Breaking Through,by Francisco Jimenez

English 9 Honors

Table of ContentsAbout the Book: Breaking Through 4

The Grapes of Wrath, by Kathryn Bold 6

A Nation of Immigrants 10

The Anti-Immigration Movement 11

United States Immigration History 13

Lyrics: “I Want to Live in America” 19

The New Colossus: A “Mother of Exiles” 20

The Circuit, by Francisco Jimenez 22

Immigration-Related Comics 25

Should a path to U.S. citizenship for illegal immigrants be implemented, granting them amnesty & American citizenship after various requirements are fulfilled? by Joe Messerli

* YES 37* NO 40

Should America Maintain/Increase the Level of Legal Immigration? by Joe Messerli*YES 43*NO 46

Illegal Immigration Pros and Cons, by Asia-Pacific Economic Blog 48

Immigration Reform Pros and Cons, by Asia-Pacific Economic Blog 49

Immigration Issues: U.S.-Mexico Border Fence Pros and Cons (About.com) 51By Jennifer McFadyen

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers (2010) – FAIR 53

Meet The Child Workers Who Pick Your Food, by Tom Philpott 57

Surge of Migrant Children Hits U.S.-Mexico Border (About.com), by Dan Moffett 59

Parents of woman shot at San Francisco pier support strict immigration law proposal, 61by Janie Har

The People Who Pick Your Organic Strawberries Have Had It With Rat-Infested Camps, 63by Tom Philpott

Undocumented immigrant's arrest closes door on deferred action, by Daniel Gonzales 65

What It's Like To Sneak Across the Border To Harvest Food, by Tom Philpott 72

2

Arizona Minutemen Driven Largely By Sense of Insecurity, Victimization – Part I, 76by Gabriel Thompson

Would-Be Migrants See Vigilante Border Patrol as Temporary Nuisance – Part II, 81by Gabriel Thompson

ICE Report Offers Details on Immigrant Releases, Re-arrests, by Amy Taxin 85

FOR ALL CHILDREN: A family’s fight 60 years ago against a California School … 87By Tyche Hendricks

Breaking Down Our Bilingual Double Standard, by Karen Emslie 90

Growing Labor Movement Shakes Up Silicon Valley, by Beth Willon 92

Proclamation of the Delano Grape Workers for International Boycott Day, 1969, 94by Dolores Huerta

The pay gap between CEOs and workers is much worse than you realize, 96by Roberto Ferdman

Immigration and the Movies 98

3

About the Book: Breaking ThroughLike the Joad family in the Steinbeck classic, The Grapes of Wrath, the Francisco Jimenez’s came to California to escape poverty and find a better life. In a short story titled "Crossing la Frontera" (the border), told from a child's point of view, Jimenez describes his family's flight from their home in a small village north of Guadalajara across the border into the United States:

On both sides of the fence were armed guards in green uniforms. Papa called them la migra and explained that we had to cross the fence to the other side, without being seen by these men. If we succeeded, we would enter los Estados Unidos...We continued walking along the wire wall, until Papa spotted a small hole underneath the fence. Papa got on his knees and, with his hands, made the opening larger. We all crawled through it like snakes.

A few minutes later, we were picked up by a woman whom Papa had contacted in Mexicali. She had promised to pick us up in her car and drive us, for a fee, to a place where we would find work. As we traveled north through the night, I fell asleep for a long time on Mama's lap. I woke up at dawn and heard the woman say, we're entering the San Joaquin Valley. Here you'll find plenty of work. ‘This is the beginning of a new life,’ Mama said, taking a deep breath. ‘A good life,’ Papa answered.

As it turned out, many years would pass before anyone in the Jiménez family experienced that good life. Jiménez’s father, Francisco, his mother Joaquina, and his older brother Roberto, found work picking crops in the fields. So began the cycle of moving from camp to camp, following the harvest. The family, which eventually grew to nine children, lived in one-room shacks and tents. In the summer, they picked strawberries in Santa Maria. Then they traveled to Fresno to pick grapes in early September and on to Corcoran and Bakersfield to pick cotton in the winter. In February, they moved back to Santa Maria to thin lettuce and top carrots. Working from sunup to sundown, the entire family earned just $15 a day. Jiménez called this nomadic existence "the circuit" in a short story by that title that has been reproduced many times in textbooks and anthologies of American literature.

"It's a symbolic circuit," he says. "If you're a migrant worker, you're constantly living in poverty. It's very difficult to get out of it."

Yet Jiménez soon found relief from the hard life in the fields and a way to escape the circuit: school. "I came to realize that learning and knowledge were the only stable things in my life. Whatever I learned in school, that knowledge would stay with me no matter how many times we moved."

Because Jiménez could not start school until after the mid-November harvest and because he knew so little English, he struggled to keep up with his classmates. One teacher even labeled him mentally retarded. "I would start school and find myself behind, especially in English," he remembers. "School for the first nine years was very sporadic."

Still, Jiménez was luckier than his brother Roberto, who was old enough to pick cotton and therefore could not start school until February. In "The Circuit," Jiménez describes the pain of leaving his brother behind on his first day back at school:

I woke up early that morning and lay in bed, looking at the stars and savoring the thought of not going to work and starting sixth grade for the first time that year. Since I could not sleep, I decided to get up and join Papa and Roberto at breakfast. I sat at the table across from Roberto, but I kept my head down. I did not want to look up and face him. I knew he was sad. He was not going to school today. He was not going tomorrow, or next week, or next month.

4

Unlike many of his classmates, Jiménez looked forward to the days he spent in school. "I had many embarrassing moments; but in spite of those, I enjoyed the environment," he says. "School was a lot nicer than home. Many times, we lived in tents with dirt floors, no electricity or plumbing. In school we had electricity, plumbing, lighting. We even had toys."

Although the physical environment was pleasant, interactions with classmates often were not. "Kids would call me spic, or greaser, tamale wrapper. They made fun of my thick accent and whenever I made grammatical mistakes. That really hurt. I withdrew and became quiet," Jiménez says.

Fortunately, Jiménez sometimes encountered a friendly teacher who recognized his desire to learn. His sixth-grade teacher, Mr. Lema, helped him with his English during lunch. Discovering that Jiménez enjoyed music, the universal language, Lema offered to teach him to play the trumpet. But Jiménez never got his first lesson. When he went home to tell his mother and father the good news about his music lessons, he found the family's possessions neatly packed into cardboard boxes. They were moving again.

To compensate for his sporadic education, Jiménez began teaching himself. He would jot down words he was trying to memorize on a small note pad and carry it with him into the fields so he could study during his breaks. Whenever his family visited the local public dump to collect discarded clothes, wood for a floor, and other necessities, Jiménez would pick up books. Once he found a single volume of an encyclopedia. Not realizing it was part of a 20-volume set, he leafed through its pages, figuring that if he could learn to read the whole thing, he'd know just about everything there was to know.

Wherever he was, Jiménez always knew to run and hide from la migra (Immigration and Naturalization Service agents), especially when they made their sweeps through the fields and camps. Jiménez and his family lived in fear of being deported. His father had a visa, but the others did not; visas were too expensive. Jiménez remembers the INS officers interrogating people and sometimes beating them. When someone asked where he was born, he lied. When he was in junior high school, INS agents entered Jiménez's classroom and arrested him as an illegal immigrant. The family was deported to Mexico but returned after several weeks with visas obtained with the help of a Japanese sharecropper who sponsored them.

Jiménez's life changed forever when he was about to enter high school. Because his father suffered from permanent back pain--probably from too many hours bent over the crops--he could no longer work in the fields. It was up to Roberto to support the family. Roberto found a job as a janitor at a school in Santa Maria; Jiménez also worked for a janitorial company. Now the family did not have to follow the harvest. Now Jiménez could start school with the rest of the class and keep up with his studies.

"The work was indoors; and after I was done cleaning, I could study in an office," he says. "This was my chance."

With his newfound stability, Jiménez thrived. He became student-body president of his high school and earned a 3.7 GPA. A guidance counselor, disturbed that a gifted student was not going to college because the family could not afford to send him, managed to arrange for Jiménez to obtain scholarships and student loans so that he could enroll at Santa Clara University.

5

The Grapes of Wrathby Kathryn Bold

As a schoolboy, Francisco Jimenez '66 would gaze at a book filled with pictures of caterpillars and butterflies. He loved looking at the butterflies' colorful wings, and he wanted to learn more about those ethereal creatures. To do that, he would have to decipher the confusing code of letters printed on the pages, but Jimenez could not read or even speak English.

Years later, Jimenez recalled his childhood frustration in a short story:

"I knew information was in the words written underneath each picture in large black letters. I tried to figure them out by looking at the pictures. I did this so many times that I could close my eyes and see the words, but I could not understand what they meant."

Now a professor of modern languages at SCU, Jimenez grew up the son of illiterate farm workers who immigrated to the United States from Mexico when he was 4 years old. At 6, Jimenez began to work in the fields with his family. Throughout grade school, he struggled to learn English, his education a series of starts and stops because following the harvest meant frequent moves. Sometimes, he tried so hard to understand what his teacher was saying that he would go home with a headache. He even flunked first grade.

But once he broke their mysterious code, words helped free Jimenez from the hard life of a migrant farm worker. They opened the doors to institutions of higher learning, including SCU, where he received his bachelor's degree in Spanish, and Columbia University in New York City, where he received his master's and doctorate in the same field.

He returned to Santa Clara to teach in 1972, and a host of honors have followed. He holds the Sanfilippo University Chair in Modern Languages, was director of the Division of Arts and Humanities in the College of Arts and Sciences for nine years, and was associate vice president for academic affairs from 1990 to 1994. He was elected chair of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, vice chair of the California Council for the Humanities, and is a member of the Accreditinng Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities.

Ensconced in his office, Jimenez, 52, looks every inch the bookish professor: bespectacled, with graying hair and a quiet, reserved manner. But Jimenez has not forgotten the route he traveled to SCU. During winter quarter, he shared some of his experiences with student actors from the Theatre Department production of John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath." He accompanied the cast on a visit to a migrant farm workers' camp and spoke after the opening-night performance about the relevance of the play to the plight of migrants today.

"I read The Grapes of Wrath my sophomore year in high school. It was the first book I read that I could relate to, coming from a family of migrant workers," Jimenez says. "For the first time, I realized the power of the written word, that an artist can write creatively and make a difference in people's lives."

Like the Joad family in the Steinbeck classic, the Jimenezes came to California to escape poverty and find a better life. In a short story titled "Crossing la Frontera" (the border), told from a child's point of view, Jimenez describes his family's flight from their home in a small village north of Guadalajara across the border into the United States:

"On both sides of the fence were armed guards in green uniforms. Papa called them la migra and explained that we had to cross the fence to the other side, without being seen by these men. If we succeeded, we would enter los Estados Unidos....We continued walking along the wire wall, until Papa spotted a smalll

6

hole underneath the fence. Papa got on his knees and, with his hands, made the opening larger. We all crawled through it like snakes."

"A few minutes later, we were picked up by a woman whom Papa had contacted in Mexicali. She had promised to pick us up in her car and drive us, for a fee, to a place where we would find work. As we traveled north through the nignt, I fell asleep for a long time on Mama's lap. I woke up at dawn and heard the woman say, "We're entering the San Joaquin Valley. Here you'll find plenty of work.' 'This is the beginning of a new life,' Mama said, taking a deep breath. 'A good life,' Papa answered.As it turned out, many years would pass before anyone in the Jimenez family experienced that good life. Jimenez's father, Francisco, his mother Joaquina, and his older brother Roberto, found work picking crops in the fields. So began the cycle of moving from camp to camp, following the harvest.

The family, which eventually grew to nine children, lived in one-room shacks and tents. In the summer, they picked strawberries in Santa Maria. Then they traveled to Fresno to pick grapes in early September and on to Corcoran and Bakersfield to pick cotton in the winter. In February, they moved back to Santa Maria to thin lettuce and top carrots.

Working from sunup to sundown, the entire family earned just $15 a day. Jimenez called this nomadic existence "the circuit" in a short story by that title that has been reproduced many times in textbooks and anthologies of American literature.

"It's a symbolic circuit," he says. "If you're a migrant worker, you're constantly living in poverty. It's very difficcult to get out of it."

Yet Jimenez soon found relief from the hard life in the fields and a way to escape the circuit: school. "I came to realize that learning and knowledge were the only stable things in my life. Whatever I learned in school, that knowledge would stay with me no matter how many times we moved."

Because Jimenez could not start school until after the mid-November harvest and because he knew so little English, he struggled to keep up with his classmates. One teacher even labeled him mentally retarded.

"I would start school and find myself behind, especially in English," he remembers. "School for the first nine years was very sporadic."

Still, Jimenez was luckier than his brother Roberto, who was old enough to pick cotton and therefore could not start school until February. In "The Circuit," Jimenez describes the pain of leaving his brother behind on his first day back at school:

"I woke up early that morning and lay in bed, looking at the stars and savoring the thought of not going to work and starting sixth grade for the first time that year. Since I could not sleep, I decided to get up and join Papa and Roberto at breakfast. I sat at the table across from Roberto, but I kept my head down. I did not want to look up and face him. I knew he was sad. He was not going to school today. He was not going tomorrow, or next week, or next month."

Unlike many of his classmates, Jimenez looked forward to the days he spent in school. "I had many embarrassing moments; but in spite of those, I enjoyed the environment," he says. "School was a lot nicer than home. Many times, we lived in tents with dirt floors, no electricity or plumbing. In school we had electricity, plumbing, lighting. We even had toys."

Although the physical environment was pleasant, interactions with classmates often were not. "Kids would call me spic, or greaser, tamale wrapper. They made fun of my thick accent and whenever I made grammatical mistakes. That really hurt. I withdrew and became quiet," Jimenez says.

Fortunately, Jimenez sometimes encountered a friendly teacher who recognized his desire to learn. His sixth-grade teacher, Mr. Lema, helped him with his English during lunch. Discovering that Jimenez enjoyed music, the universal language, Lema offered to teach him to play the trumpet.

7

But Jimenez never got his first lesson. When he went home to tell his mother and father the good news about his music lessons, he found the family's possessions neatly packed into cardboard boxes. They were moving again.

To compensate for his sporadic education, Jimenez began teaching himself. He would jot down words he was trying to memorize on a small note pad and carry it with him into the fields so he could study during his breaks.

Whenever his family visited the local public dump to collect discarded clothes, wood for a floor, and other necessities, Jimenez would pick up books. Once he found a single volume of an encyclopedia. Not realizing it was part of a 20-volume set, he leafed through its pages, figuring that if he could learn to read the whole thing, he'd know just about everything there was to know.

Wherever he was, Jimenez always knew to run and hide from la migra (Immigration and Naturalization Service agents), especially when they made their sweeps through the fields and camps.

Jimenez and his family lived in fear of being deported. His father had a visa, but the others did not; visas were too expensive. Jimenez remembers the INS officers interrogating people and sometimes beating them. When someone asked where he was born, he lied.

When he was in junior high school, INS agents entered Jimenez's classroom and arrested him as an illegal immigrant. The family was deported to Mexico but returned after several weeks with visas obtained with the help of a Japanese sharecropper who sponsored them.

Jimenez's life changed forever when he was about to enter high school. Because his father suffered from permanent back pain--probably from too many hours bent over the crops--he could no longer work in the fields. It was up to Roberto to support the family.

Roberto found a job as a janitor at a school in Santa Maria; Jimenez also worked for a janitorial company. Now the family did not have to follow the harvest. Now Jimenez could start school with the rest of the class and keep up with his studies.

"The work was indoors; and after I was done cleaning, I could study in an office," he says. "This was my chance."

With his newfound stability, Jimenez thrived. He became student-body president of his high school and earned a 3.7 GPA. A guidance counselor, disturbed that a gifted student was not going to college because the family could not afford to send him, managed to arrange for Jimenez to obtain scholarships and student loans so that he could enroll at SCU. During his junior year in college, he became a U.S. citizen.

Jimenez majored in Spanish because he loved his native language and his culture. Teaching Spanish seemed the obvious course. "I saw the positive impact teachers had on me, and I wanted to do the same for others," he says.

"One of the things we learn in school is who we are. Yet in grammar school and high school I seldom saw anything in the curriculum to which I could relate."

To help fill that void, Jimenez has published and edited several books on Mexican and Mexican American literature and has written his own collection of stories based on his childhood. Tentatively titled "Harvest of Hope: Life of a Migrant Child," the manuscript has just been accepted for publication by the University of New Mexico Press. His short story "The Butterfly"--in which Jimenez draws a parallel between the experience of a boy, isolated from his classmates because he does not speak English, and the emergence of a monarch butterfly from its cocoon--will soon be published as a children's picture book by Houghton Mifflin Co.

8

Jimenez lives with his family in Santa Clara. His wife, Laura, graduated from SCU in 1967 and works as the placement coordinator for the university's Eastside Project, an academic support program that allows students to integrate community-based learning with classroom curriculum. The couple has three sons: Francisco '93, who is working on his master's degree in fine arts at san Francisco State University; Miguel '95 who works for a bank; and Tomas, an SCU sophomore.

At SCU, Jimenez teaches courses in language and Latin American literature and culture.

Despite his accomplishments, Jimenez remains troubled by the current political climate and anti-immigration backlash, particularly efforts to deny education to the children of undocumented immigrants.

"It bothers me" he says, "because many members of our society are critical of people who, in a way, could be very inspirational to us. It takes a tremendous amount of courage to cross the border without knowing the language or culture, in order to improve their lives. If that isn't the American spirit, I don't know what is."

Published in Santa Clara Magazine, vol. 38, no. 2 (spring 1996).

9

A Nation of ImmigrantsIn the beginning … the Native Americans (many tribes and languages!)

