Since late 2006, the Bush administration has been carrying out the “tough love” side of immigration reform without the generous and open-arms side, which would mean legalization for those in the United States today, and a migrant worker program for those it will need tomorrow.

It has pursued a humiliating and hostile policy of persecution and harassment of illegal Mexicans, Guatemalans, Salvadorans, Hondurans and many others. It changed the rules of the game without any warning or empathy, nor with the traditional understanding the United States has shown, more often than not over the past century, in regard to those who cross its borders without papers.

In a concise article, Castañeda both condemns the inhumane cycle of raids and detentions, and urges President-elect Obama to immediately move to stop the hunting of immigrants.

After his inauguration, Mr. Obama could put an end to all of this by suspending the raids, detentions and deportations. He should return to the approach followed by all of his predecessors until 2006: stop illegal entrants at the border when possible, but refrain from hunting them down once they cross the border.

He also doesn’t ignore one of the thornier immigration subjects: states that have taken immigration enforcement into their own hands.

[Obama] cannot, obviously, erase aggressive local ordinances in states like Arizona and Oklahoma. But he can initiate or hasten the federal government’s challenge to their constitutionality

Castañeda is absolutely right, we need to speed up the accountability process for people like Sheriff Arpaio, who is carrying out gross human rights violations in Phoenix.

This is the kind of rational, humane approach needed to realistically address immigration. Obama should listen to him.

I’m spending my Christmas vacation in lovely Maricopa County, AZ, this week with my in-laws. And I have to tell you that, thanks to Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his gang of thugs deputies, I’ll be somewhat relieved when I leave.

After all, how would you like to live in a place where law enforcement actually arrests you for applauding briefly at a public county council meeting? Where they threaten and intimidate you just for showing up in the first place?

That’s what’s been happening here.

Read the rest of the article at http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/arizona-sheriff-turns-county-meeting.

The ad spots were purchased by the Department of Homeland Security and promote their E-Verify program, a controversial employee verification system. The ads run at the end of a segment and say, “‘Support for NPR comes from NPR stations, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), offering E-Verify, confirming the legal working status of new hires. At DHS dot gov slash E-Verify.”

E-Verify allows employers to check work eligibility against a massive database, and according to the National Immigration Law Center the “SSA estimates that 17.8 million (or 4.1 percent) of its records contain discrepancies related to name, date of birth, or citizenship status, with 12.7 million of those records pertaining to U.S. citizens.”

E-Verify is the perfect study of racism thriving in American institutions. Employers often fire or fail to hire workers that they cannot confirm through E-Verify. These discrepancies overwhelmingly affect Latinos and African American citizens.

The confusion by listeners and even those within NPR over why they would choose to accept money from DHS is understandable. After all, NPR has been consistently critical of DHS and its more sinister sibling agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

On Dec. 1, EPIC, ACLU, Free Press, and the National Immigration Law Center sent a letter to NPR calling for the discontinuation of the ads, pointing to the “shortcomings of E-Verify, including its high cost, high levels of inaccuracies in the databases on which the program is based, employer misuse resulting in discrimination and unlawful termination, and the lack of privacy protections.”

Facing layoffs and programming cuts, it’s not surprising NPR would hedge on halting the ads, though in true public radio style, they’ve done it diplomatically.

On Dec. 4th, Alicia Shepard, NPR’s Ombudsman, took to the airwaves to address listeners’ concerns and defend the acceptance of funding credits. She rightly pointed out the reasons for controversy around E-Verify, but then kept the focus on the “firewall” that protects journalistic integrity from advertising dollars.

This indicates that NPR still doesn’t get why this is a problem. I don’t think listeners are as concerned about the integrity of journalists, as they are about the integrity of National Public Radio itself. I can sympathize with NPR’s economic woes, but we’re all feeling the same pinch. Bottom line, E-Verify is racist and NPR should stop promoting it.

To counteract the growing momentum for realistic immigration reform anti-immigrant bigots seek to inject false data into the conversation. A new report entitled “The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Coloradans” was released by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). It’s apparent that FAIR prefers to dump their resources into faulty reports in an attempt to stir up more fear and hatred in an already tense economic landscape.

FAIR has been listed as a hate group by the civil rights organization the Southern Poverty Law Center, alongside the Ku Klux Klan and the American National Socialist Workers Party. Current FAIR spokesperson Bob Dane has publicly called for the destruction of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which would reverse African American civil rights gains.

With the economic crisis on everyone’s mind, FAIR is attempting to play off people’s fears by drawing on dubious data that blame immigrants for Colorado’s woes. “Even in the best of economic times, $1.1 billion would be an unnecessary and unjustifiable burden on Colorado taxpayers,” said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. “With Colorado, like nearly every other state, forced to cut vital programs and services, these costs are simply untenable.” Stein has defended on several occasions FAIR’s acceptance of over 1.2 million dollars from the anti-Black Pioneer Fund, a “racial science” foundation.

