Protest songs... are they the exclusive right of a group?

Note from Spirit and soul: In recent days I have seen with great sadness that, while the immigrant movement strugle to gain some rights, some other groups that until no long ago were the opressed class have becomed opressors trough their intelectual elite.
Is it that the inspiration of Dr. King or Ghandi belong only to a specific group, or is it something that we -as human race- learn from history?.

I am often inspired by protest music from around the world, and -despite what certain individuals claim- the lessons learned from the strugle of different groups can be an element of support in difficult times. I have learned a lot from protest folk American music, as well as from Chilean and Central American music.

Is the strugle of a group less important or relevant than any other? I think not....


Here is an homage to American folk music:


Freedom and Protest Songs of the United States By: www.sbgmusic.com

People often use singing as a way to feel better when sad, or to express discontent. Some people even believe that singing can change the world. There have probably been protest songs as long as there have been songs and situations that make people unhappy.

The songs of African American slaves before the Civil War were certainly songs of freedom and protest, even though they were carefully worded to avoid arousing the suspicion of the slave owners. A spiritual like "Go Down Moses" told a story from the Bible, but the refrain "Let my people go!" certainly could be applied to the situation of the African American slaves, too. Other songs, like "Follow the Drinkin’ Gourd," were simply coded instructions to help slaves escape to freedom.In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, people used protest songs to denounce slavery, promote women’s suffrage, promote temperance, and organize workers in labor unions. Often, protesters put new words to existing tunes. Julia Ward Howe, who also wrote the words for "Battle Hymn of the Republic," used the tune of "America" for her "Suffrage Song.

"Woody Guthrie was an American composer who wrote and sang about what he saw in the Great Depression of the 1930s. Many people were out of work and hungry. Some were homeless. Guthrie hoped he could make things change. His most famous song, "This Land Is Your Land," was written as his answer to the song "God Bless America." In this song (originally titled "God Blessed America") Guthrie expressed his belief that America, and the responsibility for taking care of it and its people, belong to the people.In the 1960s, the world was still far from perfect. Many American young people believed it was time for change. They used Woody Guthrie’s example, plus musical styles drawn from folk, gospel, bluegrass, and blues, to create protest songs.Protest songs were both political and spiritual. One of the leaders of the 1960s protest song movement was Pete Seeger, who published a magazine called Sing Out! Some of the most important performers in the movement were Phil Ochs, Eric Andersen, the group Peter, Paul, and Mary, Joan Baez, and Bob Dylan.

When African Americans in the southern United States were trying to win their civil rights in the early 1960s, many of these singers joined them. Folk-gospel singer Odetta, opera singer Marian Anderson, gospel singer Mahalia Jackson, and pop star Harry Belafonte all sang for their own struggle for civil rights during the 1963 March on Washington, D.C. They used the songs of African American slaves—spirituals like "Oh, Freedom" and "I Shall Not Be Moved"—to inspire action for a new level of freedom for African Americans. The issue of civil rights was not the only one that was engaging people in 1960s in America.

The United States was involved in a very unpopular war in Vietnam. Young men were being drafted to go into the war whether they wanted to go or not, and thousands were killed. Many of the singers who became involved in the civil rights movement, including Harry Belafonte, Pete Seeger, and the group Peter, Paul, and Mary, also became involved in protesting the United States’ involvement in the war in Vietnam. Folk singer Joan Baez refused to pay the portion (approximately 60%) of her federal income tax that went to support the war.Other singers became involved in protesting the war, too. Among the most notable was one of the Beatles, John Lennon. When he and Yoko Ono were married in March of 1969, they had a week-long "bed-in for peace" instead of a honeymoon.

From 10:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. every day, John and Yoko sat in bed, in their pajamas, conducting interviews with the press. They succeeded in drawing attention away from the war and onto peace, and in showing people that there are many ways to protest peacefully.In May, during another bed-in in Montréal, Québec, Canada, John sang a new song he had written, "Give Peace a Chance." It became one of the most popular songs of the anti-war movement. At a November 15, 1969, war protest in Washington, D.C., Pete Seeger led a crowd of about 250,000 people as they sang the song over and over again.The Vietnam War was finally over in 1975, but that was not the end of protesting and supporting causes with music.

More recent songs have tried to end world hunger, protest nuclear weapons and nuclear power, and help family-owned farms, among other causes. Protest songs grow out of almost any controversial situation, and they can be found around the world.

Cinco de Mayo

Cinco de Mayo is a date of great importance for the Mexican and Chicano communities. It marks the victory of the Mexican Army over the French at the Battle of Puebla. Althought the Mexican army was eventually defeated, the "Batalla de Puebla" came to represent a symbol of Mexican unity and patriotism. With this victory, Mexico demonstrated to the world that Mexico and all of Latin America were willing to defend themselves of any foreign intervention. Especially those from imperialist states bent on world conquest.

Cinco de Mayo's history has its roots in the French Occupation of Mexico. The French occupation took shape in the aftermath of the Mexican-American War of 1846-48. With this war, Mexico entered a period of national crisis during the 1850's. Years of not only fighting the Americans but also a Civil War, had left Mexico devastated and bankrupt. On July 17, 1861, President Benito Juarez issued a moratorium in which all foreign debt payments would be suspended for a brief period of two years, with the promise that after this period, payments would resume.