First Immigrants Came in the 1600s from England Came to escape autocratic governments, find religious freedom, and develop

a more prosperous and satisfying life Some were petty criminals, beggars, and orphans sent by the British

government to get rid of them; others were indentured servants who had to “work off” their passage over a number of years

Throughout the 1600s and 1700s … Most immigrants came from British Isles – England, Wales, Scotland, and

Ireland Others included the Dutch, Germans, and French Huguenots Many were “involuntary” immigrants (ie. slaves) kidnapped from Africa and

the Caribbean Islands

First Wave of Immigration (1820-1880) Majority from England and Scotland, mostly Protestant Also from Ireland and Germany, many Catholics

Second Wave of Immigration (1880-1920) Eastern and Southern Europeans Jews, Catholics, and Greek Orthodox Primarily from Russia, Poland, Greece, and Italy

Third Wave of Immigration (1970-Present) Many from Asia, Mexico, and Central and South America Wide variety of ethnicities and religious backgrounds Both menial laborers and high tech workers

Why has America been more accepting of immigrants than other nations? A large amount of land to be cultivated Technological Revolution led to the rise of the Industrial City Factories, mills, and transportation industry required workers Immigrant laborers would work cheap, often in harsh conditions

10

The Anti-Immigration MovementI. Early Anti-Immigration Efforts

Even before the American Revolution, people of English descent did not like seeing Scotch-Irish and German arriving

In 1798, a law passed making it harder for immigrants to become citizens

Great Wave of Immigration from 1820-1880 brought many from Ireland and Germany, leading to particularly strong feelings against Catholics, Irish, and Germans

The American party, or “Know Nothings,” formed in mid 1800’s to try to restrict immigration and to try to keep Catholics and foreigners out of public office

Anti-immigrant feelings died down during Civil War, when many immigrants died (esp. fighting for the Union Army)

Forced “immigration” of Blacks from Africa also ended in the early 1800’s as laws were passed against the importation of slaves from Africa; however, the slave trade continued with slaves born in America

II. Later Anti-Immigration Efforts

The second great wave of immigration began in 1880, bringing more immigrants from China, Japan, and southern and eastern Europe These groups were seen as being inferior Accused of being hot headed radicals, socialists, and anarchists Italians in particular were persecuted

“By 1890 New York City has twice as many Irish as Dublin, as many Germans as Hamburg, half as many Italians as Naples. In 1910 about three-fourths of the populations of Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, and Boston were foreign born and their children. In 1916, 72 percent of the people in San Francisco spoke a foreign language.”

Began to require literacy tests and to pass laws restricting various groups from entry, including:

Criminals Mentally/physically disabled Contract laborers

11

Those with infectious diseases Chinese (Exclusion Act of 1892) Japanese

Immigration Act of 1924 established immigration quotas for all countries, with a formula favoring northwestern Europe

Immigrants also experienced other difficulties and restrictions: Buying houses in certain communities Marrying into other ethnic group Getting jobs in prestigious law firms, banks, or corporations Gaining membership in exclusive clubs

In response, many immigrants: Established their own neighborhoods/communities Started their own businesses (ie. Bank of America) Found employment in the entertainment business or professional sports Attended “Americanization” classes Lived in settlement houses designed to teach immigrants American ways

The Great Depression saw an exodus of people from this country, with more people leaving than arriving, so immigration ceased to be a big issue for a while.

After WWII, many Jews wanted to immigrate to America; others wanted to keep them out and argued for a Jewish homeland in Israel.

In 1965, more open immigration policies were passed, but immigration continues to be an issue, and people continue to debate the “melting pot” vs. “mixing bowl” approach to assimilation.

As seen from early waves of immigration, by the third generation, the effects of Americanization are evident as “old country” ways are forgotten except for some traditions, ethnic foods, holidays, and folk ways.

“Among the Jews, in 1910 only 1 percent married outsiders; by 1970 it was almost a third and today it is over half. At the end of the twentieth century most married Asians under the ago of thirty-five had non-Asian spouses.”

Question to Consider:

How much diversity can exist within a given society?

12

United States Immigration History1790 Alien Naturalization Act

The 1790 Alien Naturalization Act, enacted by Congress on Mar. 26, 1790, dictated the following:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen therof, on application to any common law court of record, in any of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking oath of affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States... And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizen of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits..., shall be considered as natural born citizens..."

1882 Chinese Exclusion Act

The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, enacted by Congress on May 6, 1882, dictated the following:"Whereas in the opinion of the Government of the United States the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good order of certain localities within the territory thereof:

Therefore, Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and until the expiration of ten years next after the passage of this act, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States be, and the same is hereby, suspended; and during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come, or having so come after the expiration of said ninety days to remain within the United States...

That the master of any vessel who shall knowingly bring within the United States on such vessel, and land or permit to be landed, any Chinese laborer, from any foreign port or place, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars for each and every such Chinese laborer so brought, and maybe also imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year."

1924 Johnson-Reed Immigration Act

The 1924 Johnson-Reed Immigration Act, enacted by Congress on May 26, 1924, dictated the following:"Immigration visas to quota immigrants shall be issued in each fiscal year as follows:

(1) Fifty per centum of the quotas of each nationality for such year shall be made available... to the following classes of immigrants, without priority of preference as between such classes: (A) Quota immigrants who are the fathers or mothers of citizens of the United States . . . or who are the husbands of citizens of the United States by marriages occurring on or after May 31, 1928 of citizens who are citizens of the United States who are twenty-one years of age or over; and (B) in the case of any nationality the quota of which is three hundred or more, quota immigrants who are skilled in agriculture, and the wives, and the dependent children under the age of eighteen years, of such immigrants skilled in agriculture, if accompanying or following to join them.

(2) The remainder of the quota of each nationality for such year... shall be made available in such year for the issuance of immigration visas to quota immigrants of such nationality who are the unmarried children

13

under twenty-one years of age, or the wives, of alien residents of the United States who were lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence..."

The Lower East Side Tenement Museum, a National Historic Site property of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, in a section entitled "Tenement Encyclopedia - Chapter Nine - Immigration," retrieved on Apr. 24, 2007 from its website, offered the following:

"Following the First World War and the Red Scare of 1919-20, the restrictionists achieved a long-lasting victory. In 1921, the Quota Act, passed by Congress, placed ceilings on the number of immigrants admitted from each country outside of the Western Hemisphere. Then the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 limited the total European immigration to 150,000 per year, and reduced each nationality's allowance to 2 percent of its U.S. population in 1890. Because significantly fewer Southern and Eastern Europeans were recorded in the 1890 census than in 1920, this effectively reduced immigration from these regions while making more room than was necessary for countries like Great Britain. In 1929, when the quota system was finalized, the ratio of immigrants admittable from northern and western Europe versus southern and eastern Europe was roughly five to one.

In 1924, America had effectively shut its 'Golden Door.' Fewer than 350,000 Europeans immigrated to America during the 1930s, and a high percentage of these were political refugees, particularly from Nazi Germany and, at the end of the decade, occupied Europe. In general, these immigrants came from a much higher socio-economic class than their predecessors."

1943 Magnuson Immigration Act

The 1943 Magnuson Immigration Act, commonly known as the "Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act," signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and approved by Congress on Dec. 17, 1943, dictated:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That... Acts or parts of Acts relating to the exclusion or deportation of persons of the Chinese race are hereby repealed... With the exception of those coming under subsections (b), (d), (e), and (f) of section 4, Immigration Act of 1924 (43 Stat. 155; 44 Stat. 812; 45 Stat. 1009; 46 Stat. 854; 47 Stat. 656; 8 U.S.C. 2040, all Chinese persons entering the United States annually as immigrants shall be allocated to the quota for the Chinese computed under the provisions of section 11 of the said Act. A preference up to 75 per centum of the quota shall be given to Chinese born and resident in China... Section 303 of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended (54 Stat. 1140; 8 U.S.C. 703), is hereby amended by striking out the word 'and' before the word 'descendants', changing the colon after the word 'Hemisphere' to a comma, and adding the following: 'and Chinese persons or persons of Chinese descent...' Approved December 17, 1943"

1952 McCarran-Walter Immigration Act The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), in a section entitled entitled "Immigration and Nationality Act," from its website (accessed Apr. 23, 2007), explained:

"The Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, was created in 1952. Before the INA, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized in one location. The McCarran-Walter bill of 1952, Public Law No. 82-414, collected and codified many existing provisions and reorganized the structure of immigration law. The Act has been amended many times over the years, but is still the basic body of immigration law. The INA is divided into titles, chapters, and sections. Although it stands alone as a body of law, the Act is also contained in the United States Code (U.S.C.)."

Marion T. Bennett, JD, Senior Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a Sep. 1966 Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science essay entitled "The Immigration and Nationality (McCarran-Walter) Act of 1952, as Amended to 1965," offered the following:

14

"The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was the product of the most extensive Congressional study of the subject in the nation's history. The Act codified and brought together for the first time all the nation's laws on immigration and naturalization. It continued and enlarged upon qualitative restrictions; revised but continued the national origins quota system of immigrant selection in effect since 1929; eliminated race and sex as a bar to immigration; Western Hemisphere immigration was continued quota-free; quota preferences were established for relatives and skilled aliens; security provisions against criminals and subversives were strengthened; and due process was safeguarded. The measure was passed over President Truman's veto. The Act was continuously amended in successive years to increase immigration and to accommodate refugees and excluded or restricted classes. The amendments, together with the Act's non-quota loopholes and permissive administrative exceptions, effectively nullified the national-origins quota system, so that two out of every three immigrants became non-quota entrants. The bulk of immigration under the Act was not from the northern and western European areas favored by the national origins formula. This circumstance accelerated demands for its abolition."

1965 Hart-Cellar Immigration Act Elizabeth Kolsky, PhD, Assistant Professor of History at Pratt Institute, in a Spring 1998 University of Texas' SAGAR: South Asian Graduate Research Journal article entitled "Less Successful Than the Next: South Asian Taxi Drivers in New York City," stated:

"In 1965, the United States passed the landmark Hart-Celler Act, abolishing nation-of-origin restrictions. Effective June 30, 1968, immigration and naturalization exclusion on the basis of race, sex, or nationality was prohibited. Under the Hart-Celler Act, new immigration criteria was based on kinship ties, refugee status, and 'needed skills.' Between 1820 and 1960, 34.5 million Europeans immigrated to the U.S., while only one million Asians—mostly Chinese and Japanese—immigrated. An unintended, unanticipated, and highly evident effect of Hart-Celler was the burgeoning of Asian immigration.

Between 1870-1965, a total of 16,013 Indians immigrated to the United States. In the first decade following the passage of the 1965 Hart-Celler Act, 96,735 Indians immigrated. For the most part, these new Indian immigrants entered under the needed skills preference of the 1965 law."

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), in a document entitled "Legislation from 1961-1980, Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of October 3, 1965," posted on "Legal Immigration History" website section (accessed Apr. 13, 2007), offered the following summary:

"a. Abolished the national origins quota system (see the Immigration Act of 1924 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952), eliminating national origin, race, or ancestry as a basis for immigration to the United States.

b. Established allocation of immigrant visas on a first come, first served basis, subject to a seven-category preference system for relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens (for the reunification of families) and for persons with special occupational skills, abilities, or training (needed in the United States).

c. Established two categories of immigrants not subject to numerical restrictions: 1. Immediate relatives (spouses, children, parents) of U.S. citizens, and 2. Special immigrants: certain ministers of religion; certain former employees of the U.S. government abroad; certain persons who lost citizenship (e.g., by marriage or by service in foreign armed forces); and certain foreign medical graduates.

d. Maintained the principle of numerical restriction, expanding limits to world coverage by limiting Eastern Hemisphere immigration to 170,000 and placing a ceiling on Western Hemisphere immigration (120,000) for the first time. However, neither the preference categories nor the 20,000 per-country limit were applied to the Western Hemisphere.

e. Introduced a prerequisite for the issuance of a visa of an affirmative finding by the Secretary of Labor

15

that an alien seeking to enter as a worker will not replace a worker in the United States nor adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed individuals in the United States."

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, which became Public Law No: 99-603 on Nov. 6, 1986, among other orders, primarily dictates:

"-- The Attorney General shall adjust the status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence if the alien meets the following requirements: [...] IN GENERAL. -- The alien must establish that he entered the United States before January 1, 1982, and that he has resided continuously in the United States in an unlawful status since such date and through the date the application is filed under this subsection. [...] -- In the case of an alien who entered the United States as a nonimmigrant before January 1, 1982, the alien must establish that the alien's period of authorized stay as a nonimmigrant expired before such date through the passage of time or the alien's unlawful status was known to the Government as of such date."

1990 Immigration Act (IMMACT 90)

The 1990 Immigration Act (IMMACT 90), which became Public Law 101-649 on Nov. 29, 1990, dictates:

"IN GENERAL- Exclusive of aliens described in subsection (b), aliens born in a foreign state or dependent area who may be issued immigrant visas or who may otherwise acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence are limited to--

(1) family-sponsored immigrants described in section 203(a) (or who are admitted under section 211(a) on the basis of a prior issuance of a visa to their accompanying parent under section 203(a)) in a number not to exceed in any fiscal year the number specified in subsection (c) for that year, and not to exceed in any of the first 3 quarters of any fiscal year 27 percent of the worldwide level under such subsection for all of such fiscal year;

(2) employment-based immigrants described in section 203(b) (or who are admitted under section 211(a) on the basis of a prior issuance of a visa to their accompanying parent under section 203(b)), in a number not to exceed in any fiscal year the number specified in subsection (d) for that year, and not to exceed in any of the first 3 quarters of any fiscal year 27 percent of the worldwide level under such subsection for all of such fiscal year; and

(3) for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 1995, diversity immigrants described in section 203(c) (or who are admitted under section 211(a) on the basis of a prior issuance of a visa to their accompanying parent under section 203(c)) in a number not to exceed in any fiscal year the number specified in subsection (e) for that year, and not to exceed in any of the first 3 quarters of any fiscal year 27 percent of the worldwide level under such subsection for all of such fiscal year."The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), in a section entitled "Immigration Act of 1990" on its website (accessed May 7, 2007), explained:

"The Immigration Act of 1990, , increased the limits on legal immigration to the United States, revised all grounds for exclusion and deportation, authorized temporary protected status to aliens of designated countries, revised and established new nonimmigrant admission categories, revised and extended the Visa Waiver Pilot Program, and revised naturalization authority and requirements."

1994 California Proposition 187

The Field Institute, a research analysis corporation, in its Jan. 1995 California Opinion Index entitled "A Summary Analysis of Voting in the 1994 General Election," offered the following:

16

 "Proposition 187, the controversial ballot initiative which makes illegal immigrants ineligible to receive public health and education services, was approved by voters by an 18-point margin, 59% to 41%. An analysis of the vote by regional and demographic subgroups shows the following:

The proposition carried all regions of the state except the Bay Area (where it trailed by 10 points). Support for Prop. 187 was extremely strong in the Inland Empire (+40 points), the North Coast/Sierras (+36 points), San Diego/ Orange (+34 points) and the Central Valley (+32 points).

The vote on Prop. 187 was highly partisan, with Republicans favoring it three to one, and Democrats opposed three to two. Independents favored the initiative by 22 points.

Political ideology was strongly linked to opinions of the initiative. Conservatives were strongly supportive, favoring Prop. 187 by 52 points. By contrast, liberals opposed the initiative by 36 points. Political moderates were more divided, but favored it by 12 points.

Support for Prop. 187 was strongest among white non- Hispanic voters (+28 points), and especially white males (+38 points). Latinos, on the other hand, voted No by a 73% to 27% margin. Blacks and Asians divided about evenly, with 52% voting in favor and 48% opposed.

The initiative carried among both male and female voters, although men supported it by a larger margin — 24 points — versus 12 points among women.

Voters age 60 or older were strongly supportive of the initiative, favoring it by 32 points, while younger voters under age 30 split about evenly on the measure. Majorities of voters age 30 - 59 supported the initiative.

Voters with no more than a high school education and those with some college training favored Prop. 187 by wide 28- point margins. College graduates were also supportive, but by a narrower 8-point margin, whereas those with a postgraduate degree were opposed by 4 points.

Majorities of voters in all income categories supported the initiative. Protestants favored Prop. 187 by a greater than two to one margin (69% to 31%). On the other

hand, Catholics voted against it by a narrow 2-point margin, Jewish voters opposed it by 10 points and those with no religious preference voted No by a 4-point margin.

The Los Angeles Times exit poll also asked voters whether they were a first generation, second generation or third or more generation U.S. resident. The results show that voters who have resided in the U.S. for three or more generations were more supportive than those who have been here for a shorter period."

1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility (IIRIRA) Act

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), in a Nov. 21, 1997 report entitled "Central American Asylum Seekers: Impact of 1996 Immigration Law," offered:

"In enacting the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 (Division C of P.L. 104-208), Congress rewrote provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that pertain to the circumstances under which certain aliens subject to expulsion from the United States may become legal residents. How aliens are affected by these statutory changes is being played out most vividly in the cases of Central Americans who first came to seek asylum the United States in the 1980s. As many as 300,000 Nicaraguans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans are potentially affected by these revisions. The Attorney General has the discretionary authority under the INA to grant relief from deportation and adjustment of status to otherwise illegal aliens who meet a certain set of criteria. This avenue, formerly known as suspension of deportation, is now called cancellation of removal. In addition to changing the name, IIRIRA established tighter standards for obtaining this relief. IIRIRA also established a cap on the number who could receive cancellation of removal — 4,000 each fiscal year."

Jonathan L. Hafetz, JD, Counsel of the Justice Program for the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, in a June 1998 Yale Law Journal essay entitled "The Untold Story of Noncriminal Habeas Corpus and the 1996 Immigration Acts," explained:

"In 1996, Congress passed and the President signed... the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which seek to curtail judicial review of final orders of deportation for legal permanent residents convicted of certain enumerated criminal offense. The acts threaten to entrust the

17

deportation process from beginning to end to the executive branch without any opportunity for judicial review, notwithstanding the practical and symbolic importance of judicial review in this context. The acts thus raise jurisdictional issues of great importance, and they portend a sea change in immigration law that endangers the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of all individuals. As a consequence of the acts, courts arguably may be foreclosed from reviewing a range of legal questions, including whether the acts' elimination of waivers of deportation under... the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) for aliens convicted of certain criminal offenses applies retroactively.

Prior to 1996, aliens found deportable could apply for relief... under which immigration judges took into account a variety of favorable elements in determining whether to grant a waiver of deportation. [...] numerous provisions of the IIRIRA apply to noncriminal aliens. Several district courts have already found that the IIRIRA narrows judicial review of the INS'S denial of a noncriminal alien's attempt to stay deportation pending a motion to reconsider his deportation order. In addition, the IIRIRA seeks to eliminate judicial review over all denials of discretionary relief except asylum, including denials of suspensions of deportation based on the alien's continuous physical presence in the United States, his good moral character, and the degree of hardship that would result from deportation... Subsequently, numerous legal permanent residents sought judicial review of their deportation orders by filing habeas actions in federal district court."

Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act of 2007

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the US Library of Congress, in its summary on THOMAS titled "2007-2008 (110th Congress) H.R. 4088: SAVE Act of 2007," (accessed June 3, 2008) offered the following:

"Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act of 2007 or SAVE Act of 2007 - Sets forth border security and enforcement provisions, including provisions respecting: (1) increases in Border Patrol and investigative personnel; (2) recruitment of former military personnel; (3) use of Department of Defense (DOD) equipment; (4) infrastructure improvements; (5) aerial and other surveillance; (6) a national strategy to secure the borders; (7) emergency deployment of Border Patrol agents; and (8) expansion of the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism along the northern and southern borders...

Amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to make the basic employment eligibility confirmation pilot program permanent. Sets forth conditions for the mandatory use of the E-verify system. Requires: (1) employer/employee notification of social security number mismatches and multiple uses, and related information sharing with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS); and (2) establishment of electronic birth and death registration systems. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) penalize specified employers for failure to correct information returns; and (2) prohibit employers from deducting from gross income wages paid to unauthorized aliens, with an exception for an employer participating in the basic employment eligibility confirmation program...

Provides for: (1) increased alien detention facilities; (2) additional district court judgeships; and (3) a media campaign to inform the public of changes made by this Act including a multilingual media campaign explaining noncompliance penalties."

18

Lyrics: “I Want to Live in America”(from West Side Story)

ANITAPuerto RicoMy heart's devotionLet it sink back in the oceanAlways the hurricanes blowingAlways the population growingAnd the money owingAnd the sunlight streamingAnd the natives steamingI like the island ManhattanSmoke on your pipeAnd put that in!

GIRLSI like to be in AmericaOkay by me in AmericaEverything free in America

BERNARDOFor a small fee in America

ANITABuying on credit is so nice

BERNARDOOne look at us and they charge twice

ROSALIAI'll have my own washing machine

INDIOWhat will you have though to keep clean?

ANITASkyscrapers bloom in America

ROSALIACadillacs zoom in America

TERESITAIndustry boom in America

BOYSTwelve in a room in America

ANITALots of new housing with more space

BERNARDOLots of doors slamming in our face

ANITAI'll get a terrace apartment

BERNARDOBetter get rid of your accent

ANITALife can be bright in America

BOYSIf you can fight in America

GIRLSLife is all right in America

BOYSIf you're all white in America

GIRLSHere you are free and you have pride

BOYSLong as you stay on your own side

GIRLSFree to be anything you choose

BOYSFree to wait tables and shine shoes

BERNARDOEverywhere grime in AmericaOrganized crime in AmericaTerrible time in America

ANITAYou forget I'm in America

BERNARDOI think I'll go back to San Juan

ANITAI know what boat you can get on

BERNARDOEveryone there will give big cheers

ANITAEveryone there will have moved her

19

The New Colossus: A “Mother of Exiles”

The New ColossusNot like the brazen giant of Greek fameWith conquering limbs astride from land to land;Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall standA mighty woman with a torch, whose flameIs the imprisoned lightning, and her nameMother of Exiles. From her beacon-handGlows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame,"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries sheWith silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"- Emma Lazarus (1883)

Emma Lazarus' famous words, "Give me your tired, your poor,/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" may now be indelibly engraved into the collective American memory, but they did not achieve immortality overnight. In fact, Lazarus' sonnet to the Statue of Liberty was hardly noticed until after her death, when a patron of the New York arts found it tucked into a small portfolio of poems written in 1883 to raise money for the construction of the Statue of Liberty's pedestal. The patron, Georgina Schuyler, was struck by the poem and arranged to have its last five lines become a permanent part of the statue itself. More than twenty years later, children's textbooks began to include the sonnet and Irving Berlin wrote it into a broadway musical. By 1945, the engraved poem was relocated--including all fourteen lines-- to be placed over the Statue of Liberty's main entrance.

Today the words themselves may be remembered a great degree more than the poet herself, but in Lazarus' time just the opposite was true. As a member of New York's social elite, Emma Lazarus enjoyed a

20

privileged childhood, nurtured by her family to become a respected poet recognized throughout the country for verses about her Jewish heritage. A reader and a dreamer, Lazarus had the good fortune to claim Ralph Waldo Emerson as a penpal and mentor. Before her death at age 37, Lazarus grew from a sheltered girl writing flowery prose about Classical Antiquity to a sophisticated New York aristocrat troubled by the violent injustices suffered by Jews in Eastern Europe.

In "The New Colossus," Lazarus contrasts the soon-to-be installed symbol of the United States with what many consider the perfect symbol of the Greek and Roman era, the Colossus of Rhodes. Her comparison proved appropriate, for Bartholdi himself created the Statue of Liberty with the well-known Colossus in mind. What Bartholdi did not intend, however, was for the Statue of Liberty to become a symbol of welcome for thousands of European immigrants. As political propaganda for France, the Statue of Liberty was first intended to be a path of enlightenment for the countries of Europe still battling tyranny and oppression. Lazarus' words, however, turned that idea on its head: the Statue of Liberty would forever on be considered a beacon of welcome for immigrants leaving their mother countries.

Just as Lazarus' poem gave new meaning to the statue, the statue emitted a new ideal for the United States. Liberty did not only mean freedom from the aristocracy of Britain that led the American colonists to the Revolutionary War. Liberty also meant freedom to come to the United States and create a new life without religious and ethnic persecution. Through Larazus's poem, the Statue of Liberty gained a new name: She would now become the "Mother of Exiles," torch in hand to lead her new children to American success and happiness.

21

The CircuitFrancisco Jimenez

It was that time of year again. Ito, the strawberry sharecropper, did not smile. It was natural. The peak of the strawberry season was over the last few days the workers, most of them braceros, were not picking as many boxes as they had during the months of June and July.

As the last days of August disappeared, so did the number of braceros. Sunday, only one – the best picker – came to work. I liked him. Sometimes we talked during our half-hour lunch break. That is how I found out he was from Jalisco, the same state in Mexico my family was from. That Sunday was the last time I saw him.

When the sun had tired and sunk behind the mountains, Ito signaled us that it was time togo home. "Ya esora," he yelled in his broken Spanish. Those were the words I waited for twelvehours a day, every day, seven days a week, week after week. And the thought of not hearing themagain saddened me.

As we drove home Papa did not say a word. With both hands on the wheel, he started at the dirt road. My older brother, Roberto, was also silent. He leaned his head back and closed his eyes. Once in a while he cleared from his throat the dust that blew in from outside. Yes, it was that time of year. When I opened the front door to the shack, I stopped. Everything we owned was neatly packed in cardboard boxes. Suddenly I felt even more the weight of hours, days, weeks, and months of work. I sat down on a box. The thought of having to move to Fresno and knowing what was in store for me there brought tears to my eyes.

That night I could not sleep. I lay in bed thinking about how much I hated this move.A little before five o’clock in the morning, Papa woke every-one up. A few minutes later,

the yelling and screaming of my little brothers and sisters, for whom the move was a great adventure, broke the silence of dawn. Shortly, the barking of the dogs accompanied them.

While we packed the breakfast dishes, Papa went outside to start the "Carcanchita." Thatwas the name Papa gave his old ’38 black Plymouth. He bought it in a used-car lot in Santa Rosa in the winter of 1949. Papa was very proud of his little jalopy. He had a right to be proud of it. Hespent a lot of time looking at other cars before buying this one. When he finally chose the"Carcanchita," he checked it thoroughly before driving it out of the car lot. He examined everyinch of the car. He listened to the motor, tilting his head from side to side like a parrot, trying todetect any noises that spelled car trouble. After being satisfied with the looks and sounds of thecar, Papa then insisted on knowing who the original owner was. He never did find out from the car salesman, but he bought the car anyway. Papa figured the original owner must have been animportant man because behind the rear seat of the car he found a blue necktie.

Papa parked the car out in front and left the motor running. "Listo," he yelled. Withoutsaying a word, Roberto and I began to carry the boxes out to the car. Roberto carried the two bigboxes and I carried the two smaller ones. Papa then threw the mattresses on top of the car roofand tied it with ropes to the front and rear bumpers.

Everything was packed except Mama’s pot. It was an old large galvanized pot she had picked up at an army surplus store in Santa Maria the year I was born. The pot had many dents and nicks, and the more dents and nicks it acquired the more Mama liked it. "Mi olla," she used to say proudly.

I held the front door open as Mama carefully carried out her pot by both handles, makingsure not to spill the cooked beans. When she got to the car, Papa reached out to help her with it.Roberto opened the rear car door and Papa gently placed it on the floor behind the front seat. Allof us then climbed in. Papa sighed, wiped the sweat off his forehead with his sleeve, and saidwearily: "Es todo."

22

As we drove away, I felt a lump in my throat. I turned around and looked at our little shack for the last time.

At sunset we drove into a labor camp near Fresno. Since Papa did not speak English, Mama asked the camp foreman if he needed any more workers. "We don’t need no more," said the foreman, scratching his head. "Check with Sullivan down the road. Can’t miss him. He lives in a big white house with a fence around it."

When we got there, Mama walked up to the house. She went through a white gate, past arow of rose bushes, up the stairs to the front door. She rang the doorbell. The porch light went onand a tall husky man came out. They exchanged a few words. After the man went in, Mama clasped her hands and hurried back to the car. "We have work! Mr. Sullivan said we can stay there the whole season," she said, gasping and pointing to an old garage near the stables.

The garage was worn out by the years. I had no windows. The walls, eaten by termites,strained to support the roof full of holes. The dirt floor, populated by earth worms, looked like agray road map.

That night, by the light of a kerosene lamp, we unpacked and cleaned our new home. Roberto swept away the loose dirt, leaving the hard ground. Papa plugged the holes in the walls with old newspapers and tin can tops. Mama fed my little brothers and sisters. Papa and Roberto then brought in the mattress and placed it in the far corner of he garage. "Mama, you and the little ones sleep on the mattress. Roberto, Panchito, and I will sleep outside under the trees," Papa said.Early next morning Mr. Sullivan showed us where his crop was, and after breakfast, Papa,Roberto, and I headed for the vineyard to pick.

Around nine o’clock the temperature has risen to almost one hundred degrees. I wascompletely soaked in sweat and my mouth felt as if I had been chewing on a handkerchief. I walked over to the end of the row, picked up the jug of water we had brought, and began drinking. "Don’t drink too much; you’ll get sick," Roberto shouted. No sooner had he said that then I felt sick to my stomach. I dropped to my knees and let the jug roll off my hands. I remained motionless with my eyes glued on the hot sandy ground. All I could hear was the drone of insects. Slowly I began to recover. I poured water over my face and neck and watched the dirty water run down my arms to the ground.

I still felt a little dizzy when we took a break to eat lunch. It was past two o’clock and wesat underneath a large walnut tree that was on the side of the road. While we ate, Papa jotteddown the number of boxes we had picked. Roberto drew designs on the ground with a stick.Suddenly I noticed Papa’s face turn pale as he looked down the road. "Here comes the school bus," he whispered loudly in alarm. Instinctively, Roberto and I ran and hid in the vineyards. We did not want to get in trouble for not going to school. The neatly dressed boys about my age got off. They carried books under their arms. After they crossed the street, the bus drove away. Roberto and I came out from hiding and joined Papa. "Tienen que tener cuidado," he warned us.

After lunch we went back to work. The sun kept beating down. The buzzing insects, the wet sweat, and the hot dry dust made the afternoon seem to last forever. Finally the mountains around the valley reached out and swallowed the sun. Within an hour it was too dark to continue picking. The vines blanketed the grapes, making it difficult to see the bunches. "Vamonos," said Papa, signaling to us that it was time to quit work. Papa then took out a pencil and began to figure out how much we had earned our first day. He wrote down the numbers, crossed some out, wrote down some more. "Quince," he murmured.

When we arrived home, we took a cold shower underneath a water hose. We then sat down to eat dinner around some wooden crates that served as a table. Mama had cooked a special meal for us. We had rice and tortillas with "carne con chile," my favorite dish.

The next morning I could hardly move. My body ached all over. I felt little control over my arms and legs. This feeling went on every morning for days until my muscles finally got used to the work.

It was Monday, the first week of November. The grape season was over and I could now

23

go to school. I woke up early that morning and lay in bed, looking at the stars and savoring the thought of not going to work and of starting sixth grade for the first time that year. Since I could not sleep, I decided to get up and Join Papa and Roberto at breakfast. I sat at the table across fromRoberto, but I kept my head down. I did not want to look up and face him. I knew he was sad. Hewas not going to school today. He was not going tomorrow, or next week, or next month. He would not go until the cotton season was over, and that was sometime in February. I rubbed my hands together and watched the dry, acid-stained skin fall to the floor in little rolls.

When Papa and Roberto left for work, I felt relief. I walked to the top of a small gradenext to the shack and watched the "Carcanchita" disappear in the distance in a cloud of dust.

Two hours later, around eight o’clock, I stood by the side of the road waiting for school bus number twenty. When it arrived I climbed in. Everyone was busy either talking or yelling. I sat in an empty seat in the back.

When the bus stopped in front of the school, I felt very nervous. I looked out the buswindow and saw boys and girls carrying books under their arms. I put my hands in my pant pockets and walked to the principal’s office. When I entered I heard a woman’s voice say: "May I help you?" I was startled. I had not heard English for months. For a few seconds I remained speechless. I looked at the lady who waited for an answer. My first instinct was to answer her in Spanish, but I held back. Finally, after struggling for English words, I managed to tell her that I wanted to enroll in the sixth grade. After answering many questions, I was led to the classroom.

Mr. Lema, the sixth grade teacher, greeted me and assigned me a desk. He then introduced me to the class. I was so nervous and scared at that moment when everyone’s eyes were on me that I wished I were with Papa and Roberto picking cotton. After taking roll, Mr. Lema gave the class the assignment for the first hour. "The first thing we have to do this morning is finish reading the story we began yesterday," he said enthusiastically. He walked up to me, handed me an English book, and asked me to read. "We are on page 125," he said politely. When I heard this, I felt my blood rush to my head; I felt dizzy. "Would you like to read?" he asked hesitantly. I opened the book to page 125. My mouth was dry. My eyes began to water. I could not begin. "You can read later," Mr. Lema said understandingly.

For the rest of the reading period I kept getting angrier and angrier with myself. I shouldhave read, I thought to myself.

During recess I went into the restroom and opened my English book to page 125. I began to read in a low voice, pretending I was in class. There were many words I did not know. I closed the book and headed back to the classroom.

Mr. Lema was sitting at this desk correcting papers. When I entered he looked up at me and smiled. I felt better. I walked up to him and asked if he could help me with the new words."Gladly," he said.

The rest of the month I spent my lunch hours working on English with Mr. Lema, my best friend at school.

One Friday during lunch hour, Mr. Lema asked me to take a walk with him to the music room. "Do you like music?" he asked me as we entered the building.

"Yes, I like corridos," I answered. He then picked up a trumpet, blew on it and handed it to me. The sound gave me goose bumps. I knew that sound. I had heard it in many corridos. "How would you like to learn how to play it?" he asked. He must have read my face because before I could answer, he added; "I’ll teach you how to play it during the lunch hours."

That day I could hardly wait to get home to tell Papa and Mama the great news. As I got off the bus, my little brothers and sisters ran up to meet me. They were yelling and screaming. Ithought they were happy to see me, but when I opened the door to our shack, I saw that everything we owned was neatly packed in cardboard boxes.

24

Immigration-Related ComicsJournal Topic: Read through the following comics; then, answer the following questions, making some references to the comics below. Why is the State of Liberty such an important American symbol? What does the statue represent? How well does the United States live up to the message inscribed on its pedestal? Are we still welcoming to immigrants? Do we send mixed messages about immigration?

1.

2.

25

3.

4.

26

5.

6.

27

7.

8.

28

9.

10.

29

11.

12.

30

13.

14.

31

15.

16.

32

17.

33

18.

19.

34

20.

35

21.

36

22.

23.

37

Should a path to U.S. citizenship for illegal immigrants be implemented, granting them amnesty & American citizenship

after various requirements are fulfilled?

Overview/BackgroundIllegal Immigration has become an explosive issue in the United States, with the country currently holding an estimated 13 million illegal immigrants, costing the taxpayers an estimated $113 million per year. Opponents argue that these statistics are only going to get worse as children of illegal immigrants become U.S. citizens and put a further drain on social security, Medicare, Obamacare, Medicaid, and other entitlement programs. There are two parts of the problem that need to be dealt with -- 1) Limiting the growth rate of illegal immigrants, and 2) What to do about the millions of illegal immigrants that are already in the U.S. Various solutions have been proposed to both problems, including deportation, building a U.S.-Mexico border fence, increasing the levels of legal immigration, and the topic of this discussion--a path to citizenship for illegals. Various political proposals have offered U.S. citizenship in return for fulfilling various requirements, such as acquiring a qualified job, paying back taxes or a fine, and passing a course on the English language. The question is, should any proposal give the millions of illegal immigrants citizenship in the United States?

YES

1. The foundation of the United States, as it describes on our Statue of Liberty, is immigration. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore...." Those are the powerful words on our own Statute of Liberty. America was founded by citizens from all of the world who were unsatisfied with their home country and sought better opportunity for freedom and wealth in the New World. Where would our country be if we slowed or stopped immigration after we gained our freedom in the 1700s? Where would we be without the contributions of Albert Einstein, Andrew Carnegie, and so many other brilliant immigrants? Nothing was going to stop our ambitious ancestors from being successful in the New World. We should not turn away our current crop of immigrants seeking a better life and opportunity for success. 

2. Millions of illegal immigrants will stay in the shadows of society without some path to citizenship. Think about all your interactions with society & government-drivers licenses, taxes, unemployment insurance, school, marriage, banks, small claims court, police, etc. When you're an illegal immigrant, you're separated from all these. Illegal immigrants stay hidden from all these since public exposure of any kind may mean deportation of they and their families. And the living-in-the-shadows has a cascade effect. If you can't get a driver's license, you can't vote. You'll have trouble buying a car or getting insurance. If you don't have a verifiable source of income, you're unlikely to be able to obtain any credit. If you must stay hidden, you usually cannot attend American schools. In short, your opportunities are extremely limited. 

3. It would generate additional tax revenues from both employers and employees as jobs are allowed to come into the open. Since illegal immigrants aren't technically allowed to have jobs in the U.S., their work must be handled under the table, usually in cash. If they were allowed to be part of the legitimate working world, they would pay social security, Medicare, state, local, and federal income taxes. Not only that, but employers would be forced to paying matching social security & Medicare taxes along with unemployment taxes. 

