.

The labor movement will never return to an era of historic strength, as that enjoyed during the 1940s thru the beginning of the 1970s, unless it finds a path to the heart of the immigrant communities. The organized segment of the labor-force is lower than any time in the history of the labor movement. Less than 13 percent of the labor-force is represented by a collective bargaining agreement. When the public sector is removed from this equation, the percentage drops to just over six (6) percent. Immigrant workers represented by a union are an anomaly. Yet, more and more industries in the great geographic diversity the length and breadth of the U.S. depend on immigrant labor. This tendency will only increase in the future. While Latinos, for example, represent thirteen percent of the total U.S. population, five percent of the labor-force is comprised of undocumented immigrant labor. Latinos constitute a third of California's population, but close to forty (40) percent of the labor-force. Immigrants, generally, enjoy the highest labor participation rate than any other segment of the work-force. The destiny of the labor movement is inextricably dependent on its ability to incorporate immigrants into its ranks, and this begins and ends with an aggressive advocacy on all levels for the rights of immigrants. Even if only to protect the current standards (and improve the same) of the organized sector, the most vulnerable sectors must be protected and defended.

It was only in the last decade that the immigrant was embraced formally as a positive force by the AFL-CIO, and important shifts in policy occurred. If during the 1980s the immigrant right's movement fought the AFL-CIO on the question of employer sanctions, today the policy is just the opposite. The AFL-CIO and the Change To Win has been the wind to the back of the immigrant right's movement, nationally (notwithstanding the contradictions mentioned earlier). Some unions have played a more aggressive role in extolling their pro-immigrant views and have demonstrated a greater willingness to conduct bold organizing campaigns of immigrant workers. These include members of the Change To Win (CTW) labor federation. And, these are some of the very same unions that successfully advocated to change AFL-CIO policies vis a vis the immigrant - particularly, the undocumented. Yet, the current role of the leadership of these same unions (SEIU, UNITE-HERE, and UFW) is observed as controversial by many in the immigrant right's movement due to their acceptance of employer sanctions (even more onerous versions), guest-worker programs, and enforcement measures as trade-offs in exchange for some form of legalization. The controversy and sharp debate around S.2611 is the most recent example. The position of the leadership, however, must be distinguished from the sentiments of the rank-in-file of these unions. We expect that the debate around these issues will continue into 2007. It's significant to note, however, that other CTW unions, such as the Teamsters, the Laborers' and the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), have views which mirror the AFL-CIO and are consistent with the positions advocated by the immigrant right's movement.

The challenge before the labor and immigrant right's movements is to find common ground, develop a mutual respect for the role of each, and maintain open communication and dialogue notwithstanding sharp differences on tactical questions. It is in the interest of both to find in each other the answers to the political challenges posed by the right-wing, and the demands of our common constituency. Additionally, the importance of strengthening relations between the labor movement and the immigrant right’s movement is not solely for the purpose of pursuing federal immigration reform, even though this would certainly be a boost to the ability of labor to organize the immigrant worker into its ranks. Almost like a rule of natural law, immigrants will not progress socially without joining the labor movement and obtaining a collective bargaining agreement. If this applies universally to all workers, it most certainly applies to the immigrant worker.

Other tactical alliances. There are certainly other opportunities for tactical alliances with other important political forces. These include moderate forces within the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and even the business community. For different reasons, these forces can be won over to some of the more advanced positions of the movement, for example, opposition to the criminalization (felony charge) of immigrants and those who employ them, and similar provisions. There is significant support for guest-worker programs amongst these sectors due to the absolute acknowledgement of the pivotal role immigrants play in certain industries, and the historical use of immigrants as the reserve army of labor for America. There may exist an opportunity to win these forces over to a guest-worker/legalized status (of a permanent nature) for these workers, as opposed to perpetual servitude with no right to obtain permanent legal status. This is something to explore.

