NPR Report: Private Prison Industry Behind Arizona's SB 1070

Monday, November 25, 2013

President Obama Speaks on Immigration

President Barack Obama speaks on immigration reform.

The president speaks to the nation on immigration reform, live from the Betty Ann Ong Recreation Center in San Francisco on 25 November, 2013.

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Immigration Reform Support

Immigration Reform Support

The end of the year is approaching and, once again, the US Congress has failed to pass the comprehensive immigration reform that the nation has needed for at least two decades.

When the Senate approved S. 744 in June no one expected that the House approval process would be easy. Nonetheless, there was hope that negotiations could produce an acceptable version that could be passed sometime this year. 

Now, the scenario remains unchanged, with no movement in the House and, in fact, some press reports and declarations which suggest that the House Republicans remain as staunchly opposed as they have been in recent years. According to these, House Speaker John Boehner assured republican representatives that he had no intention to agree to a conference to work out a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill.

This declaration, interpreted as an attempt to appease the far-right republican legislators, occurs within the context of continued polarization in Congress and renewed attempts by pro-immigrant forces to win the debate in the national arena. As an example of the latter, supporters of immigration reform point to the existence of national and state-level public opinion polls demonstrating popular support. Latinos, among others, continue their immigration reform support, but it also exists among other social sectors.

The battle over immigration reform may be over in 2013, but perhaps it is more correct to suggest that it has been postponed. The consequences of this development will be seen in the next federal elections.

Below are press analyses of the current situation, as well as considerations of upcoming developments regarding immigration reform:

Harper Polling: Pennsylvanians Support Immigration Reform - PoliticsPA

http://news.google.com Tue, 12 Nov 2013 20:12:21 GMT

PoliticsPAHarper Polling: Pennsylvanians Support Immigration ReformPoliticsPAThe survey judged the importance of immigration reform to voters by asking how important it was to address this year, and whether their representative's vote on the issue would affect their opinions on reelection. 78% of respondents said that it was ...

Read more ...

Immigration Reform News: Advocates Say Bill Isn't Dead 'Until We Say So' - International Business Times

http://news.google.com Tue, 12 Nov 2013 00:42:17 GMT

International Business TimesImmigration Reform News: Advocates Say Bill Isn't Dead 'Until We Say So'International Business TimesWith various polls showing a pathway to citizenship more popular than the GOP's favorability rating, immigration reform advocates say the will keep working lives on while the wheels of Congress stall on the issue.

Read more ...

Immigration reform outlook - Washington Post (blog)

http://news.google.com Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:34:12 GMT

Washington Post (blog)Immigration reform outlookWashington Post (blog)There were some theatrics on Wednesday from liberal immigration reform advocates, claiming the speaker of the House was now refusing to go to conference with the Senate on immigration reform. Immigration reform dead! Really? No. In fact, this morning ...Sen. Charles Schumer: Immigration reform still possible this yearWashington TimesSpeaker John Boehner Closes Window On Immigration Reform This YearFox News LatinoBoehner rules ...

Read more ...

John Boehner just put immigration reform on life support - Washington Post (blog)

http://news.google.com Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:16:31 GMT

John Boehner just put immigration reform on life supportWashington Post (blog)House Speaker John Boehner says he will not allow any House-passed immigration legislation to be blended with the Senate's sweeping reform bill, further quashing the chances of comprehensive immigration reform legislation being signed into law anytimeᅠ...

Read more ...

California House member pushes for immigration reform this year - Los Angeles Times

http://news.google.com Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:10:40 GMT

California House member pushes for immigration reform this yearLos Angeles TimesWASHINGTON -- A key California Republican is pushing back against House GOP leaders who say there is not enough time before Congress adjourns this year to consider immigration reform. Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Turlock) will make his case to Houseᅠ...

Read more ...

House GOP Needs to Put up or Shut up on Immigration Reform - Huffington Post

http://news.google.com Wed, 13 Nov 2013 03:59:28 GMT

House GOP Needs to Put up or Shut up on Immigration ReformHuffington PostThere is a reason the twitter hashtag #TimeIsNow caught on. The time really is now for Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and the House Republican leadership to allow a vote on a bipartisan immigration reform bill. It's been 5 long months since the Senateᅠ...

Read more ...

Why Immigration Reform May (Or May Not) Die In 2013 - International Business Times

http://news.google.com Tue, 12 Nov 2013 21:39:44 GMT

International Business TimesWhy Immigration Reform May (Or May Not) Die In 2013International Business TimesWhile advocates of immigration reform are eternally optimistic that Congress will pass a bill in 2013 -- even though two influential House Republicans have already poured cold water over hopes of such legislation leaving the chamber -- some opponents ...

Read more ...

Burying Immigration Reform and Muddling Responsibility: Don't Believe the ... - ThinkProgress

http://news.google.com Wed, 13 Nov 2013 19:21:51 GMT

Burying Immigration Reform and Muddling Responsibility: Don't Believe the ...ThinkProgressAnother day, another Immigration Reform is Dead pronouncement. Now that declaration is being coupled with the jaw-dropping claim that both parties share the blame for the putative demise. Neither assertion holds up to scrutiny. The number of times ...

Read more ...

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Obama Renews Call for Immigration Reform in 2013

Obama Renews Call for Immigration Reform in 2013

Over the last few days, the White House has renewed the calls to Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) in 2013. The message includes an appeal to listen to the numerous social and business sectors that have expressed support for modernizing the nation's immigration laws and, among other things, provide the millions of undocumented Americans a path to citizenship.

The call for a bipartisan solution to CIR comes in the aftermath of a major defeat of the Republican Party in its attempts to defund Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act). President Obama has portrayed the need for CIR as an opportunity for republicans to save face and share the credit for bringing about this much needed change in national immigration policy.

No one is expecting an easy path towards CIR this year - and it is even possible that the more ultra-radicalized GOP legislators may seek to reject any and all possible immigration reforms. If that is achieved, the possibility of a reform may be delayed for at least two more years because it is an issue that would not likely be addresses in 2014, an election year.

The following are some of the recent examples of the current media coverage on Obama's call for immigration reform in 2013, as well as the video and transcript of Obama's call to action:

President Obama Speaks on Immigration Reform

President Obama calls on the U.S. Senate to take action quickly on a common-sense, bipartisan immigration reform bill that he calls 'the best chance we've ha...

Transcript: President Obama's Oct. 24 remarks on immigration reform - Washington Post

http://news.google.com Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:12:25 GMT

Transcript: President Obama's Oct. 24 remarks on immigration reformWashington PostPRESIDENT OBAMA: Today I'm here with leaders from business, from labor, from faith communities who are united around one goal: finishing the job of fixing a broken immi ...

Obama softens tone on immigration reform - Los Angeles Times

http://news.google.com Fri, 25 Oct 2013 02:54:02 GMT

NBCNews.comObama softens tone on immigration reformLos Angeles TimesWASHINGTON After months of insisting the House should take up the comprehensive immigration bill that passed the Senate in June, President Obama changed tactics Thursday and said h ...

Obama to House GOP: Pass immigration reform this year - CBS News

http://news.google.com Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:47:09 GMT

Obama to House GOP: Pass immigration reform this yearCBS NewsIn an attempt to re-start movement on the rest of his domestic agenda, President Obama on Thursday called on the House of Representatives to move legislation to reform the immigration syste ...

Obama to renew call for immigration reform - CNN (blog)

http://news.google.com Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:48:39 GMT

Obama to renew call for immigration reformCNN (blog)Washington (CNN) - President Barack Obama plans to urge Congress on Thursday to take back up comprehensive immigration reform. The White House says that Obama will make the announcement on Thursday ...

Friday, December 21, 2012

Deportation Hits Another Record Under Obama Administration

Deportation Hits Another Record Under Obama Administration: "WASHINGTON -- Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials announced on Friday that the agency surpassed its record number of deportations in the past fiscal year, but also will enact reform of a controversial immigration enforcement program that could lead to fewer non-criminal immigrants being removed from the country.

The agency deported 409,849 immigrants in the 2012 fiscal year, up from 396,906 immigrants last year. More than 392,000 immigrants were deported in the 2010 fiscal year.