4. We'd be able to count on the American justice system to protect wronged individuals and hold criminal immigrants accountable, whereas now illegals are afraid to be a part of the system due to possible deportation. Illegal immigrants are in effect all fugitives from the law. They always face the possibility of deportation of not only themselves, but their families. Thus,

38

they can't go to police if they're wronged. What if an employer doesn't pay them the money owed for their work? What if an immigrant is raped or robbed? What if someone close to them is murdered? What are their options? To use the American justice system, they have to expose themselves to deportation. So there are really only two remaining alternatives. One is to suffer from the injustice with no viable recourse. The second is to take the law into their own hands through vigilantism. Plus, if an illegal immigrant is already a fugitive from the law, what's to stop him or her from committing other crimes? Deportation may be worse than prison for some. In other words, both American citizens and illegal immigrants suffer. 

5. It's inhumane to break up families that have built a life in America. It's very often the case that illegal immigrants bring their spouses or families over the border. If they're caught and deported, they may protect their families from the same fate; consequently, they must be separated indefinitely from their loved ones, often with limited ability to communicate. Another separation situation occurs when children are born in the United States. Because they're born here, they gain automatic U.S. citizenship. However, the same cannot be said for the parents, who still face the risk of deportation. Think how your life may be different if your parents were dragged away when you were young, and you didn't know when or if you would see them again. The illegal immigrants may want their children to stay in America and have a better life, so they may separate to make sure that happens. 

6. It may be good for the U.S. economy since immigrants can fill jobs that most Americans don't want, often at a much lower cost to businesses. There are plenty of low-paying, low-rewarding, physically-demanding or boring jobs that most Americans will not take. Certain farming jobs, digging sewers, washing dishes, cleaning hotel rooms are only some of the examples. People coming from Mexico or other poor countries will often be thrilled to get any kind of work, especially one that pays a minimum wage rate. Overall, this helps American companies be more competitive. Not only are they able to fill the less desired jobs that need to be completed, all wage rates will likely come down due to the millions of new resources in the workforce. It's a simple economics rule of supply and demand. The supply of available workers would increase, therefore wages would drop. If wages and costs to businesses in America drop, profits and competitiveness increase. Successful companies usually mean growing companies, in which case more jobs will open up to all Americans. If labor costs drop, consumer prices generally fall, which is yet another way society benefits. 

7. Homeland Security resources that focus on illegal immigrants can be redirected to tracking and finding terrorists. Homeland & border security personnel have their hands full with protecting us from both foreign and domestic terrorists. Drug dealers have been gaining power and fighting bloody battles along the Mexican-U.S. border. Organized crime units still operate all over the country. Hackers continually plant viruses and probe security holes in our computer networks. Do we really want to monopolize many of our important Homeland Security resources for tracking down and deporting innocent immigrants who are simply trying to improve their lives and feed their families? 

8. The current legal immigration path to citizenship is costly, time-consuming, inefficient, and limited. Thus, people seeking entry into the U.S. often have no choice but to do so illegally. The immigration requirements for entering the United States are long, complex, and time-consuming. You usually need a lot of money (investor visa), specialized skills (work visa), or some kind of family/spousal relationship to a current U.S. citizen. Even then, you must receive medical clearance as well as fulfill other requirements. If you're not rich, super-skilled, or connected to someone in the U.S., about the only way to citizenship is luck in the lottery selection system. So imagine you're poor & uneducated and you know no one in the U.S., yet you still are desperate for a better life. You're forced to either suffer in your home country with little opportunity for wealth & success, or hop the border illegally. 

39

9. It brings freedom and a path to self-sufficiency that isn't available to billions of others around the world who aren't lucky enough to be born in the United States. Most people born in the United States don't appreciate the gifts we've been given by being born in the U.S. We have a wide array of educational choices; we have freedom of religion, freedom to say what we want, the ability to vote, a free press to keep our political leaders in line, a usually fair and thorough justice system. Most people can find some kind of paid position if they want to take it, and when people are temporarily unemployed or can't feed themselves, charities and government programs are there to help. In short, we have endless opportunities to be wealthy, educated, and successful in the United States. What about people from other countries? If you come from a country with primitive educational institutions, few businesses operating, massive unemployment, and few options to improve your life, what are you going to do about it? What if you come from an Arab country where they might torture or kill you for being a Christian? What if you live under the boot of a dictator like Castro, Chavez, or Kim Jong Il? What if you're an Arab women who may be stoned to death for speaking out or showing your face in sunlight? America was founded by the ambitious people that would tolerate their home country no longer, who threw caution to the wind and put everything into a life in the New World. How can we possibly turn away so many others that are trying to do the same thing? 

Messerli, Joe. “Should a path to U.S. citizenship for illegal immigrants (part of the DREAM Act) be implemented, granting amnesty & American citizenship to illegals after various requirements are fulfilled?” BalancedPolitics.org. 7 Jan 2012. Web. 13 July 2015. http://www.balancedpolitics.org/immigration.htm.

40

Should a path to U.S. citizenship for illegal immigrants (part of the DREAM Act) be implemented, granting them amnesty & American citizenship after various requirements are fulfilled?

Overview/BackgroundIllegal Immigration has become an explosive issue in the United States, with the country currently holding an estimated 13 million illegal immigrants, costing the taxpayers an estimated $113 million per year. Opponents argue that these statistics are only going to get worse as children of illegal immigrants become U.S. citizens and put a further drain on social security, Medicare, Obamacare, Medicaid, and other entitlement programs. There are two parts of the problem that need to be dealt with -- 1) Limiting the growth rate of illegal immigrants, and 2) What to do about the millions of illegal immigrants that are already in the U.S. Various solutions have been proposed to both problems, including deportation, building a U.S.-Mexico border fence, increasing the levels of legal immigration, and the topic of this discussion--a path to citizenship for illegals. Various political proposals have offered U.S. citizenship in return for fulfilling various requirements, such as acquiring a qualified job, paying back taxes or a fine, and passing a course on the English language. The question is, should any proposal give the millions of illegal immigrants citizenship in the United States?

NO

1. A path to citizenship rewards people for breaking the law. While it's true that we are a "nation of immigrants", America was founded and grew to be the great country it is through the efforts of legal immigrants. We have laws for a reason--without them, there would be chaos! However, an unenforced law is essentially one that doesn't exist at all. A path to citizenship would reward lawbreakers who ignored our laws, while punishing those who are trying to immigrate to America using proper channels. How will our society change if we have a constant influx of people whose first interaction with the U.S. involves breaking the law? What other of our laws will they choose to ignore? 

2. It's unfair to the people who have followed the rules in their quest for citizenship. There is no country in the world that people would like to live than the United States. We have freedom, wealth, opportunity, entertainment, and diversity that exceeds all other countries of the world. So many law-abiding individuals want to come to the U.S. and go through the proper channels to do so. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy and limited immigrations amounts can take time to overcome. We want to reward the people that follow legal channels to get here. It will help encourage future immigrants to do the same. 

3. It will create a flood of illegal immigrants from everywhere who will try to get in before the law goes into effect. If you’re a foreigner who wants to become a citizen of the U.S., and you're many years away from having a possibility through legal channels, what are you going to do if a path to citizenship makes it through Congress for illegals? You will do your best to get over the border before it happens! Thus, we'll have a tidal wave of people from all borders that try to find a way into the country and streamline their path to citizenship. China, Japan, India, and many other countries are so overpopulated that it's difficult to live and breathe. Traffic, crime, pollution, and overall stress increases as the population increases. Do we want to happen in the United States? 

4. The program would add millions of people to the welfare rolls, who consume government resources such as health care, social security, and education while paying little or no taxes. Thus, the out-of-control government deficits would be pushed further to the edge of bankruptcy. Any credible economist and American politician will tell you that if we follow our present course of spending far more than we take in in revenue, we're headed for bankruptcy and a disastrous collapse of the world economy. The American national debt is already over 7 times the

41

revenue brought in for one year. We're spending over $3.5 trillion every year while only taking in around $2 trillion. These numbers don't even account for the looming financial headaches of social security, Medicare, Obamacare, and other government entitlements. Providing a path to citizenship will add over 10 million people who make little or nothing and will likely need to rely partially or wholly on government benefits. If the whole economic system doesn't collapse with the current course of action, it surely will if we add another 10+ million (and potentially their future kids) to the welfare roll! 

5. It further erodes the English language and American culture in the United States. The U.S. is called the great "melting pot" because immigrants of the past adopted the American culture and learned the English language. Despite our diversity, we did our best to become as one, uniquely American. In the era of multi-culturalism, where schools often teach in both English and Spanish, where millions of jobs go to people who can't speak English and have no incentive to, our American culture is fracturing. Adding millions of foreigners who don't feel any need to join the melting pot will only erode that culture further. 

6. It would take away more jobs from current American citizens and drive down wages of remaining jobs. It is a total myth that Americans won't work the jobs that illegal immigrants work. The truth is they may not do the work for the low pay that immigrants are often given. If illegals are given citizenship, they become subject to our labor laws. Thus, minimum wage, health care benefits, etc. would all go into effect. There are always Americans ready to fill such jobs. Teenagers and college students alone, who take the vast majority of minimum wage jobs, would be affected most. Counting teens that have given up looking for work, the teen unemployment rate has hovered between 40-50%! When McDonald's added 50,000 jobs in April of 2011, there was basically a stampede of applicants looking for any work they could find. Adding over 10 million illegal immigrants to the workforce only makes the job search harder for Americans. 

7. It would create an influx of voters who support the president & lawmakers that gave them citizenship at the expense of existing citizens. If you gather an intelligent set of educated advisors--economists, immigration officials, security personnel, international relations experts, etc.--you could probably craft a well-thought-out solution to the immigration problems we face. However, when you add politics to the mix, intelligent solutions turn to mush. Just think what the government has done in the past with the tax code, health care system, and social security. If you give citizenship to 13+ million illegal immigrants that creates a whole new voting block that will likely support your party in the future. Since most illegals are Mexican, current citizens of Mexican descent would likely also support your party. Consequently, politicians will do what they always do--focus on their own re-elections rather than the good of America and the world as a whole. Indeed, they may know a path to citizenship will cause major problems, but if it gets them re-elected, who cares? 

8. It would lead to further overpopulation and crowding of American cities. Have you ever been to Beijing, Tokyo, Mumbai, or so many of the massively overpopulated cities of the world? Traffic, crime, stress, pollution, and other hardships inevitably come into the big-city environment. As you have more and more people living in a small area, the number of available jobs dry up and housing shortages develop. Most big cities simply do not have the ability to house, feed, and employ such a large number of people. Do we really want that to happen in the United States? An amnesty policy could essentially add tens of millions of people and their future children, who will seek out cities that have jobs available, at least in the beginning. 

9. Terrorists, drug dealers, and other foreign enemies will exploit any open border or amnesty policies put in place. The Mexican Drug War has ensnared thousands into bloody battles by the U.S.-Mexican border. Americans will always be the most profitable customer group for the Drug Cartels not only in Mexico, but around the world. Disciples of Osama bin Laden are constantly looking for ways to cause mass deaths and/or bring the U.S. economy to its knees. Communists in Russia, Venezuela, China, and Cuba spew their communist propaganda inside the U.S. as another

42

step to their goal of destroying free capitalism. Do we really want to make it easier for all these groups of enemies to penetrate our country? The sky is the limit of what they could achieve if they added citizenship to their arsenal. One example--a terrorist would be subject to all our Constitutional protections, meaning Gitmo or other enhanced interrogation technique would be impossible. 

10. Plenty of better solutions exist, such as increasing legal immigration limits and reforming worker visa programs. There are so many better solutions to the immigration problem that haven't really been tried. We could really tighten the borders, deport all illegals that are caught, and cut off all benefits for illegals until foreigners are discouraged from even entering the country. We could expand and streamline legal immigration so people are more likely to come here legitimately. We could expand work and education opportunities for emigrating to the U.S., rather than handing outright citizenship. Perhaps most of all, we could amend our Constitution to make it so that children of illegal immigrants that are born here do not automatically become U.S. citizens! Until several other proposed solutions have at least been attempted, we shouldn't do anything so drastic as grant amnesty to tens of millions who've broke the laws of our country.

 Messerli, Joe. “Should a path to U.S. citizenship for illegal immigrants (part of the DREAM Act) be implemented, granting amnesty & American citizenship to illegals after various requirements are fulfilled?” BalancedPolitics.org. 7 Jan 2012. Web. 13 July 2015. http://www.balancedpolitics.org/immigration.htm.

43

Should America Maintain/Increasethe Level of Legal Immigration?

Overview/Background

A political battle that has been heating up recently is the battle over immigration. Terrorism, the drug war, and the national deficit have all fueled interest in a long dormant debate. The U.S. population, fed largely by immigration, will grow to 420 million by the year 2050 (according to the U.S. Census ). The Hispanic population alone should be over 100 million, which is especially relevant since over 60 percent of immigrants come from Mexico.

Proposals have recently been put through by the President and House to deal with various aspects of illegal immigration, varying from amnesty for existing illegals, guest worker programs, deportation, fines for unpaid taxes, stricter border enforcement, and so on. However, very little attention has been given to legal immigration. Is immigration in general good for the country? Should we increase the level of people that are allowed to enter the country and work towards citizenship?

YES

1. Some of the most intelligent and ambitious individuals, who are unsatisfied with their own countries, bring their skills to America. Few countries offer the limitless opportunities that the United States offers. You can start your own business, learn a high-tech career, become a movie star, publish a best-selling novel, or be elected to office. People in other countries crave the same things we do: recognition, wealth, fame, and the feeling of making a difference. America offers endless ways for a "nobody" to become great. Many countries of the world limit educational opportunities, stifle entrepreneurship, and prevent individuals from reaping the rewards of their hard work. Consequently, such individuals -- the cream of the crop -- often come to America. In fact, our nation was founded by English and other European citizens that risked their lives to sail across the ocean to an unknown future. America can't help but become better from the influence of such people.

2. It increases the diversity and expands the culture of the country. No country in the world has the diversity of races, religions, languages, and cultures. America is called the great "melting pot" because we bring together all sorts of people around the world. Diversity brings more tolerance for people that are, on the surface, different than us. It introduces new ideas, new perspectives, new music & food, different customs, new forms of entertainment, diverse strengths & skills, and a host of other advantages.

3. Immigrants often taken the low-paying jobs (like food service & hotel cleaning) that most Americans don't want to do at such low wages. Few Americans like to wash dishes, bust tables, mop floors, pick up garbage, etc. These types of jobs must be done, but employers consistently have trouble finding regular employees to do the work. A wage of $5-$7 is usually too low to induce Americans to take and stay at such jobs. However, immigrants who may be lucky to earn $5 a day in their native countries are more than willing to work these jobs.

4. Decreasing or eliminating legal immigration will inevitably create more incentive to come to the country illegally, which leads to less assimilation and fewer taxpaying, law-abiding

44

citizens. Many individuals have only one true hope for a better life for themselves or their children -- emigrate to America. The enormous number of immigrants in this country show that they will try to get here whether or not there are laws to stop them. Illegal immigrants must hide their identities. Thus, they aren't going to be attending American schools, filing tax returns, or doing other things that typical Americans do. Plus, if they're already breaking the law by being here, what's to prevent them from breaking other laws we have? Legal immigrants, especially those who plan to stay permanently, must pay taxes and are more likely to attend school to learn history, English, and a marketable skill. Since they don't have to hide, they are more likely to assimilate with other Americans and adopt the culture. Lastly, they can eventually earn the right to vote and participate in our political process, meaning they can develop a decision-making stake in the future of our country.

5. It improves the overall image of America internationally, as it is seen as an open, welcoming country; and immigrants who return home or maintain contact with family back home have a true image of America, not the one propagandized in much of the international media. It's no secret that the United States has a very unfavorable image around the world. Most American citizens are proud of their country and are happy to be here. So why do we have such an unfavorable image abroad? What percentage of the people in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East that have been sampled in these favorability opinion polls do you think have actually been to the Unites States for any significant amount of time? Think about it, for those that haven't lived here, their opinion of America is based almost entirely on the media. Thus, the socialists, communists, and propagandists that dominate the international news media may be most responsible for America's image. We can help alleviate the problem by allowing more people to enter the country. Real people can see what it means to have freedom of speech, freedom to worship, freedom to publish and assemble. They can see our diversity and our shunning of those who lack tolerance. They can sample our sports and our entertainment. They can meet for themselves the "evil Americans". As more people return home or communicate with loves ones, people around the world will increasingly learn what a great country we have.

6. Adding an additional group of cheap labor adds to the flexibility of business, leading to cheaper prices, better quality products, and higher profits. Labor is one of a number of costs of doing business. When businesses have trouble filling low skill jobs such as washing dishes or cleaning rooms, they have only two choices: raise the wage rate high enough to fill the jobs or eliminate the positions altogether. While higher wages sounds good, it means businesses must either accept lower profit margins or they must raise prices to make up the difference. A hike in prices means we pay more for restaurants, hotels, factory products, etc. while draining money from other segments of the economy (since we have less to spend). Lower profit margins mean lower stock prices in our 401(k)'s and less investment dollar inflow. The second choice of eliminating jobs is obviously undesirable for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that a willing worker could be denied a job that a business wants to offer. But also, when a business eliminates these jobs, it means lower quality products and services. For example, your favorite restaurant might want to carry three bus people for the Friday night shift, but because of a labor shortage, it may only be able to hire two bus people. The work will still get done, but is the cleaning of tables going to be as thorough? Do you think it will take the same amount of time to get a table on a busy night? These types of problems can be helped by increasing the labor pool through the increase of legal immigration.

7. It gives struggling people all over the world an opportunity for a better life. This country was built on immigrants who sought opportunity, political & religious freedom, etc. At some point in this debate we need to set aside the question of whether it's good for America and look at the point of view of the immigrant. Imagine you were in a place where you could be stoned to death for practicing your religion. Imagine you got paid the same regardless of how hard you worked.

45

Imagine you were unable to study for a new career or start up your own business. Imagine you were forced to rely on government rationing of food to scratch out a living. Imagine the only access to medical care was physicians with only a few months of training who lacked vaccines and basic medical equipment. Would you want to live the rest of your life like this? Would you want your kids to live their whole lives like this? I'm guessing most people, if given a choice, would take the risk in coming to America to achieve something better. Our country was built and has grown on the backs of such people. 

Messerli, Joe. “Should America Maintain/Increase the Level of Legal Immigration?” BalancedPolitics.org. Jan 7 2012. Web. 13 July 2015. http://www.balancedpolitics.org/immigration.htm

46

Should America Maintain/Increasethe Level of Legal Immigration?

Overview/Background

A political battle that has been heating up recently is the battle over immigration. Terrorism, the drug war, and the national deficit have all fueled interest in a long dormant debate. The U.S. population, fed largely by immigration, will grow to 420 million by the year 2050 (according to the U.S. Census ). The Hispanic population alone should be over 100 million, which is especially relevant since over 60 percent of immigrants come from Mexico.