The English, Spanish and French refused to allow president Juarez to do this, and instead decided to invade Mexico and get payments by whatever means necessary. The Spanish and English eventually withdrew, but the French refused to leave. Their intention was to create an Empire in Mexico under Napoleon III. Some have argued that the true French occupation was a response to growing American power and to the Monroe Doctrine (America for the Americans). Napoleon III believed that if the United States was allowed to prosper indescriminantly, it would eventually become a power in and of itself.

In 1862, the French army began its advance. Under General Ignacio Zaragoza, 5,000 ill-equipped Mestizo and Zapotec Indians defeated the French army in what came to be known as the "Batalla de Puebla" on the fifth of May.

In the United States, the "Batalla de Puebla" came to be known as simply "5 de Mayo" and unfortunately, many people wrongly equate it with Mexican Independence which was on September 16, 1810, nearly a fifty year difference. Over, the years Cinco de Mayo has become very commercialized and many people see this holiday as a time for fun and dance.

Oddly enough, Cinco de Mayo has become more of Chicano holiday than a Mexican one. Cinco de Mayo is celebrated on a much larger scale here in the United States than it is in Mexico. People of Mexican descent in the United States celebrate this significant day by having parades, mariachi music, folklorico dancing and other types of festive activities.

Interesting view on immigration patterns...

I have submitted the following letter to the editor of our local newspaper. Since they haven't printed one of my letters in quite some time, I doubt they will this one either. Still I believe it is worth thinking on.
Enjoy!
+Rusty

I find it ironic that countless numbers of people, many illegally, seek entrance to the US in search of a better life, while countless numbers of US citizens, albeit in perfectly legal ways, head south of the border to retire to a better (read warmer and cheaper) life. Those who come here illegally work in jobs that few of us would ever take. How many of us really aspire or hope our children aspire to be migrant farm workers, or head cashier at fast food restaurants, or want our children to become a day laborer, or a nanny, or a housekeeper? Meanwhile, again in that warped but legal way, we have real estate developers creating vast gated communities in Mexico, buying up land, creating vast living spaces so we can move there and leave cheaply, at least once we can afford the homes. How many would be willing to move into already existing housing in the neighborhoods of the villages and towns we think so idyllic to live among the Mexican community? And how many of us will actually learn Spanish, fluently mind you, once we are there and agree to pay the same prices for goods and services that we pay here? No? Of course not, because we don't have to. We are US citizens and we can manipulate the laws in our favor. Wouldn't it be frightening if all those demonstrators for immigration last Monday learned how to do that here? Ironic.

The Rt. Rev. William M. Clyma III
San Francisco


Note: Thte Rt. Rev. William M. Clyma III is a bishop of an independent church called The New Church - Inclusive Anglican Reform. For more information on his denomination Click here

Thank you for your contribution Rev. Clyma!

The Episcopal Church Speak up on Immigration Issues

BISHOP BRUNO ADDRESSES CLERGY ON IMMIGRATION ISSUES
April 4, 2006
To the clergy and lay leaders of the Diocese of Los Angeles:
We find ourselves at a pivotal point in this country’s history. The debate on immigration reform has heightened our own awareness of what our response must be as Christians. Our church has been clear that a holistic, comprehensive immigration plan is called for, and that we must be a people who respond with compassion.

You have by now had the opportunity to read my letter to the Los Angeles City Council dated March 8, 2006, in which I urged them to oppose an Immigration Reform Bill proposed by in the House of Representatives by Congressman Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin (to read the full text of the letter visit file://www.episcopalnews.com/ and scroll down the page). To refresh your memories, H.R. #4437 calls for criminalization of the 11 million undocumented workers and family members now in the United States. I am writing to you now because the provisions of H.R. #4437 could become law and if so, the lives of millions of people---in fact, all of us---will be negatively impacted.

Our immigrant families would be physically separated and emotionally destroyed, the economies of the countries to which they send back their remittances would collapse, and our own economy would be seriously affected, causing more and more horrendous and needless suffering. The bill would also criminalize any person who assists an illegal immigrant in any way, including charitable work such as providing food or clothing. This would directly affect many of the works of this diocese as well as the ministry of our congregations.

Our faith tradition calls us, through our sacred scriptures, to welcome and embrace the strangers in our midst, for in them we see the face of Christ. This is defined in our sacramental life. Our Baptismal Covenant asks of us:
“Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself? Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?”
And we have promised:
“I will, with God’s help.”

We who are ordained are all deacons first. The Examination at our diaconate ordination instructed us:

“In the name of Jesus Christ, you are to serve all people, particularly the poor, the weak, the sick, and the lonely.

You are to interpret to the Church the needs, concerns, and hopes of the world.
At all times, your life and teaching are to show Christ’s people that in serving the helpless they are serving Christ himself.”