ICE touted one improvement: It reported that 96 percent of removals fell into a priority category -- not necessarily a high one -- and that about 55 percent overall were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors.

"While the [fiscal year] 2012 removals indicate that we continue to make progress in focusing resources on criminal and priority aliens, with more convicted criminals being removed from the country than ever before, we are constantly looking for ways to ensure that we are doing everything we can to utilize our resources in a way that maximizes public safety," ICE Director John Morton said in a statement."

'via Blog this'

Saturday, October 6, 2012

Maná Apoya a Migrantes y Reelección de Obama




CIUDAD DE MÉXICO, 6 de octubre.- A lo largo de 25 años de carrera Maná se ha mantenido al margen de cualquier acto político, sin embargo el domingo pasado Fher Olvera, Alex González, Sergio Vallín y Juan Callero decidieron sumarse, por primera vez, a un acto proselitista al participar en la campaña de reelección del presidente estadunidense Barack Obama.
Fue durante el rally de la campaña del candidato demócrata, que se llevó a cabo en Las Vegas, Nevada, donde la banda mexicana Maná se presentó, de forma gratuita, para apoyar a que Obama se mantenga como cabeza de la Casa Blanca, se trabaje en una reforma migratoria que brinde mejores condiciones de vida y se busque la preservación de los derechos humanos de los migrantes radicados en el país del norte.
Fueron las historias de abuso, lucha y miedo de latinos que viven en Estados Unidos, y que han escuchado durante su carrera en la que se han presentado en diversas ciudades, lo que los motivó a participar en el mitin del 30 de septiembre.
“Sentimos que viendo las dos opciones que hay ahorita en Estados Unidos, la de los demócratas de Barack Obama es la más adecuada. Más que apoyar un partido político es apoyar una situación humana. Nosotros pensamos que es la mejor opción para ellos hoy en día.
“Estuvimos reunidos con Obama durante algunos minutos, antes de que saliera a dar su discurso. Nos dijo, ‘si soy reelegido, voy por una reforma migratoria. Necesitamos también que pongan de su parte del otro lado’, refiriéndose a los republicanos y al Congreso.
No es fácil, pero tampoco imposible es una cuestión de trabajar por un propósito humano”, mencionó Álex González, baterista de la agrupación en entrevista concedida en la Ciudad de México.
A pesar de que en 2007 la banda aceptó la invitación de ex presidente estadunidense Al Gore para apoyar la campaña ambiental que se concretó en los conciertos Live Earth, fue en 2011 cuando Fher, Álex, Sergio y Juan mantuvieran una charla en Chicago con Adrián Sáenz, director nacional de voto latino para la campaña de Obama.
En ese momento comenzaron a contemplar la posibilidad de participar en un acto político como tal, ya que consideran a Obama como “la única opción viable” para la solución del problema migratorio.
El baterista también destacó que si bien Maná no se ha acercado de una forma política a hacer sugerencias en cuanto a lo que se podría hacer en México, sí lo han llevado a la práctica, más allá de figuras públicas como ciudadanos.
“Como ciudadanos nosotros ponemos (a los gobernantes) en sus puestos y tenemos todo el derecho de exigirles a hacer las cosas bien o que trabajen para mejorarlas. Claro que nos sentaríamos con un líder político, un presidente, un presidente municipal (como banda) para proponer cosas. Nosotros somos los primeros que queremos que México esté bien.
“Cuando nos reunimos con Felipe Calderón (en 2006) le dijimos que si quería evitar que los mexicanos se fueran a Estados Unidos, le proponíamos igualar el salario mínimo con el de allá.
“Ideas hay, propuestas hay, pero no es tan fácil. Nosotros encantados de participar y apoyar a nuestros hermanos latinos, siempre y cuando haya un propósito de hacer cambio, lo importante es que nos tenemos que unir.
“Ahora con las redes sociales, los nuevos gobiernos ya no la va a tener tan fácil, porque los van a estar vigilando en todo momento, lo que sucedería con cualquier partido que hubiera obtenido el triunfo”, comentó Alex quien se presentará con la banda en Viña del Mar, Chile, en febrero de 2013.
Carta a Obama
Al reunirse con Barack Obama, el grupo Maná le entregó al primer mandatario de Estados Unidos la siguiente carta, que se reproduce textualmente, para expresarle su postura a favor de los migrantes.
Señor Presidente Barack Obama:
Gracias por recibirnos, le agradecemos mucho darnos esta oportunidad para expresar nuestras preocupaciones, especialmente sobre el tema de inmigración.
Queremos platicarle, señor Presidente, que a lo largo de nuestra carrera de más de veinte años nunca hemos sido parte del apoyo a ningún tipo de candidatura política, ni en México, nuestro país, ni en otros de la América Latina que nos lo han pedido. Sin embargo, esta vez, sentimos que estamos ante una oportunidad histórica, por lo que usted representa y porque conocemos su preocupación, sus intenciones y la prioridad que le da a este tema.
Apreciamos el apoyo que ha dado al Dream Act, que se haya vuelto una de sus convicciones; la oportunidad que le ha dado a más de un millón y medio de jóvenes para ganar el estatus de legales, o por lo pronto que no serán deportados durante dos años para continuar sus estudios en este país, es uno de los símbolos de amistad y reconocimiento más importantes que los latinos hemos recibido de un gobierno de los Estados Unidos.
Nos preocupa que sólo alrededor de 80 mil ya enviaron sus solicitudes; aún hay muchos que desconfían, no quieren hacerlo por el miedo a delatar el estatus legal de padres indocumentados.
Creemos que debemos buscar una solución a este problema que obstaculiza de alguna forma sus intenciones… tenemos la certeza de que en esto también podemos poner una buena dosis de esperanza en usted.
Otra de nuestras preocupaciones es que durante estos últimos años se han deportado más inmigrantes que nunca, y hay miles de historias muy, muy tristes a lo largo de este país: injusticias, separación de familias, de padres e hijos; víctimas de persecuciones, incluso se ha llegado al extremo de asesinar por racismo… asuntos que rebasan la política y la legislación y entran en el campo de la violación a los derechos humanos.
Nuestra propuesta es que durante su siguiente periodo mantenga el impulso para llegar a la Reforma Migratoria Integral; una que solucione la situación de los inmigrantes para siempre. Sabemos que no es fácil, pero usted logró, invirtiendo toda su energía y su fuerza, la Reforma al Sistema de Salud, hoy es una realidad a pesar de todos los obstáculos, grandes y pequeños, que tuvo que sortear; lo mismo podría pasar con la Reforma Migratoria, simplemente “because is the right thing to do”, porque los hispanos colaboran fuertemente en la economía del país, porque trabajan duro y sin descanso por sus hijos, son gente entregada, muchos de ellos bilingües y están preparados para dar lo mejor a este país, dentro de la ley. Lo cierto es que hoy son una realidad cultural, influyente y propositiva.
Es imperativo tener una Reforma Migratoria Integral del siglo 21 que cumpla con las expectativas económicas y de Seguridad Nacional y por otro lado sea congruente con la filosofía de Estados Unidos, que es una nación de leyes y de inmigrantes.
Contamos con usted para que terminen las persecuciones, las divisiones, el racismo y la intolerancia. Contamos con usted para darle a los hispanos la oportunidad de vivir en los Estados Unidos con dignidad, en igualdad.
Sabemos que al hablar con usted, hablamos con una parte iluminada de la historia, estamos hablando con el primer presidente afroamericano, sabemos que si eso pudo ser posible, entonces es posible cambiar muchas cosas, entre ellas la búsqueda por ser más humanos, así construiremos una mejor historia. Y por supuesto: usted cuente con nosotros.
Maná, Las Vegas, EUA, 30 de septiembre de 2012



Maná apoya a migrantes. Excélsior:

'via Blog this'

Monday, September 3, 2012

Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas ¿Qué sigue para la izquierda en México?



¿Qué sigue para la izquierda en México?



Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas

¿Qué sigue para la izquierda en México? es una buena pregunta de “La Zurda”, con no fácil respuesta, después de una elección presidencial cuyo resultado cuestiona la coalición Movimiento Progresista, y antes de que el Tribunal Electoral dé a conocer su fallo sobre el resultado de esa elección, pues el sentido del fallo y las decisiones que tomen, después de que éste se dé, el candidato presidencial del Movimiento Progresista y cada uno de los tres partidos políticos que lo integraban como coalición electoral, son factores que influirán sobre las acciones que en el futuro inmediato e incluso mediato emprendan las agrupaciones y en su caso los individuos que en términos políticos se ubican en ese amplio abanico de la llamada izquierda. Los renglones que vienen a continuación se escriben con la incertidumbre de cómo influirán en ese conjunto de organizaciones y personas las decisiones a que se hace referencia.


Veo varias líneas de acción, en particular para el Partido de la Revolución Democrática, que tienen que ver con su trabajo al interior de la organización y con la actividad que debe desplegar hacia el exterior, tanto en lo nacional como en lo internacional.

Empecemos por ver cuáles fueron los resultados del PRD en la pasada elección de julio: los votos del PRD en la elección presidencial ascendieron al 19.37% del total –en la elección del 2006 puede estimarse que los votos del PRD, descontando los que pudieran corresponder a los otros partidos de la coalición, ascendieron al 28 o 30% del total-; si a los anteriores votos del PRD se suman los que se dieron combinadamente al PRD-PT-MC, más los del PRD-PT y PRD-MC, el partido conjuntaría el 26.93% del total. La cifra de 31.59% de los votos que la autoridad asigna al candidato presidencial en los cómputos distritales incluyen los votos que recibió el candidato al través del PT y el MC como tales.

En lo que hace a distritos ganados, en 2006 el PRD ganó en 91, 39 en 2009 y 56 en este año. De 127 diputaciones logradas en 2006, sumadas las correspondientes a los distritos ganados y las de representación proporcional, en este julio se alcanzaron 98.

Hace tres años, en uno de los peores momentos del partido, cuando en 21 entidades no se alcanzó el 15% de los votos –de éstas, en 7 menos del 4% y en 2 menos del 2%-, hubo en la pasada elección una mejoría, teniendo menos del 15% en 12 estados y sólo en dos de ellos menos del 10%. En 2009 los votos del PRD fueron superiores al 25% en 8 estados, en este año sólo en 6.

Si de estas cifras se ven las de los distritos ganados por el PRD, que reflejan directamente los logros para atraer el voto ciudadano, se puede decir que fueron insuficientes para alcanzar al menos los resultados del 2006, pues fue en 35 distritos menos donde se tuvieron números ganadores. La última campaña de afiliación, que se dejó en manos de una empresa privada, no parece haber sido lo efectiva que debiera.

No ha habido en el curso de un sexenio, para no ir más atrás, trabajo de organización que hubiera permitido ampliar y consecuentemente fortalecer las bases ciudadanas y territoriales del partido. Donde las votaciones han sido bajas, siguen siendo en lo general bajas.

Por otro lado, el PRD no supera su condición de partido de confrontaciones internas y de cuotas para la asignación de cargos y oportunidades según los pesos relativos de las corrientes, que para colmo de males se oficializaron y se les dio vida estatutaria en su condición de sectas. Como ejemplo más reciente están las designaciones de coordinadores de los grupos parlamentarios que habrán de tomar posesión de sus cargos el próximo 1° de septiembre, que no fueron elegidos por sus propuestas o por otras razones que no fueran los equilibrios de los agrupamientos internos, que se componen y recomponen en función sólo de los intereses personales de los dirigentes o, en el mejor de los casos, de los particulares intereses de los grupos. Ni país ni partido han contado en estos casos. El partido de tribus y cuotas, de sectarismos y oportunismos, de clientelas y no de militancias libres y conscientes, está destinado al achicamiento y a los fracasos.

En fin, el PRD y si se quiere el conjunto de organizaciones partidarias de la llamada izquierda, si en realidad pretenden convertirse en alternativas de poder en lo nacional, deben realizar un serio e intenso trabajo de afiliación y organización por todo el país. En el caso del PRD, a partir de la reconstitución y la formación de nuevos comités de base, que sean los que den vida a los comités municipales y estatales. Debe empezarse por ver qué queda de comités de base, dónde deben crearse nuevos y esta labor sólo será efectiva si se dejan de lado actitudes sectarias y se busca abrir el partido a nuevos militantes, convencidos de sus principios y de que sus dirigentes actúan en función de ellos.

El PRD debe ser un partido con una línea política clara, que así se vea desde dentro y desde fuera, acorde y congruente su acción con su declaración de principios y con el llamamiento que originariamente se hizo para su constitución. Debe ser un partido de propuestas, en lo nacional, estatal, municipal, regional, internacional, etc. Un partido con iniciativa y compromiso permanente. La acción, sobre todo, de quienes tienen responsabilidades de dirigencia partidaria, de gobierno y legislativas, debe ser de absoluta transparencia. Deben, por cierto, revisarse los mecanismos estatutarios de rendición y exigencia de cuentas.

El PRD debe ser un partido de una sola línea. En función de ella deben actuar las dirigencias nacional, estatales y municipales, los gobiernos del partido, sus legisladores federales y locales. Debe haber una permanente coordinación respecto a las acciones del partido, a las tareas de gobierno y a la actividad parlamentaria, cumpliendo cada quien con sus funciones y responsabilidades.

Está el caso de las alianzas: no pueden repetirse las alianzas electorales con partidos que mantienen posiciones diametralmente opuestas a las del PRD en cuestiones fundamentales de carácter nacional, como sucedió respecto al Partido Acción Nacional en Puebla, Sinaloa y Oaxaca, donde ganaron los candidatos de esas coaliciones, y Durango, donde se perdió, en sus pasadas elecciones locales, pues llevan a situaciones como las vividas en la reciente elección federal, en las que los gobiernos locales elegidos se enfrentaron a la disyuntiva de inclinarse hacia uno u otro lado, fallando, necesariamente, con respecto a uno o incluso a los dos aliados. Las alianzas electorales deben darse con fuerzas afines en lo fundamental, tanto en lo que respecta a lo local como a lo nacional, y siempre con base en propuestas transparentes respecto a cómo se enfrentarán las cuestiones locales, cuáles serían las agendas legislativas y qué actitud se asumiría en relación a los problemas nacionales, sobre todo aquellos que resultan en confrontaciones del PRD con otras fuerzas políticas nacionales, independientemente que sea con éstas o no la alianza proyectada. Respecto a las alianzas, debe quedar claro y hacerse público también cómo se daría la participación no sólo en lo que hace a las candidaturas, sino también respecto a la participación en el gobierno que se pretende alcanzar.

La elección de julio dejó ver no sólo transgresiones a la ley que se mantienen hasta ahora –y es muy probable se mantengan y así queden- en la impunidad, y la necesidad de una revisión a fondo y de reformas a la legislación electoral, lo que deberá ser una cuestión prioritaria para las fuerzas democráticas del país en estos tiempos inmediatos por delante.

Si la ley se transgrede, por ejemplo, por excesos respecto a los gastos legales de campaña, la sanción no debe ser, como marca la ley vigente, sólo de carácter monetario; el fallo de la autoridad y en su caso la sanción correspondiente, tendría que emitirse y en su caso aplicarse, antes de las fechas en que los cargos involucrados deban asumirse; y, lo más importante, si la ley es atropellada por un candidato y/o por un partido y estos resultan ganadores precisamente por el atropello a la ley, la sanción a los transgresores debiera ser,
sobre todo e independientemente de la monetaria, la de perder la posibilidad de ocupar el cargo por el que se contendía, la pérdida de derechos políticos del o de los respectivos candidatos, la pérdida del registro del partido político en cuestión y eventualmente la anulación de la elección de que se trate, debiendo la autoridad electoral emitir sus fallos, como antes se señala, en fecha previa a la de asunción de los cargos involucrados.

Para lograr un posicionamiento claro en lo ideológico y programático, las fuerzas progresistas deben presentar propuestas claras a la ciudadanía y a la nación.