One of the main themes in FAIR’s report is the claim that undocumented people are fraudulently obtaining benefits. Not once does FAIR offer proof of this but ignores real data that cites the devastating economic cost of the proof of citizenship-style bill that passed in Colorado in 2006. The law requires service providers to check documents and so far they have identified very few, if any, undocumented immigrants seeking benefits. This bill ironically passed with the support of Colorado’s Democrats.

FAIR instead uses spurious numbers to estimate that Colorado would save $1.1 billion dollars a year in the arenas of health care, education, and incarceration if undocumented immigrants didn’t exist. But the report is full of holes including FAIR’s addition of US-born citizens whose parents are undocumented in determining all costs of “illegal immigration.”

FAIR continues down the slippery slope of “expertise” by suggesting that all English learners are undocumented. For its data on incarceration costs, FAIR counts “suspected illegal aliens” and immigrants with detainee status (a 48-hour pretrial detention by law enforcement) who may be legal.

In acknowledging the inaccuracy of the data used for anti-immigrant propaganda purposes, the report uses the word “estimate” 57 times in its 13 pages. Nearly 90% of the statistical data given in the report is preceded by the word “estimate”*. To add to this folly many of the so-called “estimates” by FAIR are based on national data that is not even Colorado specific.

FAIR gives a couple of “recommendations” including training more police officers to enforce immigration laws and increasing bed space in detention centers (strange since one of the major costs the report dwells on is incarceration). They completely ignore any realistic or humane solutions already on the table.

One thing that FAIR does prove with this report is that for anti-immigrant leaders all is fair in the game of bigotry.

* For real accurate data on immigration see the Immigration Policy Center.

Arpaio has diverted deputies from solving crimes to chasing immigrants — and done so with no real strategy other than to attract television cameras. Arpaio’s deputies carry out traffic stops and neighborhood sweeps that have reportedly stopped people for no greater “crime” than being brown. These sheriff deputies hope they find someone without identification who they can turn over to federal immigration officials. Arpaio even requires that victims and witnesses prove their immigration status – a sure way to get fewer whistleblowers to come forward, thus increasing crime.

Seems like an odd guy for Fox to highlight as a law enforcement icon.
Fernandez also highlights a new video by America’s Voice that exposes the damage Arpaio has done to the justice system in Maricopa County.

The anti-immigrant movement’s argument that immigrants are to blame for U.S. ecological degradation is deeply flawed. It has so many holes that it is transparent to anyone who thinks critically about the accusations they present. This is a strategic attack on immigrants, and cannot result in any productive environmental solutions. It only breeds more anti-immigrant hatred and leads Americans astray from real environmental progress.

Californians for Population Stabilization says on its website:

“Experts agree that the most dangerous problem facing our environment now and in the future—whether local, national, or global—is human overpopulation.”

“Because of rampant population growth, we’re also experiencing degradation of our ground water; pollution of our lakes, rivers and streams; destruction of forests, national parks, and natural habitats; wildfires and forest fires—often caused by migrating illegal immigrants…”

The truth is it doesn’t matter if a person is living in the United States or another country, wherever they are people are contributing to stresses on the environment. It’s ridiculous that anyone would buy into this being relevant to one’s locality. It’s a shockingly weak foundation on which to build their anti-immigrant agenda.

Both FAIR and CAPS often try to make it seem like environmentalists everywhere are siding with them. FAIR even has a page on their website called “Why Environmentalists Support Immigration Reform”, but they can’t name nor quote a legitimate environmentalist that actually does voice support for their policies.

In reality, there is more opposition to anti-immigrant groups than agreement by environmentalists. The Sierra Club, the most influential grassroots environmental organization in the United States, has decisively banished anti-immigrant rhetoric, stating:

“The Sierra Club, its entities, and those speaking in its name will take no position on immigration levels or on policies governing immigration into the United States. The Club remains committed to environmental rights and protections for all within our borders, without discrimination based on immigration status.”

For those seeking to fuel immigrant scapegoating FAIR offers an “environmentalist” perspective, but provides no meaningful information for legitimate discourse on the environment.

Genuine concern for the planet and the life on it should inspire exploration of viable solutions. Real environmentalists are working beyond borders.

It is obvious that the United States is violating the human rights of Latinos living within the country’s borders by failing to protect its Latino residents. Latinos have been targeted, attacked, brutalized and murdered because of their race and ethnicity in incidents with rising frequency and severity throughout the United States.

In the past four months, three Latino men have lost their lives in racially-motivated attacks. Luis Eduardo Ramirez was beaten to death in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, in July when local teenagers attacked him, yelling racial epithets. In November, Marcelo Lucero was assaulted, stabbed and killed by a group of seven young men who had set out to go “beaner jumping” in Patchogue, New York. And, just last week, José Sucuzhañay was beaten to death in Brooklyn, NY, by men wielding baseball bats and broken bottles. LatinoJustice PRLDEF filed a petition Thursday with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights charging that the United States’ aggressive immigration enforcement policies have fostered an increasingly unsafe environment for U.S. Latinos, regardless of their legal status.