The Sin of Racism: A Call to CovenantA Pastoral Letter from the House of Bishops of the Episcopal ChurchMarch 2006


In this same light, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold issued a statement last week calling for Congressional action that is “just and humane,” adding that "as Christians, we are called to remember the Gospel mandate to extend hospitality to the stranger. As Episcopalians we embrace a baptismal covenant which requires that we seek and serve Christ in all persons. It is primarily for these reasons that we ask the Senate to reject those measures now before it which are essentially punitive and impractical." His statement notes further that "basing national policy on fear of the stranger and a rejection of those newcomers whose gifts we need is in conflict with the teachings of the Gospel." (For the full text of Bishop Griswold’s remarks, visit www.episcopalchurch.org/ens).

This past Monday, in what might be described as a miracle, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a comprehensive bill to be offered to the full Senate that is more “just and humane,” that would allow people to enter the United States legally, and offer opportunities for citizenship for those who are already living and working here. But while we mark that day as a success, the challenge has actually become greater. In the two weeks before Congress’ scheduled Easter break, the full Senate is expected to debate the immigration issue, possibly working with two competing bills: the newly-amended proposal from the Judiciary Committee, and one from majority leader Bill Frist (R-TN) which retains the enforcement provisions called for in the House of Representatives bill.

Please call the office of Senator Dianne Feinstein today and thank her for supporting a fair immigration bill this week. Ask her not to waver in the face of anti-immigrant sentiment, but to continue to work for the passage of the bill that she helped produce in the Judiciary Committee. The phone number for Senator Feinstein’s office at the Capitol is 202.224.3841. Please call instead of e-mailing or writing: phone calls have greater immediate impact.

The Center for Community Change has called on the faith leaders who attended the Capitol Hill rally on March 27 to participate in a national Day of Action for Immigrant Rights on April 10. Leaders in each city will be encouraged to plan events for that day to show support for what they see as more appropriate immigration reform. I am calling on the people of this Diocese to mobilize, to be a strong presence for justice at this event – here in Los Angeles as well as in other counties and cities around our diocese. An interfaith march is scheduled from 5:00 pm until 7:00 pm on Monday, April 10, beginning at La Placita Church at 535 North Main Street, Los Angeles, and ending at the Federal Building on Los Angeles Street. As we receive more information we will pass it on to you.

If all goes as anticipated, we will have “next steps” information available for the clergy of the diocese when we gather for the Renewal of Vows on Tuesday, April 11.
Finally, my brothers and sisters, if the more severe bill becomes law, I ask the clergy of the Diocese of Los Angeles to be ready to disobey it. The work of the Gospel comes first.
Your brother in Christ,
The Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno
Bishop of Los Angeles

March 8, 2006The Honorable Eric Garcetti, President of the Los Angeles City Counciland Honorable Council membersCity Hall, Los Angeles, CA

Dear President Garcetti and Members of City Council:
I write this letter to you with a heavy heart because I see a great and irrational fear overtaking our country in relation to the issues surrounding homeland security, and an outcome of this fear is making scapegoats of millions of members of our immigrant population with measures reminiscent of the rounding-up of Japanese immigrants in this city during World War II or the hatred and blame cast at the Jewish community prior to the horrors of the Holocaust. I am writing about HR4437, and I am asking you, as our City Council, to declare your opposition to this bill

Dear friends, we pride ourselves with a tradition and history of compassion around the world with those less fortunate than ourselves, and, yet within our own borders, we contemplate the criminalization of 11 million undocumented workers, classifying them (men, women, children, seniors) as aggravated felons. I am a Bishop in a faith tradition that calls us, through our sacred Scriptures, to welcome and embrace the strangers in our midst, for in them we see the face of Christ. The Baptismal Covenant of the Episcopal Church asks, “Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself? Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?” Those to be baptized answer, “I will, with God’s help.”

Do you realize the implications of this bill will also criminalize organizations and individuals assisting undocumented immigrants? The majority of these organizations are churches, synagogues, and mosques helping our brothers and sisters, who have come here from horrible conditions, at great risk, to make their lives better and to contribute to the fabric making up the mosaic of this great city and others like Los Angeles. Do you realize the economy of this City would collapse if this bill passed?

Immigration reform is needed, but not this bill. Please exercise your responsibility as our elected officials by standing up against this inhumane bill titled HR 4437.
s/s The Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno Bishop of Los Angeles

US Immigration Law 'Inhumane' To Same-Sex Couples Human Rights Group Says

US Immigration Law 'Inhumane' To Same-Sex Couples Human Rights Group Says
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
May 2, 2006 - 11:00 am ET