En el terreno internacional y en el de la solidaridad y la cooperación con fuerzas afines del exterior, considero dos como los grandes temas o proyectos a impulsar: 1) la lucha por un orden mundial equitativo, de respeto pleno a la autodeterminación, sin imposiciones hegemónicas, de paz y cooperación solidaria; y 2) la lucha por la integración política y económica de los pueblos y naciones de América Latina y el Caribe.

En lo nacional, considero mantiene vigencia la Propuesta Programática 2012 que presentara el grupo Un México para todos al Movimiento Progresista en febrero pasado, de la que a continuación resalto algunos puntos que considero prioritarios:

• el reconocimiento y cumplimiento de los Acuerdos de San Andrés, empezando por las reformas constitucionales en materia de derechos y culturas indígenas (lo que corrientemente se ha llamado la Ley COCOPA), en los términos aprobados por la Comisión de Concordia y Pacificación en 1996;

• la puesta en marcha de una reforma fiscal integral, que aporte los recursos de inversión necesarios para garantizar un crecimiento económico con suficiencia en el largo plazo, que permita satisfacer las necesidades de empleo, ingreso y servicios de la población;

• reformar la legislación del Banco de México para agregar a sus funciones el fomento al crecimiento económico y la protección y generación de empleo; crear un verdadero sistema de planeación del desarrollo nacional, con visión de largo plazo, planes de cumplimiento obligatorio para el sector público, que consideren presupuestos plurianuales para proyectos y programas de ejecución plurianual, así como la supervisión y rendición de cuentas ante el Congreso;
• cancelar la concesión de la explotación minera de San Javier, en San Luis Potosí, así como de todas aquellas que atropellen los derechos y tradiciones de las comunidades originarias y/o no cumplan cabalmente con la legislación ambiental;
• reconstituir la banca de fomento e impulsar el fortalecimiento y de hecho la creación de una banca comercial mexicana;

• recuperar una política de industrialización sustentable; instrumentar una política social de derechos universales a la alimentación, la educación, la salud, la cultura, la vivienda, que substituya a las políticas asistencialistas neoliberales;

• llevar a cabo las reformas de ley necesarias para hacer exigible ante el Estado, el ejercicio de los derechos ya reconocidos en la Constitución al trabajo, a la salud, a la vivienda;

• establecer un sistema de seguridad social universal (salud, pensión de retiro, seguro de desempleo), no vinculado a la condición laboral;

• realizar una reforma laboral que promueva una mayor movilidad, no para facilitar el despido como lo demandan los grupos conservadores, sino para corresponderse con las transformaciones que han ocurrido en el mundo del trabajo como efecto de los avances tecnológicos y la globalización de la economía, que preserve los avances en los derechos laborales logrados en años de lucha, prohíba los contratos de protección, elimine la cláusula de exclusión y la toma de nota, dé transparencia al manejo de los recursos sindicales y garantice los derechos de asociación y negociación colectiva;

• fortalecer al Estado laico mediante reformas constitucionales y legales, así como en los programas y las prácticas políticas del Estado;

• aprobar la reforma propuesta al artículo 40 constitucional, que incluye la laicidad como característica esencial de nuestra República, y revertir la reciente reforma al artículo 24 constitucional, que abre la posibilidad de otras reformas regresivas a la ley fundamental; garantizar la igualdad de género en materias política, social, laboral, cultural y de oportunidades;

• garantizar igualmente los derechos a la preferencia sexual, de procreación y salud reproductiva; impulsar las legislaciones que permitan las uniones entre personas del mismo sexo y los derechos de adopción con independencia de las preferencias sexuales;

•  y, revertir las legislaciones oscurantistas en aquellos Estados en los que se han cancelado los derechos de las mujeres a decidir sobre su cuerpo;

• imponer un cambio efectivo a las políticas de combate a la delincuencia organizada para garantizar la paz pública y la seguridad de los habitantes del país, prestando atención prioritaria al seguimiento del dinero sucio y al patrimonio surgido de la delincuencia, y retirando y substituyendo gradualmente, en el tiempo más corto posible, a las Fuerzas Armadas en toda responsabilidad policíaca;

• promover los acuerdos internacionales que garanticen los derechos laborales y ciudadanos de los migrantes mexicanos en el extranjero e instrumentar políticas de respeto a los derechos y protección a los migrantes de otros países en territorio nacional, sancionando con rigor a quienes falten a esas obligaciones de solidaridad humana;

• recuperar la función social de la tierra, tanto rural como urbana, evitando las concentraciones de propiedad que distorsionen la equidad en el desarrollo;

• recuperar productivamente al campo, fortalecer la economía rural y garantizar la autonomía alimentaria;

• proceder al saneamiento del sistema de justicia, con participación y en coordinación con el Poder Judicial;

• fomentar el desarrollo de las energías alternativas (solar, eólica, de la biomasa, etc.), estimulándolo con medidas fiscales y una adecuada reglamentación de las inversiones en ese campo;

• hacer efectiva la universalización de la educación obligatoria;

• garantizar acceso y permanencia en la educación pública en todos sus grados, a todo aquel que satisfaga los requerimientos académicos;

• crear nuevas universidades públicas y fortalecer la educación superior, la investigación científica y el desarrollo tecnológico;

• destinar mayores recursos presupuestales a la cultura, impulsar su descentralización y establecer incentivos fiscales para creadores y divulgadores, así como para el rescate y protección de bienes patrimoniales;

• fomentar y proteger las expresiones de las culturas tradicionales;

• reformar la legislación en materia de medios de comunicación electrónicos para garantizar presencia equitativa al Estado, la sociedad y la iniciativa privada en el espectro comunicacional;

• crear un órgano regulador autónomo que garantice eficacia y equidad en el otorgamiento y control de concesiones para la utilización del espectro radioeléctrico;

acelerar el apagón analógico y la adopción de tecnologías de punta en el sector de las comunicaciones, abriéndolo a nuevas alternativas comunitarias, regionales, de instituciones de educación superior y comerciales, evitando su monopolización;

• cerrar el paso a la pretensión de autorizar inversión extranjera hasta del 100% en empresas del área de las telecomunicaciones;

• suprimir la representación proporcional en el Senado de la República, que rompe y vulnera la paridad de la representación de las entidades federadas en ese cuerpo;

• abrogar la Ley de asociaciones público privadas;

• pugnar porque cobre vigencia en la práctica internacional la Carta de deberes y derechos económicos de los Estados, aprobada por la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas en 1974 por 120 votos contra 6 y 10 abstenciones.

En el curso de la campaña electoral, desde las posiciones entreguistas, se declaró que para reactivar la economía y en particular para un mejor desarrollo de la industria petrolera era necesario abrir Pemex a la inversión privada. Aun cuando no se precisó el alcance de esta medida, en la izquierda debe pensarse que lo que la reacción entreguista pretende es llevar a cabo una reforma constitucional para que el Estado pierda la exclusividad en la gestión de la industria petrolera y por lo tanto, para que esta no se maneje más en función del interés público y nacional, como debiera ser, sino de acuerdo a intereses privados y en su caso ajenos al país.

El petróleo y de modo más general los hidrocarburos, constituyen para México recursos de carácter estratégico para la conducción y el estímulo a su crecimiento económico y desarrollo en lo general, como son estratégicos estos mismos recursos para otros países, u otros recursos, como el agua para Canadá y el cobre para Chile.

Nuestra Constitución establece la exclusividad de la Nación para llevar a cabo la explotación de los hidrocarburos que constituyen la industria petrolera, esto es, según la define la Ley reglamentaria del artículo 27 constitucional: la exploración, la explotación, refinación, transporte, almacenamiento, la distribución y las ventas de primera mano del petróleo y los productos que se obtengan de su refinación.

Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) no es sino el organismo al través del cual el Estado mexicano gestiona la industria petrolera, aprovechando y en su caso transformando mediante procesos industriales recursos naturales que el propio Estado le asigna. Privatizar los activos de Pemex –pozos en producción, refinerías, ductos, equipos de transporte, edificios de oficinas, etc.- sería un paso grave, pero entregar a intereses ajenos a los de la nación los recursos naturales que de manera exclusiva gestiona y transforma Pemex por mandato del Estado, significaría lesionar la seguridad energética de la nación, perder la seguridad de los ingresos que la industria petrolera aporta a las finanzas públicas y, lo reitero, dejar que un recurso estratégico se manejara en función de intereses particulares y no de acuerdo al interés público y nacional, condición a la que, por cierto, se debe regresar.