Proposals have recently been put through by the President and House to deal with various aspects of illegal immigration, varying from amnesty for existing illegals, guest worker programs, deportation, fines for unpaid taxes, stricter border enforcement, and so on. However, very little attention has been given to legal immigration. Is immigration in general good for the country? Should we increase the level of people that are allowed to enter the country and work towards citizenship.

NO

1. More immigrants means more opportunity for terrorists, drug dealers, and other criminals to enter the country. As we discovered, many of the terrorists on 9/11 came to the country legally. And as any DEA official will tell you, most illegal drugs can be traced to Central or South America. Any additional opportunities to enter the country only increases the chances for terrorists, drug dealers, and other criminals to expand their enterprises. Once these people are in, our open society allows them practically free reign to wreak havoc. 

2. Immigrants, especially the poorer ones, consume a high amount of government resources (health care, education, welfare, etc.) without paying a corresponding high rate of taxes. Almost all immigrants will start out earning very low wages, and unless they get additional education or training, they will likely be paid that way indefinitely. Unfortunately, our tax system is set up to keep low-income people from paying taxes. Depending on how many kids and how many deductions they have, many families will pay ZERO income taxes on the first $20,000-30,000 of wages (above what a couple both earning full-time minimum wages brings in for a year). A large 10 percent bracket after that keeps additional taxes low. If they're eligible for the Earned Income Credit and Child Tax Credit, they may actually receive money back from the government without paying a cent in to it. Poorer individuals are also far less likely to have health insurance, a retirement fund, or backup savings in case of job loss. In other words, the level of government resources required for social security, health care, welfare, unemployment compensation, etc. will be increased heavily for a group that pays little or no taxes. 

3. The national identity and language is disappearing. The great "melting pot" is being replaced by divisive multiculturism.The United States used to be referred to as the great "melting pot" because immigrants adopted the customs, language, and culture of America. Thus, we were no longer Italian-Americans, German-Americans, Mexican-Americans, etc. but instead were simply Americans. Unfortunately, this is quickly becoming a memory as schools and politicians continue to push "multiculturism", which motivates immigrants to maintain their own language and customs rather than assimilate into American society. How many times have you seen groups of immigrants traveling in packs while speaking their own language. When is the last time you

47

opened a set of instructions written in English only? While we should do everything to help immigrants learn the language and get used to living here, the entrenched multiculturism is creating divisions that only increase with more immigration. Consider the mass protests that took place in this country when the immigration issue started to heat up. The protests featured hoards of Mexican flags, anti-American slurs, and a Spanish version of the national anthem. Is this what is needed to bring the country together? 

4. The emigration to the United States hurts the home country, as much of the male population, workers, and top intellectuals often leave their country. Unlike the the United States, most countries don't have an immigration problem. Many have the opposite problem; i.e. they are losing too many people that form the foundation of the economic and family structure. For example, when thousands of people come to the U.S. from Mexico, a family at home often loses one of its main breadwinners. Industries in Mexico also have a smaller pool to build an adequate workforce. Plus, the immigrants that come to America comprise more than just those that fill minimum-wage jobs. Top intellectuals often come for top white-collar job opportunities, religious freedom, or the endless other perks of living in the U.S. That means, for example, that the home country has a tougher time filling high-skilled positions like in medicine and technology. We often have trouble filling these positions in America, so imagine how hard it may be in other countries if the cream of the crop of their intellectuals leaves. 

5. Less-skilled American citizens earn less money and have fewer job opportunities because they must compete with immigrants in the job market. Despite the improving economy, we still have millions of citizens out of work. Whether it's lack of skills or lack of opportunities, many of those citizens will be forced to take the low-paying unskilled jobs. If you pump in millions of new workers seeking jobs, it decreases the amount of work available. Plus, the laws of economic supply and demand will push the wages down far from what they would be. 

Messerli, Joe. “Should America Maintain/Increase the Level of Legal Immigration?” BalancedPolitics.org. Jan 7 2012. Web. 13 July 2015. http://www.balancedpolitics.org/immigration.htm.

48

Illegal Immigration Pros and ConsAsia-Pacific Economic BlogMar 29, 2014

Illegal immigration can be defined as trespassing over the national border in a way that the person involved violates the laws implemented by the concerned nation. The most often seen example of illegal migration is from those countries with poor socio-economic level to developed ones. Although there are several reasons why this situation occurs, the principal motivation which plays a very crucial role in this matter is the expectation for better and more economic opportunities & enhanced quality of life. Here, you will learn more about the pros and cons of illegal immigration.

The 8 Pros of Illegal ImmigrationIllegal immigration can benefit you in numerous ways. If you wonder about its benefits then you may continue reading. These benefits are outlined below:1. The economy will be in balance while the demand for low wage workers is fulfilled at all times.2. The lives of poor migrants will be improved with the help of illegal immigration. Hence, it will provide them free will to liberty and life.3. Different market spheres open up to accommodate customers of various income ranges.4. Illegal immigrants add to the tax system of the involved country as they pay sales taxes.5. Illegal migrants who own real estate properties will be obliged to pay taxes and this will benefit the country where they go.6. Real estate agents including the brokers will get commission coming from the real estate transactions made between them and the immigrants.7. These immigrants will also enjoy the country’s banking services. Therefore, they pay dividends and interests to banks.8. Financial & auto insurance loans will make the country’s income even higher.

The 7 Cons of Illegal ImmigrationOn the other hand, illegal immigrant can also lead to various problems. Its disadvantages are the following:1. Judicial issues will start to arise once these immigrants commit a crime and they prefer to leave the country instead of being responsible for their offense.2. Illegal immigration results to overcrowding & increased load on public transit, parks and other places where most people usually go.3. Increased transgression rate with the inhabitants.4. Rise of problems that are associated with the financial problems on schools.5. Concerns of unstable ethnic variety. This can result to dominance of a particular culture or language.6. Increased possibility of cases relevant to human trafficking.7. An increase in the population which can trigger burden on the nation involved.

How Do You Feel about Illegal ImmigrationOne of the realities concerning illegal immigration is more and more people choose to live in another country in illegal way. This situation keeps from happening again and again. The probable cause of it is that the state system is not powerful and efficient enough to counter check the paths where foreign nationals can pass and enter a country in an authorized way. As people need to show respect to needy and poor, there’s no profundity in the debate that it will be fair to break the rules if its’ for valid reasons. So, what can you say about this now?

http://apecsec.org/illegal-immigration-pros-and-cons/

49

Immigration Reform Pros and ConsAsia-Pacific Economic BlogMar 30, 2014

No doubt, the most controversial issue that the country is facing today is the immigration reform. America is considered as a nation of immigrants. Millions have traveled enormous distances to partake in the freedom that America offers. They are all united by faith in the opportunity called the American Dream. However, this nation is also a dwelling place of laws and fairness. Regardless of where the immigrants come from, this land offers a place where they can live, work and be successful as long as they abide with the laws and play honestly at all times. It is the honesty and obedience to the law that spurs the American Dream achievable.

These traditions are entangled with history and must be considered when debating immigration reforms. It is very obvious that the immigration system is down. Immigration reform evokes profound emotions for people on each side of the fence. So here, you may acquire some ideas about the arguments of both sides. Here are the immigration reform pros and cons.

4 Pros of the Immigration Reform

Immigration reform is associated with benefits like:

1. The immigration reform is currently promoted by President Obama and if this will be approved, the strict enforcement on the borders will be practiced. Because of this, the amount of illegal activities like for example drug and human trafficking will be reduced. Everyone residing in the country will benefit from this.

2. A Guest Worker Program will be adopted. Workers from outside will be given work permissions to come and work in the country, but after the contract expires, they have to leave. In this way, the labor force will be properly monitored and will have an organized labor system.

3. If the reform will be approved, the chance of economic boost is really high. If all the working immigrants are registered in the labor system, local taxes will be applied and they have to report it just like a regular US citizen would. The government can also accumulate funds because if an immigrant is caught illegal they will have to pay fine.

4. At present, the number of illegal immigrants in the country is approximately 11 million. With this proposed reform they will be forced to come out and they have to work legally. If they can not comply, they will be extradited out of this country. Through this, the chance of decreasing the rate of unemployed for the regular citizens is very high.

YOUTUBE: Obama speaks on ImmigrationObama Immigration Reform 2014 Speech: Announcing Executive Action [FULL] Today, 11/20/14https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=73&v=wejt939QXko

Laura Ingraham Batters Bill O'Reilly Over Immigration Reform, 11/12/14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLQGotn6dDo

50

3 Cons of the Immigration Reform

1. If the illegal immigrants will be given amnesty, chances are more people will still attempt to cross over the border because they might think that they will be given amnesty as well. The population of illegal immigrants will continue to increase.

2. If this reform will not push through, the labor industry will have a big trouble. Competition in searching for job will rise and will boost the unemployment rate.

3. The issue regarding the language barrier will occur. American English is at stake.

How do you feel about the Immigration Reform?

For some people, when they hear about immigration, probably, the things that come to their minds are illegal aliens or crossing the nation’s border. But, in this subject, tons of different opinions will emerge that may cause political uprising. The debate about Immigration Reform is still on – how about your feelings about the issue?

http://apecsec.org/immigration-reform-pros-and-cons/

51

Immigration Issues: U.S.-Mexico Border Fence Pros and Cons (About.com)

By Jennifer McFadyen

The southern border of the United States is shared with Mexico and spans almost 2,000 miles. Fences are being built along one-third, or approximately 670 miles, of the border to secure the border and cut down on illegal immigration. The price tag currently sits at $1.2 billion dollars with lifetime maintenance costs estimated close to $50 billion.

Recent polls show that Americans are split on the border fence issue. While most people are in favor of increasing the security of the borders, others are concerned that the negative impacts do not outweigh the benefits. In any case, the U.S. government views the Mexican border as an important part of its overall homeland security initiative.

Latest News

The fence is still standing, but the project is taking a beating.

Budgets are beginning to skyrocket. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a non-partisan budget watchdog group, estimates that the costs of building and maintaining the fence could prove astronomical, ranging "from $300 million to $1.7 billion per mile, depending on materials."

Problems with technology cannot be helping the budget. In February, new surveillance equipment being tested in Arizona was heralded as the high-tech solution to apprehend illegal border crossers. A week later, the $20 million prototype was scrapped because it didn't adequately alert Border Control officers to illegal crossings.

The troubles continue in Arizona. With the approval of Congress, the Homeland Security Secretary recently waived environmental regulations to allow the construction of the border fence along the Arizona border. A move that environmentalists say will destroy the central part of Arizona's southern desert.

Background

In 1924, Congress created the U.S. Border Patrol. Illegal immigration grew in the late 1970s but new strategies weren't implemented until the 1990s. This is when drug trafficking and illegal immigration began to rise, and concerns about the nation's security became an important issue. Border Control agents along with the military succeeded in reducing the number of smugglers and illegal crossings for a period of time, but once the military left, activity again increased.

After the 9/11 attacks, homeland security was again thrust into the spotlight. Many ideas were tossed around during the next few years on what could be done to permanently secure the border.

52

In 2006, the Secure Fence Act was passed to build 700 miles of double-reinforced security fencing in areas along the border prone to drug trafficking and illegal immigration. President Bush also deployed 6,000 National Guardsmen to the Mexico border to assist with border control.

Testing of "virtual" fences soon followed, but full deployment has been pushed back until the technology can be improved.

We Need the Fence

Policing borders has been integral to the preservation of nations around the globe for centuries. The construction of a fence to safeguard American citizens from illegal activities is in the best interest of the nation.

Illegal immigration is estimated to cost the United States millions of dollars in lost income tax revenue. It also drains government spending by overburdening social welfare, health and education programs.

The use of physical barriers and high-tech surveillance equipment increases the probability of apprehension. The fences that are currently in place have shown success.

Arizona has been the epicenter for crossings by illegal immigrants for several years. Last year, authorities apprehended 8,600 people trying to enter the U.S. illegally in the Barry M. Goldwater Range.

The number of people caught crossing San Diego's border illegally has also dropped dramatically. In the early '90s, about 600,000 people attempted to cross the border illegally. After the construction of a fence and increased border patrols, that number dropped to just 153,000 in 2007.

The Fence Isn't the Answer

Many Americans feel that we should be sending a message of freedom and hope to those seeking a better way of life, instead of hanging a KEEP OUT sign on our borders' fences. They argue that the answer doesn't lie in barriers; it lies in comprehensive immigration reform. Until the foundation of our immigration issues are fixed, building fences is like putting a bandage on a gaping wound.

Environmentalists are particularly unhappy about the border fence. Physical barriers hinder migrating wildlife, and plans show the fence will fragment wildlife refuges and private sanctuaries. Conservation groups are appalled that the Department of Homeland Security is bypassing dozens of environmental and land-management laws in order to build the border fence. Among the 30-some laws being waived are the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

There is also the human aspect to consider. Fences increase the risk and costs of crossing. When risk increases, the people smugglers, called "coyotes," start to charge more for safe passage. When smuggling costs rise, it becomes less cost-effective for individuals to travel back and forth for seasonal work, so they must remain in the U.S. Now the whole family must make the trip to keep everyone together. Children, infants and the elderly will attempt to cross. The conditions are

53

extreme, and people will go for days without food or water. According to U.S. Border Control, almost 2,000 people died crossing the border between 1998 and 2004.

Barriers won't stop people from wanting a better life. And in some cases, they're willing to pay the highest price for the opportunity.

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers (2010)- by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)

Executive Summary

This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84 billion at the state and local level. The study also estimates tax collections from illegal alien workers, both those in the above-ground economy and those in the underground economy. Those receipts do not come close to the level of expenditures and, in any case, are misleading as an offset because over time unemployed and underemployed U.S. workers would replace illegal alien workers.

Key Findings Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level.

The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments. The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed

household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that locality

Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Nearly all of those costs are absorbed by state and local governments.

At the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.

Most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. Among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. Treasury.

With many state budgets in deficit, policymakers have an obligation to look for ways to reduce the fiscal burden of illegal migration. California, facing a budget deficit of $14.4 billion in 2010-2011, is hit with an estimated $21.8 billion in annual expenditures on illegal aliens. New York’s $6.8 billion deficit is smaller than its $9.5 billion in yearly illegal alien costs.

The report examines the likely consequences if an amnesty for the illegal alien population were adopted similar to the one adopted in 1986. The report notes that while tax collections from the illegal alien population would likely increase only marginally, the new legal status would make them eligible for receiving Social Security retirement benefits that would further jeopardize the future of the already shaky system. An amnesty would also result in this large population of illegal aliens becoming eligible for numerous social assistance programs available for low-income populations for which they are not now eligible. The overall result would, therefore, be an accentuation of the already enormous fiscal burden.

54

55

 Methodology All studies assessing the impact of illegal aliens begin with estimates of the size of that population. We use a population of 13 million broken down by state.

In our cost estimates we also include the minor children of illegal aliens born in the United States. That adds another 3.4 million children to the 1.3 million children who are illegal aliens themselves. We include these U.S. citizen children of illegal aliens because the fiscal outlays for them are a direct result of the illegal migration that led to their U.S. birth. We do so as well in the assumption that if the parents leave voluntarily or involuntarily they will take these children with them. The birth of these children and their subsequent medical care represent a large share of the estimated Medicaid and Child Health Insurance Program expenditures associated with illegal aliens.

We use data collected by the federal and state governments on school expenses, Limited English Proficiency enrollment, school meal programs, university enrollment, and other public assistance programs administered at the federal and state level. Estimates of incarceration expenses are based on data collected in the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program in which state and local detention facilities seek federal compensation for the cost of detention of criminal and deportable aliens. Estimates for other administration of justice expenditures are based on data collected from the states by the U.S. Department of Justice. General government expenditures are estimated for other non-enumerated functions of government at both the federal and local level. An example would be the cost of fire departments or the cost of the legislature.

Medical costs that amount to 10 percent of overall state and local outlays on illegal aliens derive from our estimate of the childbirths to illegal alien mothers covered by Medicaid, the subsequent medical insurance and treatment of those children and an estimate of uncompensated cost of emergency medical treatment received by illegal aliens. The latter expenditure estimate is based on state and local government studies of uncompensated medical care.

The tax collections from illegal aliens assume eight million illegal alien workers, one-half of whom are in the underground economy. Those in the above-ground economy are assumed to have an average family income of $31,200 (60 hr. work week @ $10/hr.) with two children.

Conclusion The report notes that today’s debate over what to do about illegal aliens places the country at a crossroads. One choice is pursuing a strategy that discourages future illegal migration and increasingly diminishes the current illegal alien population through denial of job opportunities and deportations. The other choice would repeat the unfortunate decision made in 1986 to adopt an amnesty that invited continued illegal

56

migration. 

July 2010, Revised February 2011http://www.fairus.org/publications/the-fiscal-burden-of-illegal-immigration-on-u-s-taxpayers

57

Meet The Child Workers Who Pick Your Food—By Tom Philpott| Thu Oct. 6, 2011 3:21 PM EDT

Know your farmworker, know your food: Zulema Lopez, 12, left, with her her mother and sister. U. Roberto Romano/The Harvest/La Cosecha

Agriculture tends to cling to certain practices long after the rest of society has discarded them as morally repugnant.

You might think slavery ended after the Civil War, yet it exists to this day in Florida's tomato fields, as Barry Estabrook demonstrates in his brilliant book Tomatoland. Likewise, the practice of subjecting children to hard, hazardous, and low-paid labor seems like a discarded relic of Dickens' London or Gilded Age New York. But here in the United States, hundreds of thousands of kids are doing one of our most dangerous jobs: farm work. They toil under conditions so rough that Human Rights Watch (HRW) has seen fit two issue two damning reports (here and here) on the topic over the past decade.

In the second report, from May 2010, the group concluded: "Shockingly, we found that conditions for child farmworkers in the United States remain virtually as they were a decade ago." Which is to say, appalling. The kids who pick our crops are routinely exposed to toxic pesticides, their fatality rate is four times that of other working youth, and they are four times more likely to drop out than the average American kid—overall, HRW reports, just a third of farmworker kids finish high school.

Oddly, there's nothing illegal about their plight—most federal laws governing child labor don't apply to farms, according to HRW; the US government spends $26 million fighting abusive child labor in other countries, but has failed to bring the fight to America's fields.