These immigration policies-which include midnight raids of private homes by federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents - have been undertaken with little regard for the human rights of undocumented and documented immigrants.

We’ve all seen the statistics that say hate crimes against Latinos are on the rise. We’ve seen the hate spewed against immigrants, the anti-immigration ordinances, the English-only laws, the myths about Latinos fostered by FAIR and other hate groups. The federal government has helped foster that climate of hate with 287gs, with house raids, with breaking up of families and the general harassment of Latinos.

Instead of fulfilling its duty to protect, which is heightened given the dramatic increase in hate crimes against Latinos, the United States has done even less, as it has diverted its resources to immigration prosecution and enforcement efforts rather than instituting policies to ensure protection.

In Suffolk County, NY, where Marcello Lucero lived and was killed the number of undocumented immigrants referred to federal authorities has surged, from 44 people in 2004, when the county executive, Steve Levy, took office, to 2,289 last year. Police officers ask those they arrest about their immigration status and refer undocumented individuals to federal authorities.

”Many local governments take the point of view that they don’t want to ask that question,” Mr. Levy said. ”I think it’s ridiculous for localities to call themselves sanctuaries.” He called the notion that some people would stop cooperating with the police ‘’silly.”

Petitioners contend that such policies of local cooperation embolden those that would want to cause harm to immigrants and Latinos, and is evidenced by the number of incidents which are now being reported by those who have been afraid to report these crimes to police, as well as the County Police Department’s instructions to officers - suggesting there is an urgent problem.

The United States has an obligation to ensure the safety of all those who reside within its borders under the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. Specifically, the Declaration’s Article 1 states that “everyone has a right to life, liberty and security of person.”

Christina Iturralde is a lawyer with LatinoJustice PRLDEF, an organization that protects opportunities for all Latinos to succeed in school and work, fulfill their dreams, and sustain their families and communities.

Representatives of the seven organizations described their fear of a backlash in hate crimes after Barack Obama’s victory in the presidential election.

It’s a good sign that these groups are taking swift action to bring this to the public’s attention, but it’s not enough. It’s not just that violence fueled by hatred has increased; white supremacists are attracting more members. According to Maria Bello of USA Today they are becoming more sophisticated in who and how they recruit potential members.

It’s imperative that hate groups do not get a foothold in our communities. They are a threat to our immigrant friends and neighbors, and the tradition of our country as a welcoming nation. The rhetoric that they bring with them damages the dialogues our country is having around important issues. The more space we give them, the less we have for rational discourse on the economy, immigration, and foreign affairs. It’s time for Americans to demand a hate free society.

This program has never been popular with unionizers and farm worker rights groups due to it’s negligent and oppressive nature. In fact it’s predecessor, the H-2, program ended over the controversial abuse workers in the program endured.

Currently, employers who are taking advantage of H-2A are required to hire foreign laborers for short-term jobs only. Also they must prove that they attempted and are incapable of hiring U.S. workers. In addition, H-2A requires that employers make sure that the hiring of the foreign-born laborers doesn’t negatively effect the compensation or the working conditions of their original employees, or U.S. laborers. The existing program provides some labor protection, but it has been widely criticized. It’s lax enforcement of policy has lead to wage violations, discriminatory refusals to hire worthy U.S. workers, and lamentable housing conditions.

The H-2A program has proven itself to be flawed and unfair since it’s conception. Guestworkers have a restricted situation, and therefore are often forced to cope with abusive employers. They don’t have the same bargaining position as U.S. workers, and are easily taken advantage of.

Sadly, the Bush administration feels the need to further degrade the laws protecting these workers… just as it liberates the American people from it’s claws. The Department of Labor plans on reducing the farmer’s obligation to actively seek out U.S. workers before applying forguestworkers, changing the program wage formula to reduce worker’s earnings, and eradicating government guardianship of the program.

“Eliminating labor law enforcement in an industry known for violating the minimum wage is irresponsible and completely unacceptable,” - Bruce Goldstein, Executive Director of Farmworker Justice.

It seems the Bush administration is more interested in destroying workers’ rights than creating jobs for American workers. Farm work is dangerous and poorly paid as it is, and it just got a lot worse. Congress can undo the damage wrought by the Bush administration. Write to your congressperson and tell them to stop these changes from taking effect.

You can visit the United Farmworkers or Farmworker Justice websites for more information on H-2A.

The hand-drawn poster they had propped up next to then caused more than a stir among many students. The poster listed genders and ethnicities on a scale with the suggested price for each ethnicity to buy a cookie or brownie. The scale read as follows: White and Asian Males $1, White and Asian Females, $.75, and at the bottom of the list were Black, Hispanic or Native American females, $.25.

I was at the student center that day and I saw a lot of students standing around the table yelling at the Conservative Alliance members; once I saw the poster I knew exactly why. I couldn’t believe that a group could be so brazen, but I soon learned this was only the tip of the iceberg.