La política petrolera a instrumentarse en el futuro debe tener, entre otros objetivos, prolongar lo más posible la vida de las reservas, satisfaciendo al mismo tiempo las demandas nacionales de hidrocarburos; desarrollar las cadenas productivas de la industria petrolera con el fin de agregar valor a los productos, generar empleos y estimular los desarrollos regionales; y prever con anticipación las medidas a tomar para llevar a cabo la transición energética con los menores costos económicos y sociales posibles, alentando al mismo tiempo la utilización de energías alternativas o no convencionales.

Las decisiones relativas a una política petrolera con estos objetivos sólo pueden ser tomadas por el Estado, que debe dar mandato a Petróleos Mexicanos sobre cómo desarrollar las actividades que le tiene encomendadas. Por otro lado, para instrumentar esta política será necesario llevar a cabo cambios tanto en la relación de Petróleos Mexicanos con el Estado como en los mecanismos de gestión del organismo.

Debe transformarse a Petróleos Mexicanos en una verdadera empresa del Estado con autonomía presupuestal y de gestión, para lo cual es necesario reformar los artículos 25 y 28 constitucionales.

Se requiere asimismo transformar a la Comisión Nacional de Hidrocarburos en un organismo independiente de la Secretaría de Energía, para lograr un mejor control del recurso natural existente en los yacimientos, de manera independiente de Pemex; para lograr mayor eficiencia en el registro y administración de las reservas: auditar su magnitud y supervisar las actividades de exploración y extracción, las tecnologías y procedimientos utilizados para asegurar la sustentabilidad de los yacimientos y evitar prácticas como la quema y venteo extraordinarios de gas natural en la atmósfera.
En paralelo, deberá reformarse la Ley de Petróleos Mexicanos para establecer con claridad el mandato del Estado respecto a los lineamientos de operación del organismo (que a partir del mandato debe operar con plena autonomía) en materia de reservas, extracción, transformación de hidrocarburos –refinación, petroquímica y otras producciones de la cadena petrolera-; la obtención con los menores costos posibles de los productos y servicios que se vendan o se presten; los marcos de su organización interna y de sus órganos de gobierno; las responsabilidades en la planeación de sus actividades; los esquemas de administración de sus ingresos, los pagos en su caso de derechos y contribuciones, la coordinación con el sector público y su relación con terceros.

La concesión de autonomía presupuestal y de gestión a Petróleos Mexicanos debe entenderse como la facultad y responsabilidad del organismo para hacerse cargo del manejo de sus ingresos, las inversiones para la expansión de sus actividades y el buen mantenimiento de sus instalaciones, el pago de derechos, impuestos y dividendos, en este caso, a la hacienda pública federal.

Petróleos Mexicanos debe funcionar como una entidad integrada y contar con la necesaria flexibilidad para reorganizar en caso dado su estructura corporativo-administrativa.

Es urgente, en un primer esfuerzo, aumentar la capacidad de refinación de Pemex en el orden de los 600 mil barriles diarios, a fin de mejorar las condiciones de seguridad energética del país y de disminuir la importación de combustibles, que constituye una seria sangría a las finanzas nacionales.

Existe un alto déficit en el suministro de gas natural en el país, por lo que Pemex debe acelerar la exploración e incorporación de nuevas reservas de este energético. Por otra parte, el país posee una de las más importantes reservas mundiales del llamado shale gas, las que requieren ser debidamente evaluadas para incorporarse como tales al patrimonio evaluado de la nación.

En los primeros años del periodo neoliberal se abrieron a la inversión privada tanto la petroquímica como el transporte y almacenamiento de gas natural. Las inversiones no fluyeron a estos sectores, que se han mantenido estancados por más de veinte años, a pesar de ser piezas fundamentales de la infraestructura y de la producción que requiere el país para crecer.

En relación al gas natural, es preciso que Petróleos Mexicanos, conjuntamente con las empresas concesionarias, acuerden la ampliación de la red de gasoductos troncales y las redes de distribución secundarias, para mejor aprovechar las oportunidades que se están abriendo con los descubrimientos recientes de nuevas fuentes de gas.


La posibilidad de disponer de gas a bajo precio, como se presenta la actual situación mundial, debe ser aprovechada para reactivar e impulsar el desarrollo de la industria petroquímica nacional, que, como se ha señalado, pasa por una larga fase de estancamiento. En este caso, se abren posibilidades muy amplias para inversiones de todo tipo: privadas, tanto nacionales como extranjeras, y de Pemex, por sí o en asociación con otros inversionistas.

La defensa de la industria petrolera al servicio de la nación, el recuperar el rumbo para que contribuya a la generación de empleo, la industrialización y a un crecimiento sostenido de la economía, resulta fundamental para los destinos de la nación y se constituye hoy, por lo tanto, frente a las acechanzas del entreguismo y la reacción, en la primera prioridad en la lucha política de toda organización y todo individuo que se reconozca en las izquierdas del país.

Fuente: http://www.ccardenass.org/contentmanager/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=215:ique-sigue-para-la-izquierda-en-mexico&catid=34:propuestas-tematicas&Itemid=54

Saturday, August 25, 2012

The Failure of National Latino/Mexican American Organizations


An article by Rudy Acuña analyzing the weaknesses of Mexican American organizations.


The Failure of National Latino/Mexican American Organizations
By
Rodolfo F. Acuña

With all of the hype around Latinos these days, how could Arizona have happened? I thought we had power. One-third of Arizona is Latino and its neighbor California is the land of milk and honey – the favorite destination of politicos of all colors. Over fifty percent of Los Angeles is Latino; its mayor is Mexican American as is the mayor of San Antonio, Texas.

Arizona’s war on Mexican Americans does not make sense, especially in the light of the growth of the Latino population that now numbers 50 million. This nightmare seems out of place.  Alabama maybe, but Arizona?

It is time that we try to find answers and admit our weaknesses. The most obvious flaw is that Arizona has exposed a weakness in Latino and Mexican American organizational infrastructure.

A partial answer as to why Latinos are so ineffective is that the Latino population is having growing pains. It has grown dramatically in the past fifty years, going from a regional to a national phenomenon. This transformation has out stripped the capacity of traditional organizations such as the League of United Latin American Citizens and the American GI Forum to  deal with this change.   

Presently there are only two organizations that could be called national and they came about in 1968 with the founding of the Southwest Council of La Raza and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.   

Their express purpose was to build a national presence for Mexican Americans. The SWCLR was the brainchild of Drs. Julian Samora and Ernesto Galarza who along with Herman Gallegos sold the project to the Ford Foundation.  

Almost simultaneously MALDEF was formed in San Antonio, with a $2.2 million five-year grant from the Ford Foundation to implement legal services program. From the beginning Ford monies shaped the SWCLR andMALDEF.

In 1973, the SWCLR changed its name to the National Council of La Raza, and moved its headquarters to Washington, D.C.  In the early days Ford micromanaged both organizations, controlling them by doling out funds. 

For instance, at key junctures Ford threatened to withhold money if the organizations did not follow its advice. These organizations were fragile at first passing through precarious times. 

In 1975 NCLR expanded its mission to include non-Mexican American Latino issues. Ironically, its dependence on Ford and other foundations lessened to the point that by 1980, the NCLR was for a time almost exclusively funded by the federal government, which created another set of problems, most noticeable of which was the influence of the powerful Miami cabal. Its trajectory changed as did its constituency.

Ford also shaped MALDEF. Ford fashioned its paradigm after the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, founded in 1909 and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., established in 1937.
                                       
As Ford became more vested in the Civil Rights establishment, its own scope broadened to include the Mexican American. It funded the important University of California Los Angeles study of the 1960 Census. But even then it selected a non-Mexican American, non-expert in the field to head the project.

Ford knew little about Mexicans. Its playing card was its experiences with the NACCP. Few of its program officers had field experience or knew much about Mexican Americans.  

As the Mexican American and Latino populations grew so did their dream of a national organization.   