(Washington) Thousands of U.S. citizens and their foreign same-sex partners face enormous hardships, separation and even exile because discriminatory U.S. immigration policies deprive these couples of the basic right to be together, Human Rights Watch and Immigration Equality said in a report released Tuesday.
The report comes a day after hundreds of gays and lesbians joined more than a million people across the U.S. to demonstrate against the treatment of illegal immigrants.
In its report Tuesday HRW and Immigration Equality said that Congress also must end the discrimination that lesbian and gay Americans and their foreign partners endure under U.S. immigration law.
The 2000 U.S. Census estimated that in the United States there were almost 40,000 lesbian and gay couples in which one partner is a U.S. citizen (or permanent resident), and the other a foreign national. This figure does not include the many thousands of binational couples who have to hide the fact they are partners, are forced to live apart, or who have been forced to leave the United States the report said, noting that under U.S. statutes, these couples have no recognition under the law.
“Discriminatory U.S. immigration laws turn the American dream into a heartless nightmare for countless U.S. citizens and their foreign partners,” said Scott Long, co-author of the report and director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Program of Human Rights Watch. “As Congress debates immigration reforms, it should end discrimination against lesbian and gay immigrants as well as their U.S. partners.”
The 191-page report, “Family, Unvalued: Discrimination, Denial and the Fate of Binational Same-Sex Couples under U.S. Law,” is the first-ever comprehensive report on the issue, said Long.
It documents the consequences of this discrimination and shows how it can separate not only loving partners from one another, but also parents from children. It also shows how this policy has destroyed careers, livelihoods and lives.
“Our immigration laws are undermining the traditional American values of fairness and family,” said Rachel B. Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality.
“U.S. immigration policy is designed to keep families together. But the current law targets an entire class of American families and tears them apart.”
For more than 50 years, family reunification has been a stated and central goal of U.S. immigration policy, the report notes. Immigration law places a priority on allowing citizens and permanent residents to sponsor their spouses and close relatives for entry into the U.S.
The report says that although the system remains imperfect, riddled with delays that rising anti-immigrant sentiment only intensifies, U.S. citizens and their foreign heterosexual partners can easily claim spousal status and the immigration rights that it brings.
U.S. citizens with foreign lesbian or gay partners, however, find that their relationship is considered non-existent under federal law. The so-called “Defense of Marriage Act,” passed in 1996, declared that for all purposes of the federal government, marriage would mean “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” Since lesbian and gay couples are excluded from the definition of “spouse,” U.S. citizens receive no legal recognition of their same-sex partners for purposes of immigration.
Based on interviews and surveys with dozens of binational same-sex couples across the United States and around the world, the report documents the pressures and ordeals that lack of legal recognition imposes on lesbian and gay families. Couples described abuse and harassment by immigration officials. Some partners told stories of being deported from the United States and separated from their partners. Many couples, forced to live in different countries or continents, endure financial as well as emotional strain in keeping their relationships together the report says.
“No family should be forced apart, no matter what the sex is. This is how immigration laws have affected us,” a woman in North Carolina said, describing how her Hungarian partner and their children were forced to leave the United States. “We are separated and without each other.... We just want to be together, that’s all.”
Many U.S. citizens are forced into exile in countries where their relationships are recognized according to the report.
At least 19 nations worldwide provide some form of immigration benefits to the same-sex partners of citizens and permanent residents, while the U.S. still refuses. These include Canada as well as 13 European countries (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom). On other continents, this list includes Brazil, Israel, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.
The report calls on Congress to "immediately pass the Uniting American Families Act" Human Rights Watch and Immigration Equality said. The bill, sponsored by Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) would offer binational same-sex couples’ relationships the same recognition and treatment afforded to binational married couples.
The proposed law would add the term “permanent partner” to sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act where “spouse” now appears. Thus, a U.S. citizen or permanent resident could sponsor their permanent partner for immigration to the country, just as they can now sponsor such family members as siblings, children or husbands and wives. The bill was introduced in the current Congress on June 21, 2005; it has a total of 104 cosponsors from both houses.
In addition to repealing the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, Congress should enact reforms to U.S. immigration law to guarantee respect for the human rights and labor rights of non-citizens the report recommends. These reforms should include measures that end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and HIV-positive individuals it said.
©365Gay.com 2006