Later in 2007, the Conservative Alliance invited bigot David Horowitz to speak at DePaul for a forum on free speech. This coincided with the publishing of Horowitz’s book The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America which listed 2 DePaul professors, a Black Muslim, Dr. Aminah B. McCloud and a Jewish Professor, Norman Finkelstein. The forum on free speech was set up by the Conservative Alliance to bash Finkstein and McCloud who they saw as “radical.” I have taken classes with both professors and I would consider them to be some of the least radical professors I have ever had. The Conservative Alliance also brought back disgraced former student Thomas Klocek who was thrown out of DePaul for verbally abusing DePaul’s Muslim organization United Muslims Moving Ahead during a demonstration. He used abusive language towards the Muslim group and also continually referred to Palestinians as “those people.”

The Conservative Alliance’s student leader, Nicholas G. Hahn III, introduced Horowitz and Klocek and later opened the floor for questions. Hahn took it upon himself to stop people when he thought they had said too much and even shouted at some audience members, including DePaul University professors if they said something he didn’t like.

In the academic year 2007-2008, the Alliance continued their not so subtle attacks on immigrants, homosexuals, and Muslims with “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week”, “Conservative Coming Out Day” and 2 new guest speakers, Chris Simcox and Phyllis Schlafly. During Conservative Coming Out Day, they mocked the LGBT community by using gay pride slogans to promote conservatism. The Conservative Alliance used slogans such as “acceptance is the only way” and “Be Out Be Loud Be Proud” to promote being conservative. This blatant homophobia did not go over well with many DePaul students.

In Early 2008 the Conservative Alliance invited Phyllis Schlafly to speak at the university. Schlafly was the most prominent opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment during the 1970s and in recent years has staged a vendetta against “activist” judges and feminists. The guest speaker that caused the most controversy and all but confirmed the Conservative Alliance’s anti-immigrant stance was their invitation to anti-immigrant minuteman president Chris Simcox to speak at DePaul. Simcox’s arrival sparked protests around DePaul and put the Conservative Alliance back in the limelight once more.

The Conservative Alliance likes to tell people that it “seeks to engage the University community in a true marketplace of ideas where vigorous intellectual discussions are paramount” and “the Conservative Alliance is a nonpartisan organization that welcomes and promotes all flavors of conservatism.” The group seems harmless on paper but it needs to be exposed for what it really is, the recruiters of a new generation of anti-immigrant and anti-gay activists. The group at this time is relatively small but has had a big impact on the University as a whole. We must all be wary of groups like the Conservative Alliance which have the potential to be very dangerous.

Last night I was busy fuming over some personal betrayals when I received a call from a colleague who told me that Jose O. Sucuzhanay, the Ecuadoran immigrant who, along with his brother, was severely beaten in Brooklyn on Sunday, had now been declared brain dead. Apparently, their attackers shouted anti-Latino and anti-gay epithets (making assumptions because they were walking with arms around each other) before assaulting them. I further learned that, according to reports, the perpetrators of this foolishness were believed to be African American.

And that’s when a different sense of betrayal overcame me—a betrayal by some of my fellow US African Americans who have allowed themselves to show hate toward immigrants. This type of malice insults the entirety of the Civil Rights Movement in which so many of our people and others worked for the rights of human beings.

Obviously, such wanton violence is tragic no matter the race or ethnicity of the perpetrator or victim. That anyone could snap into such unprovoked brutality is frightening. However, for blacks to demonstrate such cruelty against a group that we should be allying with in the struggle for justice is a particularly sad and telling warning that we, as people of color in this country, are being played against each other—and that native-born people are being played against immigrants.

Xenophobic groups such as FAIR, Numbers USA, the Minutemen, the Community Watchdog Project, and others are fueling anti-immigrant hate in our society, helping it become supercharged for this type of idiotic violence. The beating of Sucuzhanay, the killings of Marcello Lucero and Luis Ramirez, and other such incidents show that sparks are flying; if we don’t counter nativist anti-immigrant propaganda, this type of violence will become even more routine than it is now. Additionally, African Americans and other people of color must be particularly wary of nativist arguments that try to seduce us into blaming immigrants for challenges that we have already faced regardless of the immigration of recent years. Our history as oppressed peoples in this country should belie any claims of legitimacy in our showing malevolence toward current immigrants.

A part of the Sucuzhanay tragedy is the homophobia that is still all too rampant in our society, inciting people to everything from heterosexist policy to anti-gay violent crime such as that in Brooklyn on Sunday. This intersection of prejudice and homophobia is a dangerous mix—so much so that the NGO Forum of 2001’s groundbreaking World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance particularly noted the “high rates of physical, sexual and psychological violence in the public domain and in private life as well as hate crimes against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered persons, particularly in cases aggravated by other forms of discrimination.” (WCAR NGO Forum Declaration, #181) Eric Ward further comments that African Americans and the LGBT community must work together against this intersectional discrimination.