Progressive social movements, especially those of a bi-national character, in the countries of origin of the immigrant communities are having a growing significance and impact on the immigrant right's movement within the U.S. There is increased unity between the movements. The cross-border movements (U.S.-Mexico), especially when the factor of the border deaths and the feminicide phenomenon in Juarez are considered, have the potential to seed strategic bonds of international progressive change. It is not lost on any in the movement the current events in Mexico, the alternative presidency of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador to the fraudulent imposition of Felipe Calderon, who is a declared "free-trader" in the worst/best sense of neoliberal subservience to U.S. capital; the popular movement to remove the governor of Oaxaca, Ulises Ruiz; and the growing social unrest throughout Mexico. The toppling of neoliberal governments through the ballot in Latin American country after country is more than a popular trend. The re-election of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez by a wide margin is an open repudiation of U.S. influence in the hemisphere.

The Special Case of Mexico: The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has made a mockery of the U.S.-Mexico border. The strength of our arguments against the infamous border wall and militarization of the border reside on two points: 1) the growing number of border deaths (only expected to increase with the most recent deployment of the National Guard and the thousands more border troops); and, 2) the globalization of capital, goods, and services (which has meant the deindustrialization of the U.S., and now, even Mexico).

Take a snapshot of the economic effects of Mexico’s President Vicente Fox administration under NAFTA, and one easily concludes that the unfair agreement has only exacerbated the immigration situation. According to Mexican government reports, which track population movements within its national borders, some three million small farmers and their families have been displaced from the land – unable to compete with U.S. corporate agribusiness. At the same time, the Mexican government has documented that 430,000 to 500,000 Mexicans successfully entered the U.S. surreptitiously annually over the past six years – Fox’s presidential term. In effect, more Mexicans have been systematically expelled from their national territory to the U.S. during the Fox term than anytime in the history of the two countries. It is not difficult to conclude that this mass displacement of people across borders is not part of an economic strategy contrived between capital on both sides of the border. The PAN’s Felipe Calderon has repeatedly crowed that he has no intention of tinkering with the terms of NAFTA or doing anything to protect the Mexican small farmer. This is even in the face of the soon-to-be eliminated tariffs on Mexican corn and beans in 2008. He represents continuity of Fox’s economic policies and the drive towards privatization of the Mexican economy – that is, what’s left of it. He is the ultimate defender of the brake-neck speed with which Mexico is being walmartized.

A recent World Bank report compared Mexico to Botswana, Africa in terms of economic inequality. In the final days of his economic performance, Vicente Fox leaves his country stalled with a notable increase in unemployment, polarized income in the extreme of its citizens, and few remaining opportunities. The report mentions that the Fox administration wasted opportunities represented by high petroleum prices, low international interest rates, high growth of remittances, and the brevity of the U.S. economic recession. On the other hand, the annual economic growth rate was only two (2) percent, the internal market disappeared, 50 million Mexicans live on the equivalent of $1.00 a day, unemployment reached the highest level of the economically active workforce, 4.04 percent (not considering the growth of the informal economy); public expenses increased extraordinarily; and in 2006 alone the interest payment on the debt was the highest in history, the equivalent of $26 billion (almost the total amount earned from petroleum revenue). According to the study, the Mexican economy demonstrated its capacity to generate wealth in the past few years, however, it regressed in the form of its distribution, and it experienced a decline in the real purchasing power of its inhabitants. The Fox government consolidated itself as the tenth largest economy of the world, but fell to 70th place in terms of per capita income ($6,790.00), and to 80th place if the income is measured by the real purchasing capacity – a level comparable to Botswana.

In the face of these figures, the pretended advocacy by the Fox administration in the U.S. (his repeated meetings with Bush, his one speech before the U.S. Congress, and various state legislatures) and in the media (Mexican and U.S.) rings absolutely hollow.