The Harvest/La Cosecha, a new documentary directed by the veteran photographer and human rights advocate U. Roberto Romano, shines a bright light on this murky corner of the agribusiness universe. The film traces the lives of three teenagers and their families as they move across the US following the harvest, from Texas onion fields to Michigan apple groves and places in between.

I was lucky enough to attend a one-off showing at the Aero Theater in Santa Monica, California, one of the

58

nation's last great cinema temples. Romano's work is worthy of the big screen—he has a great eye for the spare, monotonous beauty of monocropped fields baking in the sun. We get wide views of them, and their vast expanse seems on the verge of swallowing the kids whole as they pluck fruit after fruit. At other times Romano's lens zooms in to show the field from the kids' perspective: the rows that seem to stretch away to the horizon.

Rather than wagging a finger, Romano lets the kids and the families speak for themselves. We see them cooking dinner, squabbling, dealing with the act of packing up and moving on for the millionth time. They then take to the road in stuffed, beat-up trucks, in pursuit of the next harvest.

The featured kids, two girls and a boy ranging from 12 to 14 years old, are bright and articulate. They're smart enough to realize they're getting a raw deal, that their itinerant lives are harder and more complicated than those of the classmates they're always being wrenched away from at school. Their parents, hyper-focused on keeping the family fed and whole, yet breaking down physically from the rigors of the field, offer a future their children can neither embrace nor easily escape.

As one of the girls, 14-year-old Perla Sanchez, tells Romano, we can't study and graduate high school because we have to work—and we have to work in the fields because we're not properly educated.

It's a vicious cycle, and the film offers no way out. And really, there is no way easy way out—without a high-school diploma, the farm kids face abysmal job prospects in the best of times, let alone the current job market. The kids in the film are right: They've been dealt the hand of poverty.

The only way to give them a fair shake is to improve pay for farm workers. None of the families depicted in The Harvest, as the film makes clear, would subject their kids to lives of field labor if they weren't desperate for money. A generation is being sacrificed to feed us cheaply, and it's about time someone paid attention.

Philpott, Tom. “Meet The Child Workers Who Pick Your Food.” Mother Jones. 6 Oct. 2011. Web. 15 July 2015. http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/10/film-review-the-harvest-child-farmworkers.

59

Surge of Migrant Children Hits U.S.-Mexico Border Number of Unaccompanied Minors Soars During 2014

U.S. authorities are increasing security along the border.  John Moore/Getty Images News/Getty Images

By Dan Moffett (About.com)

The number of unaccompanied children crossing into the United States illegally along the U.S.-Mexico border increased dramatically during 2014, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Federal officials detained more than 52,000 unaccompanied minors along the border during the fiscal year, according to DHS, and authorities apprehended more than 39,000 adults who were with small children.

In the 2013 fiscal year, about 24,000 unaccompanied minors were apprehended along the border.

Most of young migrants were from Central American nations, DHS said, and a disproportionate number were young women who were 13 years old or younger.

The Obama administration responded to the surge by providing $9.6 million in additional support for Central American governments to care for the migrants U.S. authorities had appended and sent back.

Homeland Security set up a processing center at the U.S. Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, to house the children until federal officials can reunite them with families — in the United States or back in their homelands.

60

President Obama, in June 2014 during an ABC News interviews, warned Central American families not to allow their children to try crossing the border.

“Our message absolutely is don’t send your children unaccompanied on trains or through a bunch of smugglers,” Obama told ABC News. We don’t even know how many of these kids don’t make it and may have been waylaid into sex trafficking or killed because they fell off a train.”

Many of those who crossed illegally actually turned themselves in to U.S.

Border Patrol agents, mistakenly believing they would be released quickly and told to appear later for a court hearing. Many migrants believed the government would grant them automatic asylum, according to officials and immigrant rights advocates.

In Washington, Republicans blamed the Obama administration for causing the influx of young migrants by creating unreasonable expectations with his deferred action program for young immigrants who brought into the U.S. illegally as children. Officials said criminals had spread misinformation about Obama’s policy throughout Central America, misleading families into sending their children in the hope they could live legally in the United States.

The increase in illegal entries became another obstacle to Obama’s efforts to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill in Congress.

Texas responded to the growing number of young migrants in June by sending more state law enforcement agents to the state’s southern border. Republican Gov. Rick Perry said: “Texas can’t afford to wait for Washington to act on this criss and we will not sit idly by while the safety and security of our citizens is threatened.”

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson echoed the president’s warning that families should not send children on the dangerous path to the United States.

"This journey is a dangerous one, and at the end of it there is no free pass," Johnson said. "There are no permisos for children, for your children, who come to the United States. The journey from Central America into south Texas is over a thousand miles long. It is hot. It is treacherous and you are placing your child in the hands of a criminal smuggling organization. It is not safe.”

Jan Brewer, Arizona’s Republican governor and a vocal Obama critic, blamed the Obama administration for bad policymaking and ineffective border enforcement.

"This crisis that America is facing with these children, unaccompanied children, is because we have not sent a strong message to these countries that our borders are closed," Brewer said. "And we need a federal government to step up and secure the borders."

61

62

Parents of woman shot at San Francisco pier support strict immigration law proposalBy Janie Har, Associated Press, 7/13/2015 

SAN FRANCISCO -- The parents of Kathryn Steinle on Monday told a cable television host that they support his proposal to give mandatory prison time to deported people who return to the U.S. illegally.

Steinle, 32, was walking along a waterfront in San Francisco when she was shot by a gun allegedly fired by Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, a Mexican national who was in the country illegally.

Sanchez, 45, who has pleaded not guilty, had been released from jail months before the shooting, despite a federal immigration order asking local authorities to hold him.

Jim Steinle and Liz Sullivan of Pleasanton were interviewed by Fox News talk-show host Bill O'Reilly for a segment that aired Monday on "The O'Reilly Factor."

Their daughter's death has fueled a national debate on immigration, with advocates of stricter border control and even some Bay Area Democrats denouncing San Francisco as a city whose immigrant "sanctuary" protections harbor people who are in the country illegally.

Supporters of sanctuary protections have jumped on O'Reilly and others for politicizing the death. They say public safety is improved when immigrants can work with local police without fear of deportation.

To that, Jim Steinle said, "We're getting a little tired of the finger pointing, and we want to see some action."

Steinle, who was at his daughter's side when she was shot, and his wife said the proposed "Kate's Law" would be a good way to keep her memory alive. O'Reilly is collecting signatures for a petition supporting the proposal, which would impose a mandatory five years in federal prison for people who are deported and return and 10 years for people caught a second time.

"We feel the federal, state and cities, their laws are here to protect us," Jim Steinle said. "But we feel that this particular set of circumstances and the people involved, the different agencies let us down."

Liz Sullivan said she hopes some good might come out of her daughter's death.

"You want to make it so much better for everybody in the United States that this, as you say, would never happen again," she said.

Federal records show Lopez-Sanchez had been deported three times before being sentenced to about five years in federal prison in 1998. He had finished his third stint in prison for re-entering the country illegally when he was sent to San Francisco March 26 on an outstanding 1995 drug charge.

63

The San Francisco district attorney's office declined to prosecute, given the age of the case and the small amount of marijuana involved.

The San Francisco Sheriff's Department released Lopez-Sanchez on April 15, declining to honor a request by federal immigration authorities to keep Lopez-Sanchez in custody for 48 hours until they could pick him up for deportation proceedings.

San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi has strenuously defended his decision, saying he was following city law, including a broader 1989 city "sanctuary" law and a more specific 2013 ordinance that applies specifically to federal immigration detainers.

64

The People Who Pick Your Organic Strawberries Have Had It With Rat-Infested Camps—By Tom Philpott| Wed Mar. 25, 2015 6:00 AM EDT

mikeledray/Shutterstock

When most of us think of Mexican food, we visualize tacos, burritos, and chiles rellenos. But we should probably add cucumbers, squash, melons, and berries to the list—more or less the whole supermarket produce aisle, in fact. The United States imports more than a quarter of the fresh fruit and nearly a third of the vegetables we consume. And a huge portion of that foreign-grown bounty—69 percent of vegetables and 37 percent of fruit—comes from our neighbor to the south.

Mexican farmers whose work supplies US supermarkets and restaurants often endure subpar housing, inadequate sanitation, poverty wages, and labor arrangements that approach slavery.Not surprisingly, as I've shown before, labor conditions on Mexico's large export-oriented farms tend to be dismal: subpar housing, inadequate sanitation, poverty wages, and often, labor arrangements that approach slavery. But this week, workers in Baja California, a major ag-producing state just south of California, are standing up. Here's the Los Angeles Times: "Thousands of laborers in the San Quintín Valley 200 miles south of San Diego went on strike Tuesday, leaving the fields and greenhouses full of produce that is now on the verge of rotting."

In addition to the work stoppage, striking workers shut down 55 miles of the Trans-Peninsular Highway, a key thoroughfare for moving goods from Baja California to points north, the Mexico City newspaper La Jornada (in Spanish) reported after the strike started on March 17.

The blockade has been lifted, at least temporarily. But the "road remains hard to traverse as rogue groups stop and, at times, attack truck drivers," the LA Times reports. And the strike itself continues. The uprising is starting to affect US supply chains. An executive for the organic-produce titan Del Cabo Produce, which grows vegetables south of the San Quintín Valley but needs to traverse it to reach its US customers, told the Times that the clash is "creating a lot of logistical problems…We're having to cut orders." And "Costco reported that organic strawberries are in short supply because about 80% of the production this time of year comes from Baja California," the Times added. The US trade publication Produce News downplayed the strike's impact, calling it "minor."

65

Meanwhile, the strike's organizers plan to launch a campaign to get US consumers to boycott products grown in the region, mainly tomatoes, cucumbers, and strawberries, inspired by the successful '70s-era actions of the California-based United Farm Workers, headed by Cesar Chavez, La Jornada reported Tuesday. And current UFW president Arturo Rodriguez has issued a statement of solidarity with the San Quintín strikers.

Such cross-border organizing is critical, because the people who work on Mexico's export-focused farms tend to be from the same places as the people who work on the vast California and Florida operations that supply the bulk of our domestically grown produce: the largely indigenous states of southern Mexico. And the final market for the crops they tend and harvest is also the same: US supermarkets and restaurants.

In a stunning four-part series last year, LA Times reporter Richard Marosi documented the harsh conditions that prevail on the Mexican farms that churn out our food. He found:

Many farm laborers are essentially trapped for months at a time in rat-infested camps, often without beds and sometimes without functioning toilets or a reliable water supply.

Some camp bosses illegally withhold wages to prevent workers from leaving during peak harvest periods.

Laborers often go deep in debt paying inflated prices for necessities at company stores. Some are reduced to scavenging for food when their credit is cut off. It's common for laborers to head home penniless at the end of a harvest.

Those who seek to escape their debts and miserable living conditions have to contend with guards, barbed-wire fences, and sometimes threats of violence from camp supervisors.

Major US companies have done little to enforce social responsibility guidelines that call for basic worker protections such as clean housing and fair pay practices.

As for their counterparts to the north, migrant-reliant US farms tend to treat workers harshly as well, as the excellent 2014 documentary Food Chains demonstrates. The trailer is a good crash course on what it's like to be at the bottom of the US food system.

Philpott, Tom. “The People Who Pick Your Organic Strawberries Have Had It With Rat- Infested Camps.” Mother Jones. 25 Mar. 2015. Web. 15 July 2015.

66

Undocumented immigrant's arrest closes door on deferred actionBy Daniel González, The Republic | azcentral.com April 6, 2014

The young woman jams her fist into the palm of her hand.

One by one she cracks her knuckles. First one hand. Then the other. The noise sounds like frozen carrots breaking.

Crack. Crack. Crack.

Twenty-two-year-old Noemi Romero, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico, cracks her knuckles whenever she gets nervous, a habit she's had since childhood. Her hands sweat and she cracks away.

She cracked them when Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's deputies raided an Asian supermarket in Maryvale last year while she was working there as a cashier.

She cracked them when deputies sent her to jail for illegally using her mother's Social Security number to work.

She cracked them when she was then turned over to immigration authorities for possible deportation to Mexico, a country she hasn't seen since she was a toddler.

And she is cracking them now, sitting in her living room, recalling the entire yearlong saga. It started with a desire to earn $465 to apply for President Barack Obama's deferred-action program. It turned into a felony conviction, a conviction that has ruined her chance at living and working legally in the U.S., perhaps permanently.

Crack. Crack. Crack.

Noemi doesn't get much sympathy from Arpaio. He says he feels sorry for undocumented immigrants brought to this country illegally as children. But Noemi should have known better, having grown up in the U.S.

"This young lady knows you would never borrow your mother's driver's license to drive. She has enough sense not to borrow the mother's Social Security number to get a job," Arpaio said. "She knew she was violating the law, and it's my job to enforce the law."

Still, Noemi can't understand why the penalty is so harsh, so final.

Growing up

Noemi is originally from Villahermosa, the capital of Tabasco, in southern Mexico. Her parents brought her to the U.S. illegally when she was 3, along with her younger brother, Jesus, 20, who was 1 at the time.

Noemi grew up speaking Spanish at home in Glendale but speaks English perfectly. Noemi thought she was like every other American kid until she turned 16 and friends started to drive. She asked them how they got their permits.

"They told me I needed a 'social,' " Noemi recalled. "I said, 'What's that?' "

Noemi asked her parents.

They informed her that she didn't have a Social Security number because she wasn't born in the U.S. and that she didn't have legal status, either.

67

She also had no way to get legal status because she was brought to the U.S. illegally and she didn't have any eligible relatives who could petition for her.

In 2010, she graduated from Ronald C. Bauer Medical Arts School. The Phoenix charter school prepares students for careers in health care. Noemi wanted to study nursing or maybe cosmetology after high school.

After graduation, Noemi watched her friends move on with their lives. Some got jobs. Others went to college.

Not her. Without a Social Security number, she couldn't work legally. She also couldn't afford college because Arizona bars undocumented students from paying in-state tuition, and undocumented students are not eligible for financial aid.

Noemi mostly stayed home helping her mom. Her mom earns money baby-sitting the children of working parents during the day and cleaning other people's houses at night.

Noemi yearned for something better.

A chance at legal status

On June 15, 2012, President Obama stood in the Rose Garden at the White House to address a new policy aimed at immigrants brought to this country illegally as children. They are sometimes called "dreamers," the president said.

"These are young people who study in our schools, they play in our neighborhoods, they're friends with our kids, they pledge allegiance to our flag," Obama said. "They are Americans in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper."

The president's description fit Noemi.

The program, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, allows dreamers with clean records to ask for temporary protection from deportation. Those approved receive renewable, two-year work permits.

Noemi's mother, Maria Gomez, 39, heard about the program a few weeks later watching Spanish news. The first day to apply was coming up on Aug. 15, 2012.

Noemi met all of the requirements: Younger than 31. Brought to the U.S. before the age of 16. High-school graduate. No criminal record.

"I think I'm eligible," she remembers telling her mom.

She was, as were up to 1.7 million other young people across the country brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

But there was a catch. She needed $465 to pay for the application fee.

Borrowing documents

Noemi didn't have a job. And at the time, her dad, Noe Romero, 40, the breadwinner of the family, didn't have steady work. Also an undocumented immigrant, he mounts tires for a living. Noemi's parents didn't have enough money for food and rent, let alone helping Noemi pay for the $465 application fee.

Similar situations have made it hard for many dreamers to apply for DACA.

Noemi tried getting a job without a Social Security number.

68

She filled out at least 15 applications at restaurants and stores around her home near 67th Avenue and Bethany Home Road.

The applications asked for her Social Security number. Noemi left the spot blank. But the managers always asked, "Why didn't you fill this out?"

"I would just look at them and not say anything," Noemi said.

The managers would tell Noemi they'd get back to her.

They never did.

Part of the reason Noemi was having a tough time getting a job is a 2008 state law that sanctionsemployers that "knowingly" or "intentionally" hire unauthorized workers. The law also requires employers to use a federal online system, E-Verify, to check whether any new employees are authorized to work.

Then one day in late October 2012, a friend called Noemi on her cellphone.

The friend knew about an opening at Lam's Supermarket on Indian School Road and 67th Avenue. A cashier was about to quit. She should apply, the friend said.

Noemi told her she didn't have any legal work documents.

"She told me it didn't matter," Noemi recalled. "If I could just borrow documents from someone that would be fine."

Noemi knew someone with documents she could borrow. Her mother.

Saving for application

Maria Gomez is in the country illegally. But she has a valid Social Security number and a federal work permit because for the past four years she has been fighting a deportation case against her in U.S. immigration court.

The government sometimes issues work permits to undocumented immigrants until their deportation cases are legally resolved, which can take years. Gomez is fighting to have the case thrown out because she has lived in the U.S. for more than 10 years and has another daughter, Cynthia, 14, who was born in the U.S., making her a citizen.

Noemi picked up a job application at Lam's the same day her friend called. Instead of her own information, she filled out the application using her mother's name and Social Security number.

Lam's Supermarket is in a rundown strip mall. The store, a mile from Noemi's home, specializes in Asian food products and exotic whole fish displayed in beds of ice in back.

Noemi turned in her job application the next day. She was hired on the spot.

After two weeks of training, Noemi started working as a cashier three days a week. Her usual hours were 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. She started at $7.65 an hour.

Noemi opened a bank account right away. But it took more than two months to save the money she needed. She first had to help her parents pay for food and rent.

Noemi got paid Wednesdays. On Jan. 16, 2013, Noemi's paycheck totaled about $200. She planned to deposit the entire amount in her bank account that Friday, her day off. She had finally saved enough money for the $465 deferred-action application fee. She planned to apply the next week.

69

She never got the chance.

Sheriff's deputies arrive

The next day, Thursday, Jan. 17, Noemi was standing behind one of the cash registers ringing up customers. She was about to take her lunch break when she noticed two or three men enter the store through the automatic glass doors.

The men were wearing regular clothes. But something about them told Noemi they were not customers.

The men walked down the grocery aisles pretending to be shoppers. Then Noemi saw one ask for the manager at the service counter. He was holding papers. Noemi saw him pull out a badge.

More deputies arrived, dressed in uniform. Noemi recalls seeing at least two dozen deputies stream through the front door. She knew right away what was happening. The deputies were raiding the supermarket. Noemi had seen video of other raids on the news many times before.

In a panic, Noemi grabbed her cellphone from her pocket and texted her mom.

"Acaban de llegar los sheriffs aqui."

The sheriffs just arrived.

Lam's investigation

Eleven months earlier, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office "criminal employment squad" opened an investigation into Lam's Supermarket after receiving a tip from a former employee, according to court records. The former employee told investigators that workers at the store were using Social Security numbers belonging to other people to get jobs.