African Americans—and all people—should know better than what was demonstrated on that tragic Sunday morning in Brooklyn. If we are to build a truly inclusive, peaceful community, we must counter the anti-immigrant and homophobic hate that is promoted in our society, before it manifests itself into more senseless killings.

Jane Addams was only 29 when she opened the Hull House Settlement in 1889 on Chicago’s tough west side with two friends, Miss Ellen Gates Starr and Miss Mary Keyser. All three were so naive they didn’t even lock the door the day they moved in. But they quickly learned the challenges facing their immigrant neighbors.

Addams opposed laws that would restrict immigration and push Americanization programs that were designed to delete the cultures of new immigrants. Instead Hull House welcomed folk dancers, singers, weavers, artists, book clubs, and political oratory from all political stripes. They hosted dozens of different ethnic clubs for adults and children, most for only one nationality, but a few mixed such as the Italians and Greeks, the Italians and Jews, and the Mexicans and Greeks.

Knowing new immigrants inspired Jane Addams to become an aggressive advocate for their work. In 1882, Hilda Satt Polacheck came from Poland to find factory work. In her memoir, Polacheck reports: “The American people still do not quite realize that it was Jane Addams who woke the conscience of America to the debt that it owed to the great masses of people who were pouring into America. It was Jane Addams who pointed out that these immigrants were making the clothing that Americans wore. They knitted the mittens and sweaters to keep American children warm. ..There was almost no phase of American life in which these immigrants did not serve.” Replace “making the clothing” with “preparing the food that Americans eat” and the same statement would hold in 2008.

We are still struggling with the same human rights issues facing Jane Addams and her neighbors in 1889, issues like wage theft, access to medical care, and a pathway to citizenship. Like Jane Addams, can we recognize that immigrants, the work that they do, and the cultures they bring, make our lives fuller and richer? As she wrote,

“…the things that make men alike are finer and better than the things that keep them apart, and that these basic likenesses, if they are properly accentuated, easily transcend the less essential differences of race, language, creed, and tradition.”

-Jane Addams: Twenty Years at Hull House (1910.)

See more about Jane Addams at http://www.uic.edu/jaddams/hull/urbanexp/. Read about Hilda Satt Polacheck in I Came A Stranger: The Story of a Hull-House Girl.

Jane Addams was the first American woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize on Dec. 10, 1931. Work for peace tomorrow and every day.

Photo courtesy of Special Collections, University of Illinois at Chicago library.

Growing up as one of a few Latino immigrants in my Midwestern town was less challenging than one might think. Unlike a community of Latinos living in a historically all-white town, I was so outnumbered I don’t think I was ever a threat to the monoculture surrounding me.  Plus my adoptive parents are white - lending me more acceptance.

After arriving to the U.S. at age 12 I adapted well to “American” life, however I remember struggling with the English language and knew that my peers mocked me for it. I did a great job of hiding how the ridicule really affected me and as I got older I tried hard to understand that I was the first foreigner many in the town had ever met. So even despite my advantages I was still discriminated against. The town was simply not prepared to cope with the issue of race, and many fell back on institutional racism as a result.

One experience stands out as an example of how challenging routine tasks can be for an immigrant of color. When I was in high school I took driver’s ed just like everyone else, and passed with flying colors. I was told by my instructor that all I had to do was provide proof that I passed the course and my school ID to the DMV and I would get my license. When I went to the DMV I waited in line excitedly and gave the required document to the woman behind the counter. She looked at me and said, “You need another proof of ID.”  I told her that I didn’t have another one, and she asked if I had a yearbook. I rode my bike two miles home to get my yearbook and went back to the DMV. I showed the same woman my picture in the yearbook; she went to talk to someone else, and then returned. “I’m sorry, but I can’t give you a license,” she said.

I went home in tears. I called my mom at work and she told me my naturalization papers had a photo on them and I should go back with that. I went a third time full of hope. Even this proof of citizenship was not enough. The woman behind the counter could not overcome her prejudices and treat me fairly. I went home for the last time that day feeling crushed and blaming myself. It remains one of the saddest days of my life.

I look around today at the immigrants who receive the same kind of treatment and it is apparent how very badly our immigration system must be reformed. The powerlessness that comes with being denied opportunities and fairness has long-term ramifications for immigrants and the country. Forcing our undocumented and disadvantaged community members to live in the shadows is dangerous for our communities and our future.

The real truth, devoid of bigotry, according to Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, is that new voters for Obama overwhelmingly voted to defeat the measure. New black voters were stronger supporters of gay rights than the “more experienced voters” that the mainstream LGBT leaders were focusing on for support.

By ignoring the pleas of black gay and lesbian leadership to fight for the black vote, the largely white LGBT leadership inadvertently sent a message showing who they needed and who they did not.