Anti-immigrant movements

Understanding Anti-Immigrant Movements
(The American Frinds Service)
Political and media figures that oppose immigrants’ rights often share a conservative political orientation. These conservative ideologues blame immigration and immigrants for a wide range of social problems, from unemployment to the poor quality of public schools to urban sprawl and congestion. While such problems are all too real, blaming immigrants for causing them is a form of scapegoating. Misguided and ultimately rooted in racism, it serves to divide people who might otherwise make common cause.
Nativism in U.S. History
“Nativism,” or the idea that only U.S. “natives” really belong here, is not new to this country. Nativism is a thinly disguised form of racism, in which “natives” are tacitly understood to be people of European descent — a category that has expanded since the end of World War II to include southern and eastern Europeans, Catholics, and Jews, although it originally applied exclusively to northern and western European Protestants.
Photo from: Echando Raices/ Taking RootTown meeting followingincidents of anti-immigrant violence in Ackley, Iowa.
For the past 150 years, attitudes towards immigrants have changed cyclically, often undergoing rapid shifts in response to economic or political conditions. In periods of social and economic turmoil, such as the years following World War I or the post–World War II McCarthy Era, anti-immigrant sentiments tend to flare up as people look for someone to blame. During times of economic growth and social stability, nativism tends to die down. As always, it is difficult to tell to what extent media and political figures reflect public attitudes, and to what extent they create them.
Politicians have often turned waves of nativist feeling to political advantage, voting in policies that penalize immigrants. Two particularly clear examples are the Chinese Exclusion Act of the late 1800s, which banned Chinese-born laborers from entering the country, and “Operation Wetback,” in which more than 500,000 people of Mexican descent (including numerous U.S. citizens) were rounded up and deported during the Depression of the 1930s.
Nativism Today
Anti-immigrant feeling ran high in the early 1990s — partly because the country faced a prolonged recession, and partly because of the marked growth of immigration, particularly to California. Some observers believe that the growth of anti-immigrant sentiment in that period was also a reflection of racial anxieties among the white population, as it became increasingly obvious that white Americans would eventually cease to be the majority — a shift that has already occurred in California and is projected to occur by 2050 for the country as a whole.
In addition, a series of economic changes related to globalization were becoming increasingly apparent to most U.S. working people. Such changes included steadily declining real wages, shrinking benefits and protections, the marked growth of temporary and contingent jobs, declining rates of unionization, increasing privatization, cutbacks in health care and education, and the like. Although most of these changes may be traced back to the early 1970s, it was not until the 1990s that they became more widely recognized and discussed.
In 1994, California voters passed an anti-immigrant measure known as Proposition 187, a law that excluded undocumented immigrants from public schools, medical assistance, and other government services. That year, a New York Times/CBS News survey found that 61 percent of U.S. residents thought that immigration levels should be reduced, up from 49 percent in 1986. Although Proposition 187 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional, many of the same measures were incorporated in federal legislation passed in 1996.
The end of the 1990s brought a period of economic expansion and rising wage levels, and anti-immigrant sentiment grew more muted in many parts of the country. The tide turned once again, however, following the World Trade Center attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Now, however, rather than being stigmatized as an economic drain, immigrants are demonized as dangerous terrorists, as the violent acts of a few extremists are blamed on all immigrants, regardless of who they are or why they are here.
Vigilantes and Hate Groups
Anti-immigrant politics have also given rise to an increase in vigilante activity, particularly in the U.S.-Mexico border region. Vigilantes have vowed to stop “illegal” immigration by patrolling the border with binoculars and guns, “arresting” at gunpoint anyone they presume to be an undocumented immigrant. Despite the threat of bloodshed, several political figures have defended such vigilante activity, including former INS Commissioner Doris Meissner, who has said that ranchers near the border “have legitimate concerns about the trespassers on their property.” In one 17-month period in 1999 and 2000, at least 30 incidents of vigilante violence were reported in a single section of the Arizona-Mexico border. Other ranchers, by contrast, have installed humanitarian aid stations on their land to assist border crossers who might otherwise face sickness or death due to dehydration.
Some vigilante activity is supported by white supremacist hate groups. A recent report by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which monitors the activity of hate groups, describes organized anti-immigrant networks on the radical right. Groups such as the National Organization for European American Rights (NOFEAR), formed by former Klansman David Duke, and the Council of Conservative Citizens overtly promote racial hatred, using vicious language to attack immigrants. The SPLC report describes their views as follows:
In the eyes of most of these groups, immigrants (typically, nonwhite immigrants) are responsible for nearly all the country’s ills, from poverty and inner city decay to crime, urban sprawl, and environmental degradation. Many of them also believe there is a secret plot by the Mexican government and American Hispanics to wrest the Southwest away from the United States in order to create “Aztlan,” a Hispanic nation. (“Blood on the Border,” SPLC Intelligence Report, Spring 2001)
The “Greening of Hate”
In another development during the 1990s, a new form of anti-immigrant ideology took hold, based on claims that immigrants degrade the environment. Since U.S. residents consume resources at a higher rate than people in developing countries, the story goes, immigrants who come here are transformed from low-rate consumers to high-rate consumers, negatively impacting the earth’s environment. Similarly, immigrants are blamed for degrading the quality of life in U.S. communities, by creating more congestion and urban sprawl and less open wilderness. These arguments scapegoat immigrants for the wasteful and destructive consumption patterns of the world’s wealthiest nation.
Anti-immigrant groups like Negative Population Growth or the Carrying Capacity Network are essentially offering a recycled form of arguments for population control. This view identifies “overpopulation” as the source of the world’s ills — with the planetary “excess” population once again tacitly understood to consist of people of color. Once accepted with little question, population control ideology was widely and successfully challenged in the 1970s and 1980s — both by Third World–oriented movements arguing that inequities in the distribution and control of the world’s resources are the primary cause of global hunger and poverty, and by women’s movements around the world arguing that women, not governments, should control their own reproductive decisions.
Some historians trace this type of “scientific racism” back to the original Malthusianism of the 1700s; as each successive form of this ideology has been discredited, a new one has emerged to take its place. The concept of “overpopulation,” for example, emerged when the turn-of-the-century “eugenics” movement, which began in the United States, became permanently associated with the atrocities of Nazi Germany. A generation later, as population control fell out of favor, anti-immigrant environmentalism emerged to take its place. In this most recent manifestation, anti-immigrant ideologues have sought to enlist mainstream environmental groups such as the Sierra Club in their cause — so far without success.
Roots of Anti-Immigrant Activism
European Americans have held a dominant position in the United States, both culturally and politically, for the country’s entire history. Among some whites, racial anxieties over losing their majority status have lead to a backlash, combining with resistance to multiculturalism and other movements that seek to include communities of color as equal partners in all aspects of U.S. society.
White supremacist groups tend to seek members among low-income whites, especially those who have been most deeply affected by deindustrialization and other forms of economic dislocation, channeling their anger and frustration over their own condition toward a clear target — people of color.
Some of the more sophisticated anti-immigrant groups, meanwhile, have tried to reach out to African Americans and other U.S.-born communities of color by including them among the “natives” who are threatened by immigration. While such groups may disavow the overtly racist rhetoric of hate groups, they nonetheless advance the same type of arguments in more “respectable” language. For example, according to the SPLC, the mainstream anti-immigrant group Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which claims 70,000 members, has worked collaboratively with white supremacist hate groups. Conservative politicians like Patrick Buchanan, meanwhile, combine populist rhetoric on economic issues with racist, anti-immigrant, and anti-Semitic ideology.
The overt racism of hate groups and the more subtle bigotry of mainstream anti-immigrant organizations both serve to divide people who might otherwise find common ground in social struggles for justice. While they may attract followers with the power of their rhetoric, such anti-immigrant movements do nothing to address the root causes of suffering — the economic, social, and political structures that maintain an unjust and increasingly unequal distribution of wealth, power, and privilege. Instead, they substitute a lethal combination of resentment, scapegoating, and hatred — the classic recipe for fascism.

Kimberly-Clark's heir hates immigrants

Boycotts for immigration

Kimbely Clark is responsable for the explotation of the forest in Puebla, Mexico; and a blody immigrant hater!

Hispanics to lead boycotts of US manufacturers
By Martín Barillas

Echoing a similar boycott planned for May 1 throughout Mexico, some Hispanic community leaders are urging Hispanics to boycott certain goods and manufacturers in the US while the US Congress is considering sweeping changes to the current US immigration laws and practices. Jon Garrido, an Arizona entrepreneur and publisher, is leading an effort to boycott Kimberly-Clark paper products, such as Kleenex, Huggies, Scott towels, and Depends, since Republican Congressman James Sensenbrenner, who is a leader in immigration reform measures, is an heir to the Kimberly-Clark fortune. According to a website sponsored by Garrido (www.axkc.net), who has developed sites for Wal-Mart and administered Federal housing grants, Sensenbrenner is the “author/sponsor of HR 4437 which would turn 11 million undocumented immigrants into felons, punish anyone guilty of providing them assistance, and construct an iron wall between the US and Mexico. “ The website goes on to urge Latinos to boycott Kimberly-Clark goods in the US and Latin America and to contact everyone they know about the connection between Congressman Sensenbrenner and the paper products manufacturer. Garrido’s websites also tout boycotts of General Motors, Exxon-Mobile, and AOL. The boycott of AOL, parent-company of CNN broadcasting, stems from opposition to what some observers see as CNN newsman Lou Dobb’s promotion of the Sensenbrenner immigration bill. On April 11, Garrido’s HispanicNews website called for Lou Dobbs to step down at CNN and vows to continue to harass him even though he should leave for another network. Garrido’s website refers to Dobbs’ broadcasts as a “theatrical charade” in which Dobbs “continues to bash Hispanics.”

Garrido was asked to appear on Lou Dobbs’ show, but refused, saying in an emailed statement that he urges all Hispanics not to appear on the show and that he wants it removed from the air.

In Mexico, labor unions, government agencies, and others are calling for a boycott of US companies such as McDonald’s and Sears. Hoping to allay the effects of the potential boycott, the US Chamber of Commerce in Mexico has stated that such a boycott would be counter-productive in the debate over immigration to the US and pointed out that Sears in Mexico is owned by Mexican plutocrat Carlos Slim – one of the richest individuals in the world.

White People support immigrants!

For May Day and Beyond: White People Step Up for Immigrant Rights!
Open Letter to White Communities
By Catalyst Project & Heads Up Collective
Join with millions of immigrants around the country and fight for immigrant rights.

For May Day and Beyond: White People Step up for Immigrant Rights! In the past month, five million people, mostly immigrants of color, have mobilized for justice and are making history, flooding the streets in unprecedented numbers. Meanwhile, the most visible participation by white people is coming from the racist and right wing leaders who are defining and dominating the debate in the Federal government and in the news, radio and opinion pages. Where are the voices of anti-racist white people in this crucial moment, when the worst anti-immigrant legislation in decades is still poised to drop? We, white people who believe in justice and ending racism, have a responsibility and a historic opportunity to stand with immigrant communities and unite behind their demands. As white people, most of us with U.S. citizenship, we call out to our white communities to take to the streets for immigrant rights. We must demonstrate that the rightwing racists, from the Minutemen to in the Congress, do not represent us! Anyone who has experienced this month’s electrifying, grassroots explosion feels the power and excitement growing. Working-class immigrants, with their crucial roles in the economy and culture of the U.S., have real power to reshape this country, as a vibrant part of broad multiracial movements for justice and equality. As anti-racist white people, we have a role to play in this struggle. Immigrants are the direct targets of these policies, and we know enforcement will aim at immigrants of color. But we are all endangered by the accelerating drive of this country towards greater abuse of working people, more criminalization of poor/working-class people, and of all communities of color, particularly African-Americans. Our futures are tied together and now is the time to stand with immigrants fighting for their rights. The ruling class in the United States has historically led anti-immigrant campaigns to divide working people, getting people to blame one another for stealing their jobs while corporations build their financial empires from all of our labor. Building from a foundation of enslaved African labor and mass land theft from indigenous nations, corporations used anti-immigrant campaigns against the Irish, Italian, Jews. Chinese, Japanese, Eastern Europeans and other immigrants, to deny them legal protections, attack unions and maintain cheap labor to under-cut better waged jobs. These campaigns intensified with the Chinese Exclusion Act in the 1880’s and as more and more European immigrants were assimilated into white society, immigrants of color from Asia and then Latin America were targeted to be a permanent low wage, legally unprotected, work force to drive wages down and corporate profits up. White people have led and rallied behind anti-immigrant campaigns in the millions throughout the history of this country and today a new history for immigrant justice is being written and we have a responsibility to be part of it. We’re fighting two racist agendas: big businesses need to retain a vulnerable pool of exploitable labor, and the blatant organized racists want to preserve white political dominance and agitate for mass deportations. This divided right wing unites to dehumanize immigrants of color, working to strip them of any rights or protections. The small handful of mostly white billionaires backing and benefiting from these strategies depends on our complicity. Instead, let’s build upon the legacy of anti-racist white people who have refused to participate in divide and conquer strategies, where the ruling class historically uses race to pit us against each other. White people need to take responsibility for countering the attacks generated by white racists, from the border to the White House. If you’re a white person who stands for justice, we encourage you to step it up. How can you more actively support immigrants fighting for their rights, and encourage your families and friends to get more involved? What local organizing by immigrants can you support with your time, money, and resources? On April 23rd in the Bay Area, and throughout the country on May 1st (International Workers’ Day) immigrant communities around the country will again take the streets. Let’s be there in greater numbers: on the streets beside our friends and neighbors, raising our voices in the national debate, making a commitment to organizing more white people to stand up against attacks on immigrants. This letter comes to you from two Bay Area-based white anti-racist organizations, Catalyst Project and the Heads Up Collective. Heads Up is a member organization of the Deporten a La Migra Coalition, which is primarily composed of organizations based in working-class immigrant communities. We ask you to act in solidarity with the principles generated by the Deporten a La Migra Coalition, Immigrants Fighting For Our Rights.
They are:
ß The land is for those who work it! ß No more displacement ß The border is hypocritical ß Unity makes us strong
ß Demand dignity and equality for all immigrants ß In every neighborhood, organize! (please read full text at http://www.liberationink.com/revised/navigator.php?s=2&a=deporten) If you agree with these principles, we invite you to sign this letter and make your signature a commitment to putting them into action in your work and life. In struggle, Catalyst Project and the Heads Up Collective immigrantjusticesolidarity@gmail.com

Endorsements on web page.

Immigrant Marches / Marchas de los Inmigrantes

EN ESPAÑOL Acerca de la Union Americana de Libertades Civiles

Immigrants and their supporters are participating in marches all over the country to protest proposed national legislation and to seek justice for immigrants. The materials available here provide important information about the rights and risks involved for anyone who is planning to participate in the ongoing marches.
If government agents question you, it is important to understand your rights. You should be careful in the way you speak when approached by the police, FBI, or INS. If you give answers, they can be used against you in a criminal, immigration, or civil case.
The ACLU's publications below provide effective and useful guidance in several languages for many situations. The brochures apprise you of your legal rights, recommend how to preserve those rights, and provide guidance on how to interact with officials.
(To download and print the PDF files listed requires Adobe Acrobat Reader. Free download >>)
IMMIGRATION What to do if Immigration Agents or Police stop you while on foot, pull over your car or come to your home: www.aclu-sc.org/attach/k/kyr_immigration_en.pdf

In Spanish: Qué Hacer si Agentes de Inmigración o la Policía lo Paran Mientras va Caminando, lo Detienen en su Auto o Vienen a su Hogar: www.aclu-sc.org/attach/k/kyr_immigration_sp.pdf

English language Know Your Rights if questioned by police, FBI or immigration agents: www.aclu.org/kyr/kyr_english.pdf
Spanish language Know Your Rights if questioned by police, FBI or immigration agents: Conozca sus Derechos: Qué Hacer si la Policía, el FBI o Agentes de Inmigración lo Interrogan: www.aclu.org/kyr/kyr_spanish.pdf
For the same Know Your Rights brochure in Arabic, Hindi, Punjabi, Farsi, Urdu or Somali: www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17444res20040528.html
LABOR / FREE SPEECH Immigrant Protests - What Every Worker Should Know: www.nilc.org/ce/nilc/protests_what_every_worker_should_know.pdf (off-site) Spanish language: Manifestaciones de los Inmigrantes - Lo Que Todo Trabajador Debe Saber: www.nilc.org/ce/nilc/protests_what_every_worker_should_know_sp.pdf (off-site)
PROTESTERS ACLU of Florida brochure on The Rights of Protesters: www.aclufl.org/PDFs/right_to_protest_brochure.pdf Spanish language brochure on The Rights of Protesters: Los Derechos de los Manifestantes: http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/immigrants/acluprotestbrochuresp1.pdf
STUDENTS California Students: Public School Walk-outs and Free Speech: www.aclu-sc.org/attach/k/KYRCAStudentProtestsEnglish.pdf In Spanish: Estudiantes de California: Marchas o Huelgas y La Libertad de Expresión en las Escuelas Públicas
www.aclu-sc.org/attach/k/KYRCAStudentProtestsSpanish.pdf ACLU of Northern California brochure on Student Walkouts and Political Speech at School: www.aclunc.org/tmp/student_walkout.htm Spanish language Student Walkouts and Political Speech at School: EL PARO o HUELGA ESTUDIANTIL y LAS EXPRESIONES, DISCURSOS, Y LENGUAJE POLITICO: www.aclunc.org/tmp/student_walkout_spanish.htm
Contact local and regional ACLU affiliate offices >>

Anti-Immigrant sentiment

POLL: Immigrants Report Growing Anti-Immigrant Sentiment, Fueled by Racism
As the Senate takes up debate on immigration reform and the right wing steps up its inflammatory rhetoric, a new poll released today finds that about 2/3 of legal immigrants in the United States believe anti-immigrant sentiment is growing and is fueled by racism.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/28/immigration-poll/

The great American Boycott 2006

May 1, 2006: Call to Action!
"El Gran Paro Americano 2006" "The Great American Boycott 2006"
"Un dia sin immigrante" "A day without an immigrant"

On May 1, we are calling No Work, No School, No Sales, and No
Buying, and also to have rallies around symbols of economic trade in
your areas (stock exchanges, anti-immigrant corporations, etc.) to
protest the anti-immigrant movements across the country.

On May 1, we will wear "white" a T-Shirt and/or white arm bands, we
can paint and write our political demands (and creative arts) at the
T-shirt go to rally, protest, strike, vigil, work or school--we will
have a ocean of white T-shirts with our political demands from east
coast to west coast, at the street, work place, school, bus station &
store... and our voice will be LOUD AND CLEAR AND CANNOT BE SILENT FOR EVER!

We will settle for nothing less than full amnesty and dignity for the
millions of undocumented workers presently in the U.S. We believe that
increased enforcement is a step in the wrong direction and will only
serve to facilitate more tragedies along the Mexican-U.S. border in
terms of deaths and family separation.
Our Call
Immigrants contribute 7 billion in social security per year. they
earn 240 billion, report 90 billion, and only are reimbursed 5 billion,
"where are the 85 billion?" They also contribute to the U.S. economy
25 billion more than they receive in healthcare, etc., etc., etc.
According to the anti-immigrant politicians and hatemongers,
"immigrants are a drain on society." If this is true, then during the
day on May 1st the stock market will surge, and the economy will boom.
If not, we prove them wrong once and for all. We know what will happen!

Therefore, the "March 25th Coalition against HR4437 in Los Angeles,"
the organizers of the mega march of almost 2 million on March 25th, has
called for an emergency videoconferenced meeting on April 8th between
Los Angeles and any city that wishes to join the efforts toward "El
Gran Paro Americano 2006." The following meeting will take place in
Chicago on April 22nd, we ask that all that wish to participate and be
a part of a national effort on May 1st and beyond, to attend by finding
facilities in your areas that can hold the meeting, technologically.

The points of unity are: No Work, No School, No Sales, and No Buying,
and also to have rallies around symbols of economic trade in your areas
(stock exchanges, anti-immigrant corporations, etc.).

Cities across the United States have marched during the week,
therefore, in essence observing a regional boycott, which is only felt
regionally. The March 25th Coalition against HR4437, calls for these
regions to develop a national network that will "connect the dots." We
believe with numbers we have power, the power currently necessary to
keep the pressure on the White House to propose provisions that are just and fair for all immigrants.

We will settle for nothing less than full amnesty and dignity for the
millions of undocumented workers presently in the U.S. We believe that
increased enforcement is a step in the wrong direction and will only
serve to facilitate more tragedies along the Mexican-U.S. border in
terms of deaths and family separation.
More details to come... Keep your eye on www.nohr4437.org
and or write to granmarcha2006@hotmail.com

Please organize your areas, and join this monumental event that will
put our mark on U.S. history.

A few of the events planned for A Day Without Immigrants:
-- Boycotts: Central theme of the day, with immigrants being urged to boycott work, school and shopping. In Tucson, Ariz., an organizer urged ''no buying at all,'' not even calls to Mexico.
-- Rallies: In New York City, immigrants and supporters planned to form human chains in several spots around lunch time. Advocates planned to march in Orlando, Fla., Allentown, Pa., and Seattle, among many other cities. In downtown Louisville, Ky., a procession was scheduled from the federal courthouse to Jefferson Park.
-- Services: Roman Catholic churches holding immigration-themed Masses. Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia planned deliver a homily about immigration reform during a noon Mass.
-- Schools: New Haven, Conn., schools were bracing for a walkout, as were school officials in Denver. In Gainesville, Ga., administrators sent a letter home to parents saying absences would not be tolerated.