In 1968 the Mexican American middle-class was small and lacked a history of philanthropic giving.  In other words, it did not have a network of donors to support a national agenda. Mexican American community organizations also lacked a communication network. Politically speaking Spanish-language media had no other purpose but to entertain, depending mostly on an immigrant Spanish-speaking base.

Even today I cannot name a single Spanish-speaking TV or radio station or, for that matter, English language station devoted to the political education of “Latinos,” which in the Southwest meant “Mexican.”

It is only until recently that some academic presses have begun publishing Mexican American and Latino related research. A notable exception is the Pew Hispanic Center.

An infrastructure that dots the “i’s” and crosses the “t’s” was and is totally lacking.

As mentioned, the weakness of the Ford strategy of building Mexican American national organizations (i.e., nation building) was that it was based on its Black experience. Ford bureaucrats failed to take into account that the Black community had a politicized base forged by history and the fire of the Civil Rights Movement.

The Mexican American community lacked this infrastructure and indeed lacked a well-defined middle class

Because of this lack of understanding, Ford’s social engineering experiment failed. Blacks and Mexican Americans were minorities but they had different histories and different needs.   

Again, the corporate takeover of Arizona exposed these structural weaknesses. It was obvious that Mexican Americans and Latinos were vulnerable and incapable of taking on these corporate vampires.  

In fairness MALDEF has been singular among the national organizations and has brought numerous suits to protect the civil rights of immigrants and further the equal protection of the Latino community.  

The failure of MALDEF was to realize that Arizona is a different animal and litigation cannot be run out of LA or San Antonio.  Further, litigation alone does not cut it because the courts have for over forty years failed to enforce the U.S. Constitution.

In a conversation with then MALDEF attorney Mike Baller in the 1970s I pointed out the weakness of Ford’s strategy and the need to build local support networks.

MALDEF had started out with close community ties but Ford in the late 1960s yielded to the pressure of San Antonio Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez that it severe ties with the local Mexican American Youth Organization and their progressive allies who were at the time being viciously red-baited. After this point, Ford almost exclusively worked through Mexican American elites. 

In the process the community’s influence waned. Ford’s interference was similar to when it forced African American organizations and Black studies programs to severe ties with Black militants.  

Once more, Arizona totally exposed the fallacy that Latino national organizations and elites are capable of protecting Mexican American interests. Simply, they cannot sustain the ugly trench warfare conducted by national corporate elites and their paid shock troops. In Arizona, these corporate vampires control the media, the Tea Party, the Republican Party, the schools, other Medias of communication and also the guns.

Using the worse kind of racist propaganda, they have demonized the Mexican and Mexican American as the enemy. The corporate vampires have taken over the prisons and privatized public institutions converting them into cash registers whose objective is not to teach, not to rehabilitate, but to cash in.

Arizona also debunks the myth of a democratic society, showing the total failure of the Left, which includes elected officials, left of center magazines such as The Nation, the Democratic Party, along with national organizations of all colors.

I do not blame these organizations alone; I also blame Mexican American Studies and Mexican American scholars who have failed to make a case for their discipline.

In this I blame game I hold people such as myself accountable. When is the last time that we have cut a check to MALDEF or Save Ethnic Studies?  I blame myself for not being able to explain Mexican American studies to liberals.  I have heard colleagues, veterans of the anti-war and anti-nuke movements, tell me that they can support the fight against SB 1070 because it is against racism but not HB 2281 because Mexican American Studies is nationalistic. What a crock!

I blame myself for continuing to support their causes without fighting back! But truth be told, I support progressive causes because it is the right  thing to do.

With the left, however, it is an “Anything But Mexican” mindset.

The left correctly supported the Civil Rights Movement and opposed the wars in Vietnam and the Middle East but when it comes to Mexicans, it nitpicks at motivations. Even in the cases of Guatemala and El Salvador the American Left hedged.

I am getting myself worked up but let’s take the case of the teachers’ organizations. Tucson is a clear example of a gross violation of free speech, the disparate treatment of a specific group, the  denial of teacher and student rights and the censorship of books. Even so, to date not one national teacher organization has supported Tucson – not the National Association of Education, not the American Federation of Teachers, not the American Association of University Professors.

The other day I received a phone call from an NEA member urging me to send a donation to President Barack Obama. It was vital to reelect him, she said. I responded that I was not voting because Obama had done nothing to bring about a resolution in Tucson.  She felt betrayed.

With the Left it is always their issues, their interests, this attitude is historic.

Who do we blame? Ourselves. If we do not have strong national organizations it is because of our inattention.

In closing, the struggle has not been kept alive by people such as myself, or even the lawyers or the politicos in Tucson. The teachers have sacrificed their jobs, but if we win it is because students are fighting back! They have refused to take direction from the adults, taken over the school board and just this last month held a Freedom Summer where students from all over the country converged on Tucson. They did not wait for Ford to tell them how to do it.

¡Qué víva la justicía!  ¡Es ahora o nunca se salva la patria!


[“It is said that Juarez wavered when the time came to sign [Maximilian’s ] the death warrant … Lerdo…uttered these fateful words: "Ahora o nunca se salva la patria!"]

*******************************
Fight Back! Please click on to the links and support. There are two urgent needs:

Depositions begin this week in the case against HB 2281. You can donate by clicking on to http://saveethnicstudies.org/ . We are run entirely by volunteers; however, depositions are expensive. Please donate at least $5 a month.

Depositions have started in the case against Sean Arce and José González. Four hours of depositions were taken of both Arce and Gonzalez. Our side deposed Ward this past week. Please donate: https://www.wepay.com/donations/144408

Friday, August 24, 2012

Making Good on the Promise: Helping Out-of-School Mexican Immigrants, Farmworkers, and other Rural Immigrants Qualify for Deferred Action


Making Good on the Promise:  Helping Out-of-School Mexican Immigrants, Farmworkers, and other Rural Immigrants Qualify for Deferred Action

By Ed Kissam
Werner-Kohnstamm Family Fund
August 20, 2012

Overview

President Obama’s recent announcement of the DACA initiative (deferred action for childhood arrivals) holds great promise for immigrant youth and young adults. It provides them a means to begin working legally, pursue their personal and career development, and continue advocating for passage of DREAM Act so as to eventually find a clear-cut pathway to U.S. citizenship.  Immigrant advocates, service organizations, and civic groups have now been striving steadily for the past two months to develop the organizational capacity to help the large numbers of youth and young adults who are potentially eligible prepare and submit their applications (a process that began August 15).

The Migration Policy Institute estimates that two-thirds of the 1.76 million immigrants potentially eligible for DACA are of Mexican origin—about 1.17 million persons.[1]  Their report also estimates that, nationwide, about 350,000 of the youth and young adults who qualify for DACA in terms of age and residence are not currently enrolled in school and have not managed to get a high school diploma or GED. These educationally-disadvantaged but age-qualified potential applicants will need to enroll in an adult learning program in order to meet USCIS education requirements.[2] We estimate that at least 260,000 of these youth and young adults who can only qualify by enrolling in adult education are of Mexican origin.[3]

USCIS was thoughtful in articulating its guidelines describing the educational requirements that DACA applicants must satisfy.  In addition to meeting the program’s educational qualifications by having a college degree or high school diploma, or being enrolled in college, or high school, age-qualified young adults and teenagers can demonstrate they are “in school” by enrolling in a GED preparation program, a vocational training program, or another adult basic education program such as ESL or literacy instruction which is designed to lead toward employment or enrollment in post-secondary education. However, to actually benefit from this flexibility in the requirements of the DACA program, potential applicants who are not currently educationally qualified will require not only informational campaigns, application assistance workshops, and sound legal advice but, also, a national commitment to collaborative efforts to expand and facilitate access to adult education in the communities they live in.

These challenges are significant but the potential benefits are real and long-lasting. For Mexicans, but also for all young working immigrants, whatever their origin, deferred action and work authorization will have an immediate dramatic impact on their economic well-being and that of their families.  At the same time, for those who dropped out of school, re-connecting with adult learning programs prepared to provide “anytime, anyplace” lifelong learning support will have a profound long-term impact on their lives.

To be sure, the hundreds of thousands of young Mexican immigrants who are students, high school graduates, or college graduates will benefit from the heroic efforts of multi-ethnic networks of DREAMers such as United We Dream nationally. Here, in California, Educators for Fair Consideration, as well as their local allies have already begun to help tens of thousands of DACA-eligible teenagers and young adults put together applications and gather the documents to apply. 

However, organizations closely linked to Mexican immigrant communities can make distinctive contributions in one particular and distinctive area.  That will be in helping teenagers and young working adults who did not finish high school understand that they, too—not only high school and college students and graduates—may qualify for deferred action.   This is particularly crucial for the Mexican applicants because so many of them—e.g. farmworkers—never completed high school and are now working or searching for work full-time.

It will be important to consider carefully what roles organizations such as the federations of Mexican immigrants, clubes de oriundos, and other Latino-oriented service organizations can do to help their fellow immigrants succeed in securing deferred action status and work authorization as well as what they can do to catalyze cross-agency, collaboration among immigrant advocacy groups, schools, job training programs, family service providers, churches, businesses, and non-profit networks to help applicants navigate the overall process and, then, meet the education requirements of DACA.

Once Mexican working youth and young adults who do not have an educational diploma and who are not currently in school understand they can indeed qualify for DACA—by enrolling in an adult learning program—it will then be necessary for community organizations, civic activists, and service providers to advocate vigorously and work collaboratively with schools, community colleges, and non-profit education service providers to develop the adult learning opportunities these educationally-disadvantaged applicants need as part of their pathway to DACA and securing authorization to work legally.

Geographic Distribution-Urban/Rural DACA-Eligible Immigrants

More than half of the young, educationally-disadvantaged working Mexican immigrants eligible for DACA (perhaps 160,000) are concentrated in urban areas—Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Dallas, Houston, Seattle, Denver, and other large cities around the country.  However, more than one-third of the young Mexican working immigrants who do not yet meet the education requirements (perhaps 100,000) are farmworkers or other low-wage immigrant employees working in rural areas of the United States—as poultry and meat processing plant workers, construction workers, janitors, truck drivers, child care providers, gardeners, housecleaners, restaurant workers, retail clerks, or, even as proprietors of their own small businesses.[4] 

The most serious challenges faced by these DACA-eligible immigrants who need to enroll in an adult learning program will be those faced by young working adults, farmworkers and others (e.g. mothers with young children) in rural areas of the U.S. It will be crucial for immigrant advocates, educational institutions, farmworker service organizations, agricultural employers, concerned civic groups, community colleges, K-12 and schools in these rural areas to begin planning immediately and working collaboratively to build the service capacity needed to help these working youth and young adults who are potentially DACA-eligible but who do not currently meet the USCIS educational qualifications enroll in a school or educational program and, then, submit a successful application. 

An Estimate of Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers (MSFW’s) Potentially Eligible for Deferred Action (DACA)[5]

The vast majority (43,000 or 81% of all unauthorized MSFW’s eligible for DACA based on age and residence) do not meet the education requirements of DACA—because they do not have a high school diploma or a GED and are not currently enrolled in school.[6] A similar number of non-farmworker Mexican immigrants in rural areas of the U.S. are likely to be eligible—perhaps 48,000 all in all. Most of these rural Latino immigrants are of Mexican origin, although there are significant numbers of Guatemalan farmworkers also in the Southeast and immigrants of other national origins in some other rural areas of the country (e.g. Hondurans in North Carolina). We estimate that only 20% (i.e. about 18,000) of the out-of-school working-age Mexican-born farmworkers meet the DACA education requirements based on having a high school or college degree.

There are, in the farmworker households, a good number of relatives, friends, and extended family members who do not, themselves, work in agriculture.  These non-working, not-in-school but age-qualified rural residents include, for example, women raising young children, as well as others working in other sorts of agricultural jobs than crop/seasonal agricultural services (e.g. dairy workers, livestock workers, packing plant workers, truck drivers) or non-agricultural rural employment (e.g. in light manufacturing) or other work such as retail employment, restaurants, construction, road-building. Thus, the educationally-disadvantaged DACA-eligible population in the rural U.S. probably numbers at least 93,000.

Many of the DACA-eligible current farmworkers, since they came to the U.S. at an early age, are likely to speak English somewhat better than the overall farmworker population and, if they attended school at all in the U.S. before dropping out, may have somewhat higher levels of literacy.  However, it is likely that all are educationally-disadvantaged and that many have limitations in English.

More than half of the DACA-eligible farmworkers live in Pacific Seaboard states (California, Oregon, Washington) and about 20,000 of them reside in California.  Other areas with major concentrations of DACA-eligible MSFW’s include Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina, Texas and Michigan in the Midwest, in the Northeast, upstate New York and rural New Jersey, and along the Atlantic seaboard states such as Tennessee, Kentucky, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.[7] The distribution of the DACA-eligible rural population who are not MSFW’s is probably similar to that of the farmworker population.
Helping the DACA-eligible educationally-disadvantaged Mexican immigrants currently in the labor force access adult education

Federaciones, clubes de oriundos, LULAC chapters, NALEO, MALDEF, NCLR, as well as other networks and local community-based organizations can have a huge impact on the well-being of the DACA-eligible working immigrants in Mexican-origin and other ethnic communities, first, by spreading the word that DACA is not just for students; that it can benefit working teenagers and young adults also—if they came to the U.S. before age 16, if they are still under 31 years of age, and if they have lived in the U.S. for 5 years.

There is no reason to believe the legal situation of Mexican immigrants is significantly different than that of the urban immigrants but it is likely they may encounter more difficulties in documenting continuous residence due to the semi-formal arrangements typical in low-wage immigrant jobs where they are employed, especially in farmwork , as well as the informal nature of living arrangements in communities with crowded housing and complex households.  The Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores has already been proactive in encouraging consular offices to collaborate in workshops in DACA and in facilitating and expediting applicants’ requests for birth certificates, identity cards, or other crucial documents.  However, Mexican state offices of migrant affairs can and should work equally hard to remove whatever barriers there may be to securing home-country documents.

USCIS, quite reasonably, noted in its guidelines that it would expect that those granted deferred action based, in part, on their enrollment in an adult learning program, would achieve their educational objectives—a GED, or enrollment in vocational training, community college, college, or training-related employment—at the point they applied for a renewal.  Community-based organizations can make valuable contributions in advocating for well-designed course offerings from adult schools, community colleges, and vocational training programs, which can both satisfy USCIS’s legitimate desire for adult learning program enrollment to be substantive and focused on employment and which recognizes the distinctive learning needs and goals of working immigrant adults.

Access to the sorts of adult education courses required to qualify for DACA varies from state to state but service capacity is likely to be, generally, much more constrained in rural areas than in urban areas.  Therefore, a high priority will need to be coordinated and collaborative efforts among immigrant advocacy groups, non-profit farmworker service providers, to rapidly increase service capacity. These efforts will need to be coupled with vigorous advocacy in states (e.g. Georgia, Alabama) which seek to bar undocumented immigrants’ access to adult education and community college programs and, within immigrant communities themselves, ongoing campaigns will be needed to refer potential DACA applicants to high-quality educational institutions which offer courses meeting USCIS expectations (i.e. leading toward a GED or vocational training or employment).[8]

Ideally, efforts to make new education system service capacity available to DACA applicants in rural areas would be focused on creating course offerings tailored to the learning needs and personal objectives of farmworkers.  For example, vocational ESL courses offered by K-12 adult schools or community colleges would be likely to both meet USCIS requirements and provide farmworker youth and young adults a first step upward on a career ladder which would improve the stability of their earnings (either in agricultural employment or elsewhere).  GED courses crafted specifically to prepare students to take the GED in Spanish might be useful for some groups of DACA-eligible farmworkers.  California, Oregon, Washington, and Florida, at least, have well-developed community college systems which can play a particularly valuable role.  But local K-12 school systems which, for example, in California, bear primary responsibility for offering adult basic education and ESL courses can play an important role also.