Investigators started digging into the claims. They examined Wage and Earning Reports on file at the state Department of Economic Security.

They found various discrepancies after cross-referencing the names and Social Security numbers of workers employed at Lam's using law-enforcement data bases, according to court records.

"The discrepancies consisted of multiple names, different addresses, no records and the listed names not matching the SSN (Social Security number)," according to court records.

Sheriff's investigators then asked the Social Security Administration to run a check. They found 21 names that came up as suspicious, according to court records. One was Maria Gomez, the name Noemi was using to work at Lam's.

After obtaining a search warrant, sheriff's deputies decided to raid Lam's at 1 p.m. Jan. 17, 2013. Deputies had determined there would be more employees than customers inside the store at that time. It was the 70th raid since Sheriff Arpaio began raiding businesses and arresting workers in 2008. To date, 776 workers have been arrested in 79 raids.

"We don't go into these workplaces because we're going after illegal immigrants," Arpaio said. "We go into the workplaces for people with fake IDs, which is a big problem. ... This is serious, stealing Social Security numbers. Very important."

'I was just working'

During the raid, sheriff's deputies fanned out throughout the store, rounding up workers. They found nine of the 21 they were looking for. Deputies lined up Noemi and the other workers at the front of the store.

70

There were two cashiers, a woman from produce and six workers from the fish and meat counters, Noemi said.

Noemi remembers being handcuffed with a pair of pink handcuffs, a trademark of the sheriff's, and told to have a seat. She remembers sitting there for nearly two hours wondering why she was being arrested.

"I kept crying," Noemi recalled. "It wasn't fair what they were doing to me. I was like, 'Why am I getting arrested?' I was just working. I wasn't doing anything bad."

The deputies finally told the workers to get up. Noemi remembers being walked in handcuffs to a sheriff's van waiting outside.

She saw lots of television cameras. She also saw her mom standing behind some yellow police tape yelling her nickname, Mimi.

"Mimi," her mother yelled. "No firmas nada."

Mimi. Don't sign anything.

Facing serious charges

During their search, deputies found an employee file at Lam's Supermarket for Maria Gomez, according to court records. The file contained photocopies of a Social Security card and other documents with the name Maria Gomez.

During an interview with sheriff's deputies, Noemi admitted working under her mom's information, according to court records.

Noemi gives a different account. She believes she was swept up in the raid by accident. A deputy at the jail told her she was not one of the 21 workers they were looking for, she says. The deputy wanted to let her go when another deputy found a pay stub in her purse with her mother's name on it. The name on the pay stub didn't match her school ID, which she says she had originally shown them.

She said the deputy got angry when he found the pay stub and yelled at her.

"He said, 'Why are you lying to us?' " Noemi recalled. "He started shaking the pay stub in my face. 'Why are you working with this? You are working under someone else's name. Do you think I'm stupid? I know what you are doing.' "

In the end, deputies charged her with forgery, identity theft and aggravated identity theft, all serious felonies.

No supervisors or managers at Lam's have been charged as a result of the raid.

But in October, in an unrelated case, the co-owners of Lam's Seafood Market, which has the same address, Dat Tan "Tom" Lam of Goodyear and Precious Progress "Robert" Lam of Litchfield Park, each pleaded guilty to conspiracy counts in federal court.

The two brothers were accused of attempting to evade payroll and other taxes by concealing sales records, filing false payroll-tax returns, paying employees in cash and failing to file personal and business tax returns in 2003, 2004 and 2005.

The brothers were sentenced Tuesday. They faced probation, home confinement except to work, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in restitution and penalties, but no prison time, according to court records.

Under the plea agreement, however, they face no prison time.

71

60 days in jail

Noemi spent the next 60 days behind bars at Estrella Jail waiting for her court date. Although she hadn't been charged with a violent crime, Noemi was not eligible to be released on bond while her court date was pending. Arizona has a law that denies bond to immigrants in the country illegally who are charged with serious felonies.

In jail, Noemi wore a black-and-white-striped prison uniform issued to all inmates. She shared a large dorm room with more than 100 other women.

"There were drug addicts and crazy people," Noemi said.

She slept in a bunk bed and ate plates of food the jail officers called "slop."

"Sometimes there were little worms in there. It just smelled horrible," Noemi said.

The other inmates often asked her, "Why are you in here?"

They seemed shocked when Noemi told them.

"They couldn't understand why they would put you in there for trying to work," Noemi said.

The consequences

On March 18, 2013, Noemi pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of criminal impersonation, a Class 6 felony, the lowest level. Her defense lawyer, James Tinker, told Noemi that was the best deal she could get.On her plea agreement, Noemi initialed a paragraph saying she understood that pleading guilty may have immigration consequences, among them being deported, and possibly being barred from ever getting legal status or citizenship.

Tinker also said it's his standard practice to review all possible immigration consequences, including deferred action, with his clients before they agree to plead guilty. Still, Noemi said she didn't realize that pleading guilty to a felony would ruin her chances to apply for deferred action.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter C. Reinstein sentenced Noemi to 60 days in jail and six months probation. She was given credit for the 60 days she had spent in jail.

Next, Noemi was turned over to the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and placed in deportation proceedings. She spent five more weeks in a detention center in Eloy while her case was pending.

While Noemi was in detention, a Phoenix advocacy group, Puente Arizona, launched an online campaign demanding that ICE stop trying to deport her.

On April 25, 2013, Noemi had a hearing in front of an immigration judge in Eloy. She was sure she was going to be deported to Mexico. Her parents worried something bad could happen to her at the border, where criminals often prey on deportees. Just in case, they arranged for a family friend who is a U.S. citizen to drive across the border to Nogales and stay with Noemi at a hotel.

The deportation hearing lasted a couple of minutes. Afterward, a detention officer escorted Noemi to her cell.

Do you understand what happened? the officer asked. Her case was dismissed. But Noemi didn't know what that meant.

It means, you are going home, the officer told her.

72

Noemi got scared.

"To Mexico?" she asked.

No, the officer told her. Home. Call your family.

Not giving up on dream

Recalling that moment a year later, Noemi pauses. The silence in the room is broken by the sound of Noemi cracking her knuckles. It is the sound of Noemi's dreams being broken.

Crack. Crack. Crack.

If she hadn't been convicted, Noemi believes she would have been approved for the deferred-action program by now. She would have her work permit. She would be back in school.

Instead, Noemi still stays home helping her mom baby-sit.

Noemi said she understands she broke the law. But she doesn't regret borrowing her mother's Social Security number. She was just trying to earn money for the application fee.

"I felt like that was the only way," she said.

But she would not tell other young undocumented immigrants to do the same thing.

"What happened to me might happen to you," she said.

Noemi faces an uncertain future. But nearly being deported has taught her to look on the bright side. She also has not given up hope that one day she will be able to work legally in the U.S. and go back to school.

"I'm just not sure how it will happen," she said.

Arizona Republic reporter Daniel González conducted multiple interviews with Noemi Romero in person and by phone. He also conducted several interviews with her mother, Maria Gomez. He verified information about Romero's criminal case through court records. He verified information about her deportation case with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and with documents provided by Romero.

73

What It's Like To Sneak Across the Border To Harvest Food—By Tom Philpott| Thu Oct. 31, 2013

Author Seth Holmes, second from left (standing), preparing to sneak across the US/Mexico border with Triqui migrant farm workers. Courtesy of University of Califiornia Press.

For most anthropologists, "field work" means talking to and observing a particular group. But for Seth Holmes, a medical anthropologist at the University of California-Berkeley, it also literally means working in a field: toiling alongside farm workers from the Triqui indigenous group of Oaxaca, Mexico, in a vast Washington state berry patch. It also means visiting them in their tiny home village—and making the harrowing trek back to US farm fields through a militarized and increasingly perilous border.

Holmes recounts his year and a half among the people who harvest our food in his new book Fresh Fruit, Broken Bodies. It's a work of academic anthropology, but written vividly and without jargon. In its unvarnished view into what our easy culinary bounty means for the people burdened with generating it, Fresh Fruit/Broken Bodies has earned its place on a short shelf alongside works like Tracie McMillan's The American Way of Eating, Barry Estabrook's Tomatoland, and Frank Bardacke's Trampling Out the Vintage: Cesar Chavez and the Two Souls of the United Farm Workers.

I recently caught up with Holmes via phone about the view from the depths of our food system.

Mother Jones: What sparked your interest in farm workers—and how did you gain access to the workers you cover in the book? 

74

Seth Holmes: I've always been interested in Latin America. My parents took me to southern Mexico as a kid, basically once or twice a year to volunteer at an orphanage there. I started looking into working with migrant farm workers in the Central Valley of California, and had a pretty hard time getting direct access to them—the farm owners weren't cooperative. Then I went up to Washington state to visit a social worker friend who was working with this group of indigenous farm workers from Mexico. He also introduced me to a Methodist pastor whose parishioners included the owners of the farm where the workers worked. And with those connections in place, I was able to get access both to the workers and the farm itself.

MJ: Talk me through the scope of your project.

SH: I did full-time field research for 18 months, starting in 2004. I started with them up in Washington state, living in the labor camp and picking berries with them and then moved to central California with them. When we got to California, we were homeless for the first week, living out of our cars until we could find an apartment that would rent to people without a credit history. And then 19 of us moved into a three-bedroom apartment and then trimmed vineyards whenever we could get work. Then we moved down to their home village up in the mountains of Oaxaca, Mexico, and then I crossed the border with them into Arizona, on their way back to Washington.

MJ: What sort of conditions were you seeing in the fields? 

SH: If you don't pick the minimum weight you get one chance to show you can do it, and then if you can't do it a second time then you're fired and kicked out of the camp. They ended up making an exception for me—they kept me on even though I wasn't able to pick the minimum, because I was kind of interesting to have around and didn't fit in. I was the one white guy who worked in the field. 

MJ: What sort of wages were folks making? 

SH: They were paid 14 cents per pound of de-leafed, ripe strawberries. At the time minimum wage was $7.16 in Washington, so they had to pick at least 60 pounds of strawberries each hour. Strawberries last maybe two months, blueberries last maybe another two months, and then most of the farm workers then moved to the Central Valley of California where they looked for work and there isn't very much work in the winter. All told, they made between $5000 and $7000 per year.

MJ: What it was like in the village in Oaxaca? 

SH: The village was in the mountains, in a really arid place. They grow all different kinds of corn, as well as beans and greens. They're basically subsistence farmers, using their ancestral lands to grow food for themselves and for their families, and then they sell [surplus] corn in the nearby town so they can buy the uniforms for the public school and things like that. But over the last 20 or so years, the area has been becoming more economically depressed. In my understanding, a large reason for that is the North American Free Trade Agreement, which makes it illegal for any signatory country, including Mexico, to have tariffs on produce from other countries. But it allows the relatively wealthy country, the US, to have crop subsidies, which are essentially a hidden tariff.

MJ: Did you find that most families in those villages had someone in the US earning dollars? 

75

SH: Definitely, at least one person. And you could sort of tell, based on their houses, how many family members were in the US. Some of them had dirt-floor houses, and some of them had concrete houses that were being added onto with money they were being sent back from the US. 

MJ: What sort of differences in diets did you note between labor camps in the US  and in the Oaxacan villages? 

SH: In the village, they mostly ate what they grew. They would make homemade tortillas from the corn they grew, they'd eat a lot of greens that they grew or that they would just pick from the nearby forest, they would eat beans, and then sometimes they would buy eggs from neighbors, or they would keep some chickens for eggs. That was basically their diet.

In the US, on pay day often they would go to a fast-food restaurant to kind of celebrate—they'd get burgers and fries. Most of the rest of the week they would get food from churches or soup kitchens. One of the families liked to go out to a cheap Chinese buffet place, because you could get a lot of food for a small amount of money.

MJ: Talk me through the passage north over the border. Start with the "coyote"—the person who facilitates the illicit crossing.

SH: The people I was with were lucky, because unlike people from Central America, they came with a coyote from their home village. So their coyote is usually someone they can trust to have their best interest at heart. Whereas people from Central America who come to the northern border of Mexico have to go search around for a coyote, and don't really have any background with any of the people to know who's trustworthy and who might be kidnapping them. 

MJ: How much did the passage cost—what was the going rate for a coyote? 

SH: At that point, it was about $2,000. Now it can be up to $4,000 because of all the changes at the border [i.e., ramped-up efforts on the US side designed to keep undocumented migrants out]. And of course, the journey has gotten dangerous [since 2004]. A recent University of Arizona study showed that the number of people dying in the desert each year [during the passage] has gone up even though the number of people trying to cross has gone down.

MJ: So how did it go for you and your friends?

SH: We rode a bus from the town right next to where they live all the way up to the the US/Mexico border—something like 40 hours. A few times a day we were stopped at a kind of military check point, and each time the bus driver would announce over the intercom that everybody should say that they're going to Baja, California, to pick tomatoes so that then there wouldn't be extra time wasted answering questions about border crossings. But each time he made that announcement he would also point at me and say you have to say that you're going to Guadalajara or Hermosillo or whatever, kind of the nearest tourist town so that they wouldn't think that I was kind of hitch hiking. 

We crossed the border on foot, starting at sunset through the desert into Arizona. I couldn't tell the difference between Sonora and Arizona—they looked the same. We hiked through, under, and over 17 or so fences—some wooden, some barbed wire. We'd rest in dried-up creek beds, because we know in a creek bed there weren't going to be cacti. We ripped open trash bags and used them as blankets. At one point, we slept while our coyote went to make contact with the person who was supposed to drive us past the second border checkpoint into the US.

76

MJ: Did you ever feel you were in danger? 

SH: Definitely. It was terrifying. You can't use head lamps or flashlights, because you don't want to be seen. So you're moving through the desert with cacti, and we ran into at least one rattlesnake, and we know that there are scorpions. Anytime you see anyone off in the distance, you knew that they could be other people to cross the border, or they could be people who are trying to rob you, because they know that everyone going through the desert has a bunch of cash on them, for the trip and for their coyote and things like that. This went on for something like 15 hours.

MJ: In the whole progression of your project—from farm work to this awful crossing and back—what sort of both physical and psychological toll did you see on these people who are essentially putting food on our tables? 

SH: There's this sort of unspoken transaction going on, where the workers endure the crossing and then start working seven days a week bent over, so that their families can get by in Mexico. Most of them develop bad knees, backs and hips, some of them have problems from pesticide exposure, and pregnant women more often will have problems with premature birth or birth defects. And everyone kind of expects not be able to work a full career because the work is so difficult on their bodies—that after 10 years or so their backs will be so bad that they won't be able to do it any more. And part of the transaction is that they're giving up their bodily health so that the rest of us can shop at grocery stores and farmer's markets and have access to exactly what public-health researchers and doctors tell us we need to be healthy: fresh fruits and fresh vegetables.

Tom Philpott. “What It's Like To Sneak Across the Border To Harvest Food.” Mother Jones. 31 Oct 2013. Web. 15 July 2015. http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2013/10/rough-passage-what-its-cross-border-harvest-your-food.

77

Arizona Minutemen Driven Largely By Sense of Insecurity, Victimization

Part One of Twoby Gabriel Thompson

The vigilantes patrolling the Mexico-US border have received lots of attention, but a closer look reveals complex, often contradictory motives and a cynical, almost desperate worldview you may find historically or even personally familiar.

Tombstone, Arizona , Apr 15 - A mile from the Mexican border, Jim Gilchrist strode through the makeshift headquarters of the controversial Minuteman Project. Located on the campus of the Miracle Valley Bible College, individuals wearing Minuteman nametags posted maps of the border terrain, fidgeted with electronic equipment, and installed numerous antennae on the roof, all under the watchful eye of Gilchrist, the Project’s primary organizer. Outside, a white flag fluttered in the wind, bearing the emblem of a coiled rattlesnake and two messages for visitors: "Don’t Tread on Me" and "Liberty or Death." As armed guards prepared to patrol the area, the church was beginning to resemble a military compound; volunteers suddenly referred to what was previously the cafeteria as the "mess hall"; the church grounds became "the perimeter."

Standing 6 feet 6 inches and dressed head to toe in desert camouflage fatigues, a Minuteman volunteer named Mike explained that he had just flown in from Peru. Originally from Georgia, Mike, who like most volunteers refused to give a last name, had recently married a Peruvian woman that he met while vacationing, and hoped to soon begin the process to have her come to the US. "They say it can sometimes take many years," he mentioned. "But I just think that you have to follow the rules and come here legally."

Mike explained that he had heard of the Minuteman Project through a Yahoo! email discussion group while in Peru and that he would be staying at the Bible College for the entire month of the Project. When asked what had motivated him to leave his wife back in Peru, he expressed the belief that Mexicans were "taking over" Georgia, and that he felt it important to secure the border. "Mexican are coming over right now," he said, emphasizing the last two words, an intense look on his face as he peered out into the desert. "That, more than anything, is why I decided to join."

A ‘Blocking Force’ Against ‘Invading Aliens’

The meandering reporters in Tombstone, Arizona and the buzz of activity on the dusty church campus were the fulfillment of a dream for Gilchrist, 56, a retired accountant and Vietnam War veteran from southern California. Last October he sent out what he now calls the "email heard round the world," asking for volunteers to come to Arizona and become "part of a blocking force against entry into the US by illegal aliens [in order to] protect our country from a 40-year-long invasion."

After months of forwarded emails and a number of appearances on cable television, Gilchrist eventually claimed to have more than 1,000 volunteers ready to monitor the border and notify immigration officials when they spotted migrants crossing.

For Gilchrist and his local connection, Tombstone Tumbleweed publisher Chris Simcox, the decision to focus the efforts of the Minutemen in Cochise County was an easy one. Located within the Tucson Sector, Cochise has now become the busiest smuggling route on the US-Mexico border. Though Cochise only includes 83 border miles, it receives 43 percent of the Tucson Sector’s immigrant interdiction resources. According to the Border Patrol, 71,282 undocumented immigrants were apprehended in Cochise County from October 2004 through February 2005.

As the border-crossing capital of Arizona -- a state that last year saw the apprehension of more migrants than California, New Mexico and Texas combined -- Cochise is the figurative front line of what many conservatives characterize as an "invasion." Indeed, just a few days before the Minuteman Project

78

launched, the Department of Homeland Security announced it would be adding 500 additional border patrol agents in Arizona, a move Gilchrist and Simcox dismissed as a public relations event that was far from adequate.

Vigilantes ‘Half Awake’ to Hate

Gilchrist and Simcox both balk at the notion that they are encouraging vigilantism, citing the orders given to participants to maintain a strict "no contact" policy in their dealings with migrants. In what quickly became a favorite sound bite, they described their campaign as simply the largest "neighborhood watch" effort in the country. In addition to aiding Border Patrol agents in spotting migrants, Gilchrist stated in his recruitment email that he hoped to highlight through media exposure what he sees as the need to secure US borders by dramatically increasing the funding and staff for the Border Patrol and Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, both of which fall under the purview of the Department of Homeland Security.

While immigrant rights groups condemned the Minutemen as ignorant about the realities faced by immigrant families striving to earn an adequate wage on which to survive, the Project generated increasing controversy when it became popular among white supremacist websites and Internet discussion forums. The Arizona Republic reported in March that an Aryan Nation site linked directly to the Minuteman Project, issuing a "call for action on part of ALL ARYAN SOLDIERS."

At the same time, the Southern Poverty Law Center – a nonprofit organization that monitors hate groups – warned that members of the white power National Alliance organization were seeking to infiltrate the Project. According to the SPLC, one member posted his or her plans on a racist Internet bulletin board: "This is a good opportunity to reach out to people who are ‘half awake’ and help them the rest of the way. I’m a missionary for racism and I see fertile ground!"

Reacting to the Project’s popularity among white supremacist outfits, Gilchrist claimed to have instituted a background check on all participants to weed out overtly bigoted individuals. Minutemen generally swear they and their actions are not racist.

But such measures and rhetoric provide little comfort for critics like Jennifer Allen, director of the Tucson-based Border Action Network, the members of which are mostly Latinos living along both sides of the border. Founded in 1999, BAN has been focusing on organizing affected residents to demand a government crackdown on the apparently burgeoning vigilante border patrol movement.

On the day before the Project began, when asked if she thought there was a potential for violence, Allen broke into a grin. "Well, let’s see… a bunch of untrained men coming to the border with firearms for a month -- yes, I’d say the potential for violence is there." Allen gave a laugh. "I think you could safely say that all the ingredients are present."Indeed, BAN has compiled numerous complaints of vigilante violence against presumed undocumented immigrants prior to the arrival of the Minutemen, and filed several lawsuits against notorious rancher Roger Barnett, who claims to have detained thousands of migrants on his properties. In addition to the regular patrols by Barnett and his supporters, and Simcox’s own Civil Homeland Defense, an organization called Ranch Rescue reportedly conducts periodic "operations" on the border, searching for migrants while dressed in camouflage fatigues and sporting assault rifles.

Most Volunteers Stay Home, While Media Turns Out in Force

On the opening day of the Minuteman Project, volunteers registered inside a former Tombstone courtroom while dozens of reporters huddled outside. The scene remained calm until noon, when anti-Minutemen protesters arrived.

A group of men, women and children adorned in indigenous headdresses and clothing danced and pounded drums, while alongside them a contingent of activists banged on pots and pans. One brown-skinned man carried a sign that read, "You’re the immigrant." Scrawled across the t-shirt of another woman were the

79

words, "Minutemen are Racist." A white man standing away from the group, presumably a Minuteman, began to yell "Viva la Migra!" -- a popular anti-immigrant slogan, meaning "long live the border patrol."

Around the protesters, a handful of people wore red and white shirts denoting them as self-proclaimed legal observers. One of these volunteers was Caroline Isaacs, director of the Tucson office of the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC). She said the AFSC, in collaboration with the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, planned to monitor the activities of the Minutemen throughout the month-long operation. "We already know which roads they will be using, and so we will drive along the same roads until we find them, and set up ten to fifteen feet away," she said. "We’ll tell law enforcement anytime we see people’s civil rights being violated."

Another group that showed up to voice opposition to the Minutemen was the National Alliance for Human Rights. Maria Anna Gonzales, one of that group’s organizers, traveled to Tombstone with a contingent from California. "We are here to show binational support for the poor people who are acting on their right to food and clothing, which is basic human right for everyone," she said. "We are in solidarity with those struggling to assert that right."

When the dust cleared and the Minutemen and protesters departed, it was unclear how many people had actually signed up; from the ground, it seemed there were more media workers than Minutemen. Although Gilchrist and Simcox refused to give a registration count, the Arizona Daily Star estimated that 150 people had enlisted, based on a review of photographs taken for the paper.

The vast majority of enlistees were older white men, but also included a significant number of white women, who also preferred to be called Minutemen. Several volunteers looked to be in their twenties. Though Gilchrist had promised that many non-white participants would be in attendance – particularly foreign-born Americans who had immigrated legally -- after hours of surveying the group and speaking with other reporters, it was difficult to identify a single one.

Victims and Scapegoats

As much as has been made of the vigilante-like attitude of the Minutemen, most simultaneously claimed victimization at the hands of undocumented immigrants. Nevertheless, even among these most ardent of nationalists, a subsurface understanding of the social complexity surrounding immigration issues often peeked through.

At breakfast on day two of the project, someone placed a stack of t-shirts and stickers on a table for sale. One of the stickers read, "Kick Me -- I’m a Citizen." Those five words seem to summarize the general feelings of many participants, who regularly expressed the belief that the United States rewards "aliens" that immigrate illegally while punishing, by contrast, "hard-working" citizens. In their view, a zero-sum battle is underway, and immigrants are the variable: whenever an undocumented immigrant receives a job or even medical treatment, Minutemen seem to truly believe a US citizen, somewhere else, is simultaneously being stripped of the same benefit.

A Minuteman named Gabriel, who is from Freeport, Long Island, decided to volunteer because he said that hundreds of immigrants gathered on street corners looking for work, which in his opinion made the area feel like a slum while driving down wages of citizen construction workers. He has been a union carpenter for many years, but believes he now has less work since contractors are more likely to hire immigrants at well below the prevailing wage.

Another volunteer, Bob, a hefty revolver strapped to his belt, lamented that his son, a former Marine who had fought in the first war against Iraq, could not get a job as a police officer because he speaks no Spanish. "He’s 6 feet 4 inches, 240 pounds," Bob said, "but no one will hire him because they say he has to be bilingual. Since when do you have to be bilingual in our country?"

These are the kinds of anecdotal observations on which the Minutemen base their conclusions that Latino immigrants pose a growing threat to the United States. Yet some expressed an awareness that the problem’s

80

roots are anywhere but on the US-Mexico border.

Even for Bob, who also happens to be a longtime union member, the shrinking power of labor cannot be blamed on undocumented immigrants themselves. He explained that he wrote a dissertation while at the George Meany Labor Center on the effects illegal immigration has on union organizing. "I interviewed labor leaders, border patrol officials, everyone," Bob proudly recalled. "But I discovered that it wasn’t illegal immigration that ruined the unions. It was the fact that they stopped organizing."

Another participant, Jim, was also upset about the presence of large numbers of undocumented immigrants in his state of Nebraska and has become an activist working with support from a national organization called FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which has been spearheading anti-immigrant legislation around the country. With FAIR providing legal counsel and the funds to gather thousands of signatures, Jim hopes to introduce a statewide initiative to target companies that hire undocumented workers, rendering them legally liable for engaging in "unfair trade practices" and subject to steep fines.

Jim outlined a three-prong solution to what he called "the immigration problem": cut off demand through tough penalties for employers that hire undocumented immigrants, cut off supply by increasing border security, and then conduct sweeps throughout the country for the people that are already here in violation of their immigration status. Not included in Jim’s plan, however, is what many analysts view as the only long-term solution to illegal immigration from Latin American: the ability of workers to earn a living wage in their home country.

Moreover, immigrant rights groups contend that the current tendency to scapegoat undocumented Latino immigrants is nothing but a continuation of a long and often brutal tradition of so-called "nativism," a nationalist ideology which has previously demonized migrants and refugees from Ireland, China and more recently the Middle East. Paradoxically, nativists have almost always been white immigrants and their descendents.

After breakfast, the Minutemen held protests at the Border Patrol stations of Naco and Douglas, two border towns in Cochise County, to highlight their view that the number of border agents needs to be increased dramatically. Under a sun that quickly turned white faces crimson, protesters lined up with dozens of angry signs demanding action.

"America First!" "No Benefits for Illegals!" "Stop the Illegal Invasion!" "Close Al-Qeada Hiking Trails!" "Illegal Aliens, Stop Destroying My Desert!" Most participants saved their harshest criticism for Bush, who had recently labeled them "vigilantes." Many Minutemen posited the belief that Bush is actually under the control of Mexican President Vicente Fox.

Though the complaints of the protesters were as varied as their signs, the unifying theme was expressed on a placard carried by Wes Bramhall, president of Arizonans for Immigration Control: "Dispatch US Army Troops to the Mexico Border." Dozens of participants agreed that a massive build-up along the border was needed. Next to Bramhall, David Pfeffer, a city council member from Sante Fe, also explained the situation in military terms.

"If the Project stays calm, then it will send a very good message," Pfeffer said. "The border situation is insane, and my take is that we’re at war." Although he was optimistic about the prospects of stemming immigration along the US-Mexico border, translated as the Minuteman Project presence of April 2005*, the task sounded unlikely at first: insert a group of 100 armed men and women that speak little Spanish into a "war," but "stay calm." Yet for all of the sidearms strapped to belts and the endless red-faced chants of "Hey hey, ho ho, illegal aliens have got to go!" – both rallies went off without incident.

That night, the Minutemen held a meeting in the lobby of the headquarters, preparing for the first day of surveillance. Simcox addressed the group. "We have 100 people going out tomorrow," he said, acknowledging that in fact the group would be dramatically smaller than originally advertised. "The line is set. And you should all know that the Border Patrol agents appreciate what you are sacrificing." The group

81

broke into applause, then dispersed and prepared for the first day of monitoring the border.

The official position of the Border Patrol has been anything but supportive of the Minuteman Project. In public statements, officials with the agency have repeatedly argued that the job of patrolling the border was best left to trained agents. Tucson Sector Chief Michael Nicley, referring to the Minutemen, told the Sierra Vista Herald: "I don’t think it enhances border safety. To the contrary I think it detracts from border safety. I think it puts people at risk needlessly."

Back at Minuteman headquarters, the Bible College’s president Dr. Melvin Harter made a point of noting that the church was officially unaffiliated with the Minutemen. "Don’t get me wrong, we are totally in support of their work," he continued, qualifying his disclaimer. "We have to do something about all of the illegals, the drugs, the terrorists."

Although Harter, like many Minutemen supporters and volunteers, suggested that terrorists were crossing the Arizona border, he – as well as every other Minuteman interviewed for this story –cited no hard evidence in support of the claim.

For Harter, it is not only the alleged threat of terrorism that he finds disconcerting. He also puts forth the sense that the very quality of what it is to be an American citizen today is at risk. "Some people want to open the borders," Harter said. "But if you do that, then pretty soon what makes this country special will be lost. People keep coming and we’ll be in the minority, and they’ll have more votes than us. And then we’re up a creek."

Yet at the same time, Harker has his pragmatic side. With his church needing extensive renovation, Harter does see a potential role for Mexicans in the US. "I’m not saying that no one can come," he mentioned. "Even now, I couldn’t hire an illegal to work here or I’d get in trouble. If we could give them work permits, then they could come here and help fix up this place," he noted, referring to the Bible College. "And then when the work is done, they go home."

All Quiet on the Southern Front

During the first week of patrols, most groups saw little that could be considered "action." But the lack of sightings probably owed largely to the Minuteman Project’s widely publicized presence at the border. The operation received extensive coverage in the Spanish language media on both sides of the border. Media-driven awareness was coupled with the efforts of a Mexican government agency, Grupo Beta, which during routine patrols to assist would-be border-crossers passed out flyers warning against entering the United States in the Cochise County area during the month of April.

As a result, volunteers spent the majority of their time seated on folding chairs, occasionally peering through binoculars at the vast desert, spotting more birds than immigrants.

But not all attempts to stop desperate Latinos from crossing the border were fruitless. During one patrol near the Bible College, freelance videographers and Minutemen volunteers Diane and Lawrence Headrick discovered a migrant sleeping in a tunnel beneath a highway.

Diane, an adhesive bandage on her chin, recounted the panic the event inspired: "I was just looking around and saw the illegal laying down over there," she said, pointing toward the tunnel. "I couldn’t believe it, and turned around to run as fast as I could, but fell down and hit my face on the ground." After calling the Border Patrol, Lawrence filmed the alleged migrant and his eventual capture.

Despite the injury, Lawrence and Diane were both excited to have filmed the episode. "We spent three days driving to get here, hoping to film images of illegals invading our country," Lawrence said. "And we got everything we needed during our first two hours."

Thompson, Gabriel. “Arizona Minutemen Driven Largely by Sense of Insecurity, Victimization.” The New Standard. 15 April 2005. Web. 15 July 2015.

82

Would-Be Migrants See Vigilante Border Patrol as Temporary Nuisance

Part Two of Twoby Gabriel Thompson

Despite rumors and confusion, Mexican’s gathering at the US border and looking northward say they have every intention of crossing, either at another location or after the Minuteman Project dissipates at the end of April.

Agua Prieta, Mexico, Apr 20 - For the past eleven years, Enrique Enriquez Palafox has worked on the Mexican border, rescuing migrants in need of food and water. As an employee with Grupo Beta, a Mexican government-sponsored agency whose mission, "Protección a Migrantes," is stamped across the back of his jacket, Palafox is accustomed to the constant search for men, women and children lost in the 23 mile-long stretch of desert between the Mexican border towns of Agua Prieta and Naco.

Palafox was carrying out his humanitarian labor as he had for over a decade -- without fanfare -- when earlier this month a group of American vigilantes calling themselves the Minutemen began setting up lawn chairs along the north side of the border, bringing binoculars, pistols and countless reporters with them.

Since then, with armed border-watchers planted on the US side of the border with the express intent to disrupt illegal immigration and report undocumented immigrants to US authorities, Palafox and other service providers have seen a drop in the number of migrants crossing in the area, but the true impact of the Minuteman Project on migration remains to be seen. The Spanish-language press has frequently run stories about the Minutemen, complete with footage of armed American civilians patrolling the border. In addition, Grupo Beta has posted flyers along the border and in Agua Prieta, warning potential border-crossers to avoid the area during the month of April.

But Bertha de la Rosa, the coordinator for Grupo Beta in Agua Prieta, thinks the Minuteman presence will have no long-term effect on the status quo. Aa short woman whose friendly smile belies her no-nonsense attitude, she said she believed that for the most part, migrants were not deciding to abandon their journey entirely. She suspected they were merely moving farther west towards the border city of Nogales, or perhaps simply waiting for the Minutemen to go home.During the first week of April, Palafox and de la Rosa recalled they did not encounter any problems with the Minutemen, but Palafox in particular was concerned that trouble was on the horizon. "Look at them, they have guns," he said, pointing toward a group of volunteers on the US side, gathered in front of a truck displaying a flapping Arkansas state flag. Palafox, who has conducted his own border patrol for years without ever needing a weapon, asked, "Why would they be carrying guns if they are not planning on using them?"

"Protección a Migrantes"

Of the 1.1 million migrants apprehended last year by US Border Patrol agents, according to the agency, 51 percent were attempting to cross at the Arizona border. As border-crossers have been forced to reroute in order to avoid Operation Gatekeeper, a US initiative launched in 1994 that has dramatically increased the number of agents along the California border, the number of people perishing in Arizona's unforgiving deserts and mountains has skyrocketed. In 2003, the US Border Patrol reports, 139 migrants died while crossing. The following year, the Arizona Daily Star, after conducting an exhaustive research project, estimated that 193 had perished.

Grupo Beta's local headquarters is located in the small border town Agua Prieta, across the border from Douglas, Arizona. In the lobby of the building, which is simply a converted adobe house in a residential neighborhood, a framed map plots the locations of the twenty-nine migrants who died in 2003 en route between Agua Prieta and the town of Naco, which straddles the border to the west.

83

Some more fortunate migrants have managed to make Agua Prieta a destination rather than a way station.

Rodrigo Jacobo, moved with his family to Agua Prieta in 1991.But he recalls that during his years spent as a migrant worker in the US,, by his estimation, he was caught and deported by US immigration officials at least thirty times. On the last occasion, he mentioned that he spent four months in an Arizona jail in the city of Florence – north of Tucson, Arizona -- after being apprehended by immigration officials while at his job picking vegetables.

Now that he is earning good money on the Mexican side of the border as a cab driver, Jacobo can support his wife and five children and has no plans to return to the US. "Mexico is beautiful, precious," he said. "But there's just too much unemployment. I am making it, but so many others cannot."

Like most Mexicans in this town, Jacobo is curious about the Minutemen, having heard rumors that they are hunting down migrants with impunity. "What do they think they are doing, anyway?" he asked. "Who do they think picks the vegetables, cleans the homes, washes the dishes in their country?"

"Here," said Jacobo, "people can't get even enough rice or tortillas to eat, and in the US they throw their food away," he stated. "So if they were in our position, they would do the same thing. A person has to eat," he said, echoing a phrase heard frequently here in discussions of why so many Mexicans make the journey north.

It is unclear whether the resolve of the Minutemen is great enough to overpower the urgency of this journey. De la Rosa noted that Grupo Beta normally encountered around 400 migrants each day, but that the number had been cut in half since the Minutemen arrived.

But when asked whether he thought the Minutemen would intimidate migrants to stay home, Jacobo laughed. "No, no, no!" he exclaimed, pounding his hands on the steering wheel of his cab. "Mexicans will keep crossing in order to survive."

On Guard, and Idle

By car, it is a fifteen-minute journey west along a paved highway from Agua Prieta to a private ranch, whose primitive dirt roads wind north to the border and are off-limits to private vehicles.

Hector Gabriel, a staff member of Grupo Beta, jumped out of an orange truck and introduced himself. He had just returned from the border on an obscure, primitive dirt road. Peering out from the back of the truck were the dusty, dark faces of ten young men. They climbed into another truck headed for the Agua Prieta office, while Gabriel paused briefly before turning around to make yet another trip to the border.

"The people we find come from all over Mexico and Central America," said Gabriel. "And we ask them if they would like some food and water and a ride back into town. They almost always say yes, especially now when we tell them about the Minutemen." In the back of the truck, empty water bottles and cans of tuna jostled with each bump of the road.

As the truck lumbered back onto the bumpy path, Gabriel's eyes showed lines of fatigue. He explained that everyone at Grupo Beta was now working seven days a week because of the Minutemen's presence.

He made clear that Grupo Beta does not detain migrants, or even deter them from making their trip. They simply offer migrants help, wherever they are headed.

Despite its place at the center of tense political controversy, the landscape of the border itself -- at least between Naