| Mexican American Political Association January 5, 2007 Greetings! This is an abbreviated version of a presentation on the Strategy and Tactics of the Immigrant's
Rights Movement in 2007 by Nativo V. López
International Immigration Conference
Calexico, California
December 9, 2006
THE QUESTION OF STRATEGY AND TACTICS – WHAT'S NEXT FOR THE IMMIGRANT'S
RIGHTS 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.
for continued review of all topics listed below click the following Topics · How was the immigrant's rights movement successful in defeating H.R.4437? · How the Democratic Party struck a compromise, and how the auxiliary organizations divided the movement? · THE GREAT AMERICAN BOYCOTT · A divided immigrant's rights movement · TODAY WE MARCH, TOMORROW WE VOTE · REPUBLICAN THUMPING · THE STATE OF ARIZONA · Current state of the immigrant's rights movement · The Catholic Church · The labor movement · The auxiliary organizations · The home-town associations · The U.S. business community · The local immigrant's rights coalitions · The Spanish language media · The right-wing Minutemen · 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 basic ten points of unity of NAIR · CURRENT POLITICAL CONDITIONS · STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE – IMMEDIATE LEGALIZATION · The balance between legalization and enforcement · The "guest-worker" program · "I want to be a bracero" or "Please sanction my employer" · STRATEGIC ALLIES · Other strategic considerations · The feminist movement · The environmental movement · The peace movement · The labor movement · Other tactical alliances · Progressive social movements · The Special Case of Mexico · The African American community · South Asian immigrant communities · A MILLION-PERSON MARCH DOES NOT A MOVEMENT MAKE · PROPOSAL FOR A WEEK-LONG GENERAL STRIKE IN 2007 · NO-MATCH LETTERS · PROPOSED TACTICAL APPROACHES · In conclusion, I would like to emphasize several points
Join us in this prolonged campaign for driver's licenses and visas for our families. The first step in making change is to join an organization that pursues the change we desire. We welcome you to our ranks. Other organizations leading this movement include: Hermandad Mexicana Latinoamericana, Mexican American Political Association (MAPA), MAPA Youth Leadership, Liberty and Justice for Immigrants Movement, National Alliance for Immigrant's Rights, and immigrant's rights coalitions throughout the U.S.. CONTACT:
Nativo V. Lopez, National President of MAPA (323) 269-1575 Sincerely,
Mexican American Political Association
phone: 323-269-1575 |
This email was sent to sacranative@yahoo.com, by newsletter@mapa-ca.org
No comments:
Post a Comment
Be for real! Love La Raza Cosmca! Venceremos!