Potential Roles for Programs Targeted to Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers

The challenges farmworkers face are great—but some unique resources are available to help them. There have now been, for more than 50 years, a range of federally-funded programs targeted to serving the needs of migrant and seasonal farmworkers (MSFW’s). Originally, these programs supported multi-service community-based organizations which emerged as a way to respond comprehensively to the special needs of migrant and seasonal farmworkers.  Now, half a century later, these programs are delegated to distinct organizational service networks. Each of these could, if it wished, play a unique and valuable role in making the dream of deferred action and upward educational mobility a reality.  However, to do this as effectively as possible, it would be valuable for federal, state, and local administrators, managers, and program planners recognize how support to DACA applicants relates to their core mission, proactively explore role(s) they might individually or collectively play in helping MSFW applicants for deferred action enroll in adult learning programs, and, then, reach out to offer support to farmworkers and their families in applying for DACA.

Key MSFW program networks which can immediately provide assistance to farmworkers in applying for DACA include the following[9]:

Migrant Education programs—Funded at around $390 million per year, these programs, funded by federal grants to states and by states to local school districts or consortia of districts, Migrant Education grantees are authorized to serve migrant farmworker families, irrespective of legal status.  Their service population includes both students currently enrolled in K-12 schools and out-of-school youth and young adults up through 21 years of age.  Migrant education programs can and should offer orientation to the DACA provisions, application assistance, and fund VESL and GED preparation programs tailored to the learning needs of out-of-school DACA-eligible farmworkers up through the age of 21.  Naturally, their role should also include student counseling and orientation explaining the immigration-related benefits of school enrollment and high school completion within the context of DACA for students currently in school.

Migrant and Seasonal Headstart programs—Funded at a level of about $250 million per year, MSHS programs are typically operated by community-based organizations.  With more than 400 sites around the country, the MSHS programs can play an extremely valuable role in informing farmworkers of the provisions of DACA—because the demographics of the farmworker parents of pre-school children enrolled in MSHS programs correspond, to a significant extent, to those of the DACA-eligible age group, i.e. farmworkers under the age of 31.[10]  MSHS grantees playing such a role is facilitated by the overall Head Start program design which gives attention not only to pre-schoolers’ development but, also, to family resiliency.

National Farmworker Jobs Program grantees—Funded at a level of about $78 million per year, the NFJP grantees have a long history of serving farmworker families and providing them employment training.  There are statutory constraints on NFJB grantees enrolling unauthorized farmworkers but they can, nonetheless, play a valuable role in orienting farmworker communities to the DACA provisions as part of their broad outreach activities.  Once DACA applicants receive work authorization they can then enroll in federally-funded vocational counseling, ESL, literacy, and employment training programs.  Because of their expertise in employment training the NFJP grantees may be able to play a valuable role in working with local community colleges and K-12 adult schools to design VESL and other employment-oriented training programs for farmworkers which will both meet USCIS requirements and provide solid learning environments where farmworkers can be successful.

TRIO Programs—Designed to support upward career mobility and to focus on rural areas as well as disadvantaged inner-city neighborhoods, these programs have the potential to be valuable partners in efforts to rapidly design adult education service networks to respond to DACA-eligible farmworkers’ needs.

In Summary

A greatly-expanded network of adult education opportunities will be crucial in providing assistance to about 350,000 young immigrants, 260,000 of them of Mexican origin, who will need to enroll in a GED preparation, employment-oriented adult education, or vocational training in order to qualify for deferred action.  Among these educationally-disadvantaged  young immigrants there are an estimated 100,000 rural residents, farmworkers and others, who will faced especially serious challenges in accessing adult learning programs—due to lack of service delivery system capacity, distance.  

The proactive involvement of a broad range of community-based organizations can make a huge difference in explaining to the young DACA eligible immigrants who dropped out of school (to work or to raise children) that they, too, may be able to qualify for DACA by enrolling in an adult learning program.  Local, state, and national collaboratives relying on a mix of federally funded activities, foundation-funded initiatives, and other local sources of funding (including contributions from small Latino businesses, agribusiness, and major corporations) can make the difference in determining whether the promise of deferred action can be transformed into a reality for the immigrant out-of-school working youth and young adults who have not yet had an opportunity to complete their education.



END NOTES




[1] Jeanne Batalova and Michelle Mittelstadt, “Relief from Deportation: Demographic Profile of the DREAMers Potentially Eligible under the Deferred Action Policy”, August, 2012. 

[2] See USCIS web page at www.uscis.gov/childhoodarrivals/

[3] MPI estimates that 65% of all DACA-eligible immigrants are of Mexican origin.  No estimates have been published of the numbers of the age-qualified DACA-eligible Mexican immigrants who are not currently in school and who do not have a high school or other degree.  However, based on the overall profile of the Mexican immigrant population—which includes disproportionate numbers of school dropouts and/or youth who came to the U.S. before the age of 16 and who may have never attended school in the U.S., we estimate that Mexicans make up about 75% of the age-qualified but not currently educationally-qualified potential applicants.  See Deborah Reed, Laura Hill, Christopher Jepson, and Hans Johnson, “Educational Progress Across Immigrant Generations in California”, Public Policy Institute of California, 2005.  The authors note that Mexican immigrant youth who came to the U.S. are more likely to directly enter the labor force than others.  Based on decennial census data the authors report that only 36% of the 1st-generation Mexican immigrant youth in California finish high school, compared to 83% of Vietnamese, 95% of “other Asian” youth, 93% of Filipino, and 47% of Central American youth.

[4] In two rural agricultural communities with high concentrations of immigrants studied in the 2001-2006 New Pluralism research conducted by JBS International as part of the USDA’s rural community development research initiative (Arvin, CA and Woodburn, OR) between one-third and two-thirds of the immigrant population worked in low-wage non-agricultural non-professional occupations.  See Ed Kissam, “Migration Networks and Processes of Community Transformation: Arvin, California and Woodburn, Oregon”, Journal of Latinos and Latin American Studies, Winter, 2007.
[5] This is a conservative estimate based on the ETA/DOL’s consensus of a U.S. farm labor force of 1.4 million farmworkers working in “seasonal agricultural services”.  This estimate does not include livestock or dairy workers or workers in other sorts of agriculture-related employment such as poultry or vegetable processing which are, also, concentrated in rural counties.  Moreover, as farm labor expert, Phillip Martin pointed out in a recent paper for a Farm Foundation discussion (“Human Capital in U.S. Agriculture”, July 10, 2012) there remain uncertainties about the ratio of currently-employed to temporarily-unemployed farmworkers, i.e. the peak-trough ratio. Some analysts believe there may be closer to 2.2 million migrant and seasonal farmworkers, imply 50% more DACA-eligible immigrants than in our estimate here.

[6] Based on analysis of National Agricultural Worker Survey (NAWS) data 2007-2009.  The NAWS provides a highly reliable basis for this estimate because the dataset includes information not only on demographic and socioeconomic characteristics but, also, on immigration status. Because the DACA-eligible farmworkers are a relatively small sub-population within the overall U.S. farm labor force, there are some uncertainties as to whether the number is higher or lower (as is the case with the Pew and MPI estimates) and the estimate here is the mid-point.

[7] The definitive national distribution of DACA-eligible MSFW’s varies from labor market to labor market.  Relatively more of the farmworkers in the Western Migrant Stream are unauthorized (61%) and in the Eastern Migrant Stream (51%) than in the Midwest.  See Susan Gabbard, Daniel Carroll, and Russell Salz, “How is the Farmworker Population Changing? What Does This Mean for Health Clinics”, presentation to Western Migrant Stream, January, 2009. 

[8] See, for example, Valeria Fernandez, “Arizona Denies Dreamers GED Classes to Block Deferred-Action”, New America Media, August 20, 2012.  In contrast, California’s AB 540, has had a positive impact by allowing DREAMers to pay in-state tuition for community college courses and AB 131 will help still further by allowing DREAMers, including low-income DACA applicants to request fee waivers for community college courses.

[9] Non-profit organizations and local agencies implementing these programs often receive core funding from the targeted federal MSFW programs but, also, have additional sources of state, local, foundation, and private sector funding.

[10] See Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, “2012 Report: Migrant and Seasonal Heard Start Supplement to the National Agricultural Worker Survey”, March, 2012.