By overlooking the emerging and changing demographics of California, LGBT leadership placed its bet on a mythological white society that it chose to emulate rather than the multiracial America that actually exists. On the other hand, the opposition made up of Christian nationalists, The Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), and several opportunistic black leaders organized homophobia in the black community uncontested.

Rather than engaging blacks and Latinos, resources were focused in an attempt to convince an ever shrinking pool of “traditional” voters (read white) of the rightness of its cause. It is possible that if new black voters had been educated and mobilized that it might have been the very numbers needed to advance full citizenship for all. Regardless of “what could” or “what should” have happened there is still much that can be done by remembering.

Nearly twenty-five years ago I returned from a night on the town to find a message from my mother on my answering machine. She left a cryptic message telling me it was an emergency and to give her call when I got in. It was nearly 1:30 a.m. in the morning when I returned the call and she asked if I could come over. Off I sped across town on my scooter in the dead of the night worried that something traumatic had taken place in my family.

When I arrived my mother informed me that she had some terrible news. My sister had been there earlier in the evening and told my mom that she was a lesbian. I stood in the middle of the silent living room and according to my mom “made a profound statement” that left her speechless. I said, “she still my sister right?” With that I hugged my mom, got back on my scooter and headed home to bed.

Who my sister loved simply didn’t and doesn’t matter. She is MY sister and we have more in common than will ever separate us. Commonality, not blame, is the lesson that needs to be remembered by both communities in the coming months and years.

Our bonds are stronger than we think. Both communities suffer from job discrimination, hate crimes and housing discrimination. Regardless if they are gay or black, apathy and ignorance surrounding HIV-AIDS still sends too many of our friends and families before their time.

It is ironic that forty years after securing the right to vote some black people used the vote to deny the citizenship rights of others. It is also demoralizing that the LGBT leadership in California never once attempted to remind the black community that the person who laid the groundwork to secure those voting rights, Baird Rustin, was both black and gay–a possible bridge between both communities.

Regardless of the mistakes, ignorance, and miscalculations, one undeniable fact remains—the black and gay communities should either allow California’s Proposition 8 to serve as a lesson or simply concede the very idea of America to white nationalism.

If both communities seek an America where rights of citizenship are not based on the tyranny of the majority, it is time to start walking forward –together.

“First, let’s get one thing out on the open, documented or not Hispanic immigrants came to America in search of a better future for them and their families that for whatever reasons their native country could not offer. For the most part, they bet all their chips on the United States believing it is The Land of Opportunity. So, the U.S. is going through a rough patch right now… Seriously, this is NOT a big deal if you have lived in Latin America for a good part of your life. Most Latinos will have a “been there, done that” attitude towards it, tighten up their belts, and face the crisis diving head first into it in comparison to the average American who’s been living in abundance (relatively, at least) for their entire life and now are facing vast uncertainty.”

He’s right, many Latino immigrants have “been there, done that”. Can they help the rest of us cope? Juan helpfully lays out the reasons Latino Immigrants are going to have a less stressful response to the recession. He says immigrants and Latinos in general do four things that will help them weather the storm: use less credit, don’t keep their money in the bank, rent instead of own, and if they lose their jobs they cross pay scales and industries to find new ones.

These are obviously not best practices in a fair economy. But, ironically, with banks closing and unemployment rising, practices born out of disadvantage are becoming sound coping mechanisms.

Tornoe at the end of his post wisely says:

“Concluding, I am in NO way trying to imply that Hispanic Immigrants are immune to an economic recession. They are feeling and will certainly feel the squeeze in the months to come, just the same as they’ve felt it in the past while living in their home countries. It won’t be a novelty in their lives. They’ve survived through various crises and have successfully emerged from them. To a certain extent they know what to expect, know how to react, and know that they won’t last forever.”

Once again he makes a valid point, nobody is immune, especially not a group facing a myriad of other obstacles around discrimination and anti-immigrant sentiment. But we are all in this together, whether we like it or not. We should look to Latino/a immigrants for guidance and also respect that they know more about hard-work and sacrifice. They can show us the light at the end of the tunnel.

That summer passed in a whirl of places to go, people to meet, food to be introduced to and events to attend. I have to admit that specifics of those first months in Chicago are blurred since they came on the heels of my escape from a war zone where a life without electricity, water and food had become normal. I was not just adjusting to a life in a different culture, but I was re-adjusting to a life where electricity and water are constantly at our disposal and food is not given in selected and small rations.

This was a life I used to know, but had to get myself acquainted with again. Most of my memories of those first months come in snap shots devoid of clearly defined emotions. That is, until my first Thanksgiving.

That Thursday we were to spend with my husband’s family in suburban Chicago. I did not truly understand what the Thanksgiving dinner entailed, “I guess it’s like a Christmas dinner,” I thought to myself. Oh, I knew the history of Thanksgiving and I’ve seen it re-enacted in movies but I did not truly know what to expect. So, I prepared my Bosnian desert, the only one I knew how to make without making a disaster zone in my kitchen, and I dressed up and went to partake in what I saw as a cultural exercise. This was going to be fun and I have to admit I was excited.

Once we arrived I was directed into the kitchen where I was to leave my contribution to this great dinner that the entire family had been planning for a week. As I entered the room, I stopped in my tracks. I had not seen that large of an amount of food in several years. It reminded me of an impromptu feast at the beginning of the war where we, along with our neighbors had to cook all the food left in our freezers and refrigerators since our electricity was cut off. A war feast, that is prepared for the anticipated destruction of our city.

The family’s chatter during that first Thanksgiving dinner was comforting, but I could not avoid missing my mom, my brother and my sister whom I left behind. Throughout the dinner I wondered if they were being shelled or if they were cold and hungry. In fact, as I looked at the mountain of food on my husband’s plate I could not stop myself from guessing how many weekly meals that would translate into, and how long one could survive on the leftovers.

That evening I did not eat much, but I enjoyed sharing time and stories with those around me and giving thanks for the opportunity to create new friendships and family connections, a solid foundation for my new life.

This expansion of friendships and incorporation of new people into our family continues today, with our annual hosting of dinners for all those friends and neighbors who are alone. This is our way of saying thanks for the possibility of a safe environment in which we are free to create and foster new relationships and define humanity as a giving and nurturing concept.

On Thursday I received a call from my mom in Bosnia, wishing us a happy thanksgiving. She hoped that we would all be able to spend Thanksgiving together. And that is the dilemma for so many immigrants separated from families, scattered around the world in warzones, impoverished places or under oppression. We live in two worlds, the life we’ve found here and the world we wish to change for the better.

The German Marshall Fund recently asked Americans and Europeans a variety of questions about their feelings on immigration:

Should we deport undocumented immigrants or should we let them stay? Should undocumented immigrants receive social services or not? Do immigrants, as a whole, benefit our societies or not? Should we work with the countries people are migrating from, or should we try to solve the immigration problems on our own?

The results? They were mixed. It seems Europeans are just as torn as Americans. But Americans also seem a little more welcoming than Europeans.

While the majority of Americans prefer to legalize all of the undocumented immigrants already living in the country, the majority of Europeans don’t. (Only 38% favor legalization.) On the other hand, over half of Americans believe they can’t compete with immigrants for jobs, a sentiment that repeatedly fuels hostility towards immigrants.

At the same time Americans hold contradictory views towards immigrants. While Americans prefer to blame immigrants for employers hiring undocumented immigrants instead of themselves – a negative sentiment towards immigrants, Americans hold an extremely positive attitude towards immigrants’ work ethic. In fact, 86% of Americans believe that immigrants are hardworking and that immigrant communities help create jobs by investing and opening new businesses. On the other end of the stick, Americans also think immigrants increase crime.

European’s sentiment towards immigrants and job opportunities was not available.

Americans and Europeans also share some similar – yet contradictory - views about immigration. A majority believe immigrants “should have full access to social benefits, including health care.” However, one-quarter of Americans and the British “strongly oppose” immigrants receiving social benefits.

It seems that we can find a better way to live. It seems we can find a better way to share.

This tradition is, after all, what attracted me to Brooklyn in my restless early 20s. As a teenager I read Betty Smith’s coming-of-age novel A Tree Grows in Brooklyn and secretly believed myself to be a Brooklynite from a working-class immigrant neighborhood, despite living all my life in the cushy comforts of a Chicago suburb.

Years after Smith’s book filled my imagination with the sites and smells of old Brooklyn, I finally got there. I moved to the industrial Bushwick neighborhood and I loved it. But most days I found myself exploring the many other neighborhoods that Brooklyn had to offer - Flatbush, Red Hook, Boro Park, Greenpoint, Brighton Beach, Bedford Stuyvesant and so on. Although many of these neighborhoods had experienced serious gentrification in recent decades, the strains of old immigrant traditions and the waves of new were prevalent enough to fill up all the cultural voids of a bland Midwestern girl.

When Pope John Paul died I remember wandering towards the Greenpoint neighborhood where the largest Polish-American population outside of Chicago resides. It felt like home to walk among the makeshift memorials and subdued gatherings of mourners.

Shopping on Fulton Street in Bedford Stuy was perhaps my most memorable time in Brooklyn. It was loud and noisy and annoying. But I heard 15 languages every minute and stumbled upon strange little shops with treasures from foreign places. It was never boring and it was never the same.

Ultimately, Brooklyn brought me back to Chicago by reminding me of the vibrant havens I’d left behind. My Puerto Rican neighbors in Logan Square, the best Swedish bakery in Andersonville, the Indian restaurants on Devon Ave, and little Mexico in Pilsen.

The rich inspiration of immigrant cultures is what had drawn me to another place. And immigrants are what brought me home.

When well-known philanthropists give money to national anti-immigrant groups it gives a new twist to the axiom “throwing good money after bad.” The result is increased discrimination and violence against immigrants and their families.

Controversial anti-immigrant leader John Tanton used to brag that from 1983 until 1986 famed financial leader and philanthropist Warren Buffet made yearly gifts of $90,000 to his organization, U.S. Inc. While Buffet is thought of as a man who donates selflessly to the public good he is also remembered as supporting bigotry.

Buffet, having attended several of John Tanton’s events, raises the question of if he was in the room when Tanton mused that “As Whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion? … Perhaps this is the first instance in which those with their pants up are going to get caught by those with their pants down?” Tanton used Buffet’s support to grow the modern day anti-immigrant movement which has torn communities and working families apart.

Recent reports have surfaced that large donations to Tanton’s network are not a thing of the past. Philanthropists with deep financial pockets are supporting some of the nation’s most controversial anti-immigrant organizations—some with ties to political extremists including white nationalists.

A blogpost gaining momentum over at ValleyWag is reporting that Facebook Board of Director, Peter Thiel, may have donated up to $1 million dollars to NumbersUSA. In 1997, NumbersUSA’s executive director Roy Beck spoke at the national conference of the white nationalist Council of Conservative Citizens, the direct descendant of the white citizen’s councils of the 1960s. NumbersUSA was founded under the financial and administrative umbrella of John Tanton’s Michigan-based U.S. Inc.

The Center for New Community is now reporting that, in a September 2008 fundraising letter, FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) announced that “leading national philanthropist” Robert W. Wilson offered to match the donations of FAIR members. According to The Chronicle, Wilson, a retired hedge-fund manager, establishes “long relationships with organizations before bestowing a large gift.” Wilson is a Trustee of the Environmental Defense Fund.

These relationships, built by Wilson and Thiel, not only tarnished their respective images as national civic leaders but politically aligned them with individuals who espouse bigotry, bizarre notions of “race science,” and anti-Catholic bigotry.

In 2007, Wilson gave $22.5 million to the New York Roman Catholic Archdiocese. There is a big difference between the Catholic Church and FAIR. FAIR has been listed as a hate group by the civil rights organization the Southern Poverty Law Center, alongside the Ku Klux Klan and the American National Socialist Workers Party. FAIR staffer Rosanna Pulido once said of the Catholic Church, “What better way to fill your pews and fill your offering coffers than with inviting in and giving sanctuary to illegal aliens? . . . What is being passed off right now by the Catholic Church is not Catholicism. It has nothing to do with Christianity or the Bible.”

Money isn’t the root of all evil, bigotry is. And philanthropists like Thiel and Wilson have no business lending it their financial support.

In those early days Newsday tagged Suffolk County “ground zero” of a growing anti-immigrant movement. It was indeed. And now the harvest is in.

After years of working nationwide to counter racist and hate group activity, we know that unchecked, unleashed opposition to “the other” breeds hatred and—all too often—violence. But too many communities take the “it can’t happen here” road of response, readily dismissing the impact and effect of lethargy, language, and legislation that fans the flames of hatred. Think about it: for years Suffolk County children and youth have lived and learned in such a cauldron. Can they really be unaffected by it?

In spite of the County Executive’s disingenuous assertion that this murder was “a question of bad people doing horrific things,” his own hands are now stained. After riding the political wave of anti-immigrant activity and openly sidling up to Federation for American Immigration Reform and its front group of elected officials for “immigration reform,” the proverbial buck stops on his desk. He can run but not hide.

But the harvest also rests on the desks of Federation for American Immigration Reform, which is so adept at stoking the fires and fanning the flames of anti-immigrant activity across the country—and then feigning innocence. This is an organization of suits and ties and respectability in Washington, with front groups that play its ugly hand elsewhere, in places like Suffolk County. One of its former lobbyists heads up the so-called House Immigration Reform Caucus, which seeks to stifle and stop “illegal” immigration. Its ads run in national publications paint pictures of concern about the environment and energy. But its roots in organizations and funders steeped in racism belie its current incarnation.

The people, organizations, coalitions, and religious and civic leaders of Suffolk County that have worked so hard for so long to stem the hatred have been valiant, courageous, and steady in their efforts. I recall with fondness all the conversations I have had with them as they worked so hard to build community and justice with all the residents of the entire County, and as they sought to prevent violence. In light of the cloud of anti-immigrant sentiment and activity that has hung over the County for so long, they have been undaunted. Their commitment and work deserve support.

Mr. Lucero was loved by a family and friends. He worked hard and struggled to make a living. He deserved life, not violent death. Those who attacked and killed him are also loved. They deserve justice.

Much will be written and said of this tragedy that has enveloped families from Suffolk County to Ecuador. More important than the words are the actions that might come of it.

Anti-immigrant activity must be countered, curtailed, stopped. It is first cousin to America’s legacy of racism aimed at the Black community, which is also a target of its agenda. Its roots and its harvest are hate and death, cultivated on the grounds we all call home. Suffolk County is better than that. Make it home for everyone.