Felipe Calderon’s early visit to the U.S., and his pronouncements on the immigration issue, were more for public consumption and a play to gain political credibility. The hypocrisy lies in the fact that the policy options he intends on pursuing fly in the face of his statements in “defense” of migrants. His policies (as those of Fox) are the reason why Mexicans are leaving their homeland. And, they will leave in greater numbers over this next sexennial. The termination of tariffs on all agricultural products (particularly maize and beans) between Mexico and the U.S. in 2008, as per NAFTA, will be a watershed event as this relates to labor displacement and migration.

A massive guest-worker (bracero) program for Mexican migrants is a central programmatic approach in the economic model and strategy of both U.S. and Mexican capital. This is best revealed by the repeated advocacy for the same by Bush and Fox since 2000. This represents Jorge Castaneda’s “whole enchilada” – although wholly void of any beef for the Mexican migrant.

It’s the politician’s populist rhetoric at its worst – seemingly militant, patriotic, adversarial, and protective on behalf of the humble worker, while working out the details of the deal behind closed doors to legitimize the wholesale expulsion of millions of workers for the use by U.S. capital, and devoid of full rights, especially the right to obtain permanent legal status. This is modern day servitude and the case of the re-cyclical worker in the age of recycling. If these same government officials are responsible for wreaking havoc on the small farmer – systematically pursuing economic dislocation in the interior of Mexico, and therefore, are not their true champions and advocates, but in fact are the real predators (within Mexico), why would anyone have any illusions that they would be true champions and advocates for the Mexican migrant in the exterior. Intrinsically, they cannot

The Mexican migrant is being whipsawed in an ever expanding and dangerous vortex of economic despair, violence, and death along the border – a virtual militarized zone.


The African American community is a natural strategic ally to the immigrant of America. Both groups are predominantly working class and find themselves on the bottom echelons of all social classes. Both have more in common than that which separates and distinguishes them. Both have historically been used by capital to weaken the labor movement and divide working people based on their color, legal status, gender, national origin, and language. The African American was once subjugated to a legal status which denied their humanity in absolute terms, and later shifted this to relative terms. The immigrant today is denied a legalized status to ensure a type of exploitation similar to the African American experience in segregated "Jim Crow" America. The African American community has demonstrated the way out of this dilemma, while it continues to fight for an equitable share of the wealth it currently creates, and the unfathomable endowment it created for America since its forced arrival. The immigrant right's movement owes a debt of gratitude to the major strides scored by the African American movement for civil and social rights in the U.S., and must look to this community and its leadership as mentors and partners in a common struggle for social justice and human dignity. Our common adversaries will search ever more closely for any and every pretext to sow division between the groups. And, any gain obtained by the immigrant on no account should come at the expense of the African American community, or of labor, for that matter. The mere perception of such will immediately be pounced upon by the xenophobes to divide us.

South Asian immigrant communities represent a special case of targeted persecution, repression, harassment, and profiling – not completely similar to that experienced by other immigrant groups. This has much to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent search for the “enemy,” but also due to the international policies, interventions, and U.S.-corporate interests abroad. Arab and Muslim peoples (U.S.-native born, foreign-born, and throughout the world) are demonized daily in all existing mediums. This becomes the ideological justification for the approval of new interpretations of existing laws and / or the abrogation of traditional interpretations of law to weaken civil liberties, such as the ruling by a Brooklyn federal judge that non-citizens could be detained and indefinitely held on “the basis of religion, race or national origin.” In October, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, handing Bush the power to identify “American” citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” and detain them indefinitely without charge. And, more to the point, the Act eliminated habeas corpus review for “aliens.” Recently, Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) stirred up anti-Muslim bigotry by writing his constituents: “I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.” The first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress this year, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), was also similarly attacked by Rep. Goode when he suggested that without a tough stance on immigration “there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office.” Lastly, in December, the Inter Press News Agency reported that, “Recent polls indicate that almost half of U.S. citizens have a negative perception of Islam and that one in four of those surveyed have ‘extreme anti-Muslim views…a quarter of people here consistently believe stereotypes such as: ‘Muslims value life less than other people’ and ‘The Muslim religion teaches violence and hatred.’ This is not an accident.

However, recent experience indicates that such persecution also represents an opportunity for alliance between all similarly or dissimilarly persecuted immigrant communities, and not just within the U.S. The defeat of Congressman Richard Pombo, for example, occurred by a creative alliance between Democrats, moderate Republicans, Greens, other independents, Latinos, and South Asian immigrants – of the Muslim faith. The American Muslim Alliance was instrumental in pursuing this creative broad collaboration. I am absolutely certain that such an alliance is what resulted in the election of Congressman Ellison. These are experiences that can be replicated. For every negative heaped on us, our answer must be such creative alliances to forge community, unity, and positive outcomes for our common immigrant family. And, lastly on this point, something not commonly known, but the majority of Muslims in the U.S. just happen to be African American. What an alliance!

A MILLION-PERSON MARCH DOES NOT A MOVEMENT MAKE. The immigrant mass mobilizations and movement in the U.S. during 2006 that exploded onto the television screens of millions throughout the world were just an apparent spontaneous manifestation. Behind the scenes, immigrant right's groups, coalitions, and immigrant membership organizations, and home-town associations have worked tirelessly for the past twenty-five years - and certainly prior to the 1986 Immigrant Reform and Control Act (popularly known as the amnesty law), to build constituency, oppose anti-immigrant policies, practices, and legislation; propose fair immigration reform legislation and policies; initiate litigation at all levels of the judicial system; and build alliances within labor, the church, corporate, and other political currents and movements. The tactics employed by the myriad of organizations have included letter campaigns, legislative lobbying, leadership training, marches, targeted protests, civil disobedience, hunger fasts, strikes, boycotts, mass mobilizations, litigation, and others. In fact, the massive marches of 2006 were the cumulative effect of the many years of organizing amongst the immigrant communities, and an immigrant community pushed against the wall with no space to maneuver – the political climate created by the H.R.4437 legislation.

No single mega-march, or series of marches, in one city or region of the country alone can or should be considered the panacea for the xenophobia infecting the body politic of America. While the 2006 May Day boycott/strike had national magnitude and historic significance, the organizational infrastructure of the movement was not adequate to take full advantage of the moment, build on its successes, and provide a coherent follow-up to continue gathering momentum and unite the regional leaderships under a national leadership direction to pursue future actions. The political balance of forces was such that the mobilizations were insufficient to stem the entire tide of repression and anti-immigrant legislation. While this may appear as a harsh critique, truth be told, the movement was caught off guard soon after the spring and was unable to prevent the passage of S.2611 by the Democratic Party or the bipartisan piece-meal enforcement legislation, namely, the Secure Fence Act of 2006, and others.

PROPOSAL FOR A WEEK-LONG GENERAL STRIKE IN 2007. Today, some political activists are already calling for a general strike on May Day 2007 - in fact, a week-long strike action. They do not present an analysis of the current state of affairs, an analysis of the new balance of political forces, an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the movement itself, or a comprehensive strategy with the corresponding tactics. They raise tactics to the level of strategy as an all or nothing answer to the immigration reform challenges facing the immigrant communities. It is their equivalent to the “big bang” theory – a massive mobilization or general strike with national magnitude will suffice to create the desired change. As if the political system was so fragile. It should be recognized that a strike, boycott, march, etc., and the organizational formations that give expression to these actions, are tactics employed to attain the objective(s) outlined as part of an integral strategy. Each tactic must be justified as it serves the overall plan. This is not what's being proposed by the advocates of such a week-long general strike. In fact, the proponents do not represent a mass membership base of workers (with whom they could ostensibly consult about such an action), are not connected to the labor movement in its organized expressions throughout the country, do not relate to the churches, which enjoy the largest constituencies of the immigrant communities, and have not developed an infrastructure to address the resulting retribution, firings, and repression that would certainly follow from a general strike. It is irresponsible to propose such actions in the manner in which they are proposed. Every action should lead to building more organization amongst the workers, not provoking more repression against them, and demoralizing the movement.

This is not to say that such tactics are not appropriate given certain conditions. No serious political organizer would be willing to disavow any tactic, particularly strikes including political strikes to shut down production or consumption for the purpose of sending a political message or exacting a political effect. The real question, however, is -what is the role of the workers themselves in employing such tactics and previously discussing their efficacy for the purposes advocated? To us this is everything!

NO-MATCH LETTERS. Immigrant workers are currently facing serious repression in the form of the NO-MATCH letters. The most recent example were the ICE raids covering six states against the workers of Swift & Co., the second largest meat processing plant in the U.S. Some 1,300 workers were detained and accused of identity theft. While the no-match letter is not new, the accusations of identity theft is certainly a novel tactic in repression against immigrants. Several months ago the Department of Homeland Security announced that by way of a new regulatory change it would begin enforcing the no-match letters to the full extent of the law. The issue of no-match letters arises as a result of the inability of the Social Security Administration to reconcile the social security numbers reported by employers from their employees. It is no secret that the SSA does not issue social security numbers to individuals who do not have legal status. Workers are than forced to offer up false numbers to their employers in order to obtain employment. For the purpose of collecting taxes, the Internal Revenue Service began a practice some ten years ago to recognize the Employer Identification Number (ITIN) for these workers in lieu of the social security number. However, this did not resolve the issue with the Social Security Administration. Over the past six or seven years the SSA began sending NO-MATCH letters to employers for the purpose of reconciling the discrepancy. However, employers were not required to do anything more than provide additional information, if such was available, and report back to the SSA - but not necessarily take any action against the employee. In other words, this was not a requirement to dismiss the worker due to the discrepancy, and the discrepancy in and of itself was not proof that the worker was undocumented.

The Department of Homeland Security, through its immigration enforcement arm – Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) - discovered this as an opportune way to enforce the employer sanctions provision of the 1986 immigration law, and added their own new twist of identity fraud and identity theft, which is a felony offense.

Theoretically, all undocumented workers could be charged with such an offense and therefore be ineligible for any immigration benefit - either from a new legalization program or even a visa petition of the traditional character. It is no accident that the DHS has targeted one of the largest unionized meat processing companies in the country. Additionally, unions have reported that during the course of organizing campaigns employers have used the pretext of the no-match letters to dismiss workers who are involved in the campaign. This was also recently the case of the Smithfield Co, the largest hog processing plant in the U.S. located in North Carolina.

However, what is the lesson that the workers and the union, which seeks to represent them, the United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW), have provided us on this question? Worker solidarity was the answer to the employer who dismissed some fifty workers under the pretext of the no-match letter. Some 500-700 workers (of a plant of 3,000) staged a week-long strike and demanded that their work-mates be returned to the production line. They eventually prevailed. The UFCW has had a decade-long campaign to organize the Smithfield Co.

To the degree that the Department of Homeland Security pursues their strategy of the no-match letters, the workers of Smithfield & Co. have provided us the answer, the collective work-stoppage. Call it a strike, boycott, or whatever you will, it is simply the ability, and more importantly, the willingness of the workers to unite in defense of their right to work and organize against the bosses. This is a tactic worth pursuing, but the lesson of Smithfield Co. is that the workers were intimately involved in pursuing the use of this tactic, and did so knowing full well the consequences of their actions, and they were successful.

PROPOSED TACTICAL APPROACHES. It is extremely important that the local and regional coalitions move closer to establishing a strong national network and coalition, and collaborate with all other existing pro-immigrant networks, which for different reasons do not wish to be an integral affiliate to the national network. In other words, unity in strategy and organizational expressions are of utmost importance for the immigrant right's movement. Agreement on the minimum basis of unity - the immediate legalization of the estimated 12 million undocumented currently in the U.S. - should be the starting point to further build the movement, strengthen its local, state, and national organized expressions, and directly and actively engage the immigrant communities in the fight of their lives. The fight must be of and by the immigrants themselves, and not for the immigrants. The fight must be of and by the workers themselves, and not for the workers.

Every tactic employed in the fight to defend and expand the rights of immigrants must inevitably lead to building base organization amongst the workers, building their leadership, and raise the social consciousness about the class character of our current system, its inherent deficiencies, and build class unity with no regard for borders – this is our strength.

It is imperative that leadership summits occur immediately throughout the country to finalize plans of work for 2007. These plans should include the following:

1. Launch national mobilizations (not a general strike) to coincide with the federal legislative calendar (March, May, and August, for example), and put forth the principal demand of legalization, and the other correlating demands - points of unity;

2. Launch a national letter campaign demanding the immediate legalization of all undocumented directed at the Democratic Party leadership;

3. Establish advocacy and mobilization committees in every congressional district throughout the country - or at least in all the states where there exist immigrant right’s coalitions;

4. Convene national days of lobby in Washington, D.C. on targeted dates;

5. Develop alternative immigration legislation, which is rational, fair, humane, pro-worker, and pro-immigrant, and present the same before all members of Congress where the local committees have been established;

6. Reaffirm commitment and alliance with labor, church, community-based organizations, coalitions, and advocacy committees to coordinate plans and actions;

7. Build local membership organizations of immigrants, and strengthen existing ones;

8. Strengthen legal advocacy, defense, and litigation with the fine legal organizations that have conducted such work throughout the country;

9. Conduct special outreach to other political currents and movements to ascertain basis of unity and work - feminist, environmental, labor, international, and African American, PDA, Greens, and others;

10. Continue to conduct counter-protest and education around the right-wing Minutemen and their connection to white supremacy organizations and foundations;

11. Respond to the no-match letter repression as an opportunity to engage workers at the work-place, build organization, strengthen relations and work with the unions, and demand an immediate moratorium on the implementation of the no-match letter regulations;

12. Respond to the orders of deportation of those individuals who have U.S.-born children as an opportunity to build organization amongst women and families, and demand an immediate moratorium of such deportations, no separation of families, and the protection of the integrity of the family (the case of Elvira Arellano is the symbol for this aspect of the movement);

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize several points – One, we need to be clear about who we are and who we represent (we have no interests that are extraneous to those of the immigrant worker and his/her family), but this can only be true in the measure that the main emphasis of our work is the development of politically independent grassroots organizations of immigrant workers and their families (or the enhancement of the same where such already exist). Second, we need to be clear on what we want (the most pressing demand of our community is immediate and unconditional legalization of all the undocumented), however, we must be perceptive and flexible enough to understand that this can come in many different ways (additional family reunification visas, reenactment of the 245i provision, grandfather all Central American temporary permissions into permanent legal status, approval of the Dream Act, and other such legislative initiatives. Third, we need to be clear about what we don’t want (bracero-type programs and employer sanctions are probably the most noxious employment-based impediments to the ability of workers to negotiate the terms of their employment with the prospective employer, and ultimately lead to lowering the labor standards for all workers; and the militarization of the border and border walls will only lead to more border deaths and violence; but more importantly, we don’t want political imposition of supposed solutions to the “immigration problem” on our communities without a thorough, open, and transparent consultation, discussion and debate – whether this be from either friend or foe.

In this sense, Bert Corona, the modern day founder of the immigrant right’s movement in the U.S. used to repeat tirelessly that the solution to the perceived immigration problem resides with the immigrant himself. This is where the discussion must both begin and end. And fourth, we must recognize that we cannot obtain the change we desire alone, we need friends and allies. Some of these are strategic and others are tactical. We must be mature enough to know the difference, and not self isolate.

I submit to the greater wisdom of our immigrant constituencies, our membership, and our broader communities to determine the validity of my observations. Thank you.

CALL TO A NATIONAL LEADERSHIP IMMIGRATION SUMMIT

We are called upon to assume the responsibility that history assigns us at this important juncture in the history of the immigrant right’s movement. The opening of 2007 begins a new chapter in this movement. The urgent task of the moment is to develop a national strategy consensus between the political and social forces responsible for advancing the agenda for the development of a rational and humane immigration law that protects the interests of the country, U.S. workers, and immigrants.

Broad unity was the lesson in the movement and mobilization to defeat H.R.4437 in 2006. How we arrive at such unity again is the test and challenge of the immigrants right’s movement. The need for a comprehensive and coherent strategy (and corresponding tactics) for our national movement is of utmost urgency. Such a strategy requires various approaches – political, legal, and legislative. All are equally important.

The shift of political party control of the U.S. Congress could not have occurred without the energized electoral participation of all immigrant constituencies throughout the country, but certainly without the largest – the Latino electorate – and this constitutes an opportunity for rational and humane federal immigration reform. How to translate such electoral participation into a mandate for such immigration reform with the new party in power is the current challenge of the movement.

Leadership is of strategic value to move our agenda forward. While we recognize that we may not represent all currents of opinion and organizations, nevertheless, we make a call for all active participants with grassroots constituencies who agree with the minimum demands of demilitarizing the U.S.-Mexico border, legalization of undocumented immigrants, stronger labor protections for U.S. and immigrant workers, access to judicial review of DHS decisions regarding immigrants, addressing the fundamental causes of undocumented migration, and fair treatment for vulnerable immigrant populations (including asylum seekers, survivors of domestic violence, trafficking victims, and unaccompanied minors).

The immediate imperative is to be inclusive of all broad social forces in the national spectrum in support of immigrants – religious groups, unions, social organizations, legal services providers, community-based organizations, youth and students, and political parties – in recognition of the urgent need for unity and to apply the maximum pressure possible on the U.S. Congress over the next several months.

The work-place raids and NO-MATCH LETTER strategy being pursued by the Department of Homeland Security – Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), under the guise of criminal investigations of identity theft, throughout the country is the new hammer against immigrant workers and those who employ them. It is the opening salvo in the battle to determine what type of immigration reform the country will ultimately approve. The DHS-ICE assaults are being pushed back by the workers in the targeted plants and the unions that represent them. We are challenged to turn this repression on its head and make of it a national campaign, part and parcel of the national movement in favor of immigration reform.

While some advocates may focus their work on improving a joint proposal that is likely to emerge from the offices of Senators McCain and Kennedy, we are challenged to formulate OUR OWN legislative alternative for rational and humane immigration reform – one that corresponds to the true interests of the country, U.S. workers, and our immigrant constituencies, and for which all will be willing to fight.

Collectively, we have the expertise and experience to formulate such an alternative and the tested political will to wage the campaign.

The summit, then, will address questions of strategy, unity, the wave of work-site raids and no-match letter policy, alternative legislative proposals, and the operational plan to build our movement and fight for the type of federal immigration reform we believe is truly needed. This plan will contemplate all the tested tactics employed over the years, for example, letter campaigns, lobbying, congressional committees, mass mobilizations, litigation, media, and others. We are only limited by our own imagination.

We invite you to join us on January 26th and 27th (Friday and Saturday) in Phoenix, Arizona at the offices of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), Local 99 (address).

Please contact to RSVP your attendance, and forward us your contact information to facilitate sending you the agenda and conference materials.

Sincerely,

Attorney Peter Schey
Executive Director
Center for Constitutional and Human Rights

Antonio González
President
Willie C. Velásquez Institute
Southwest Voters Registration and Education Fund

Nativo V. Lopez
National Director
Hermandad Mexicana Latinoamericana
Nacional President
Mexican American Political Association (MAPA)
http://www.mapa.org/

Blog Version=
http://www.mapa-ca.org/MiscPages/StrategyTactics.pdf

<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>
JOIN UP! Aztlannet_News Yahoo Group

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Aztlannet_News/

COMMENT!
Aztlannet_News Blog

http://aztlannet-news-blog.blogspot.com/

CLICK!
Aztlannet Website

http://www.0101aztlan.net/index.html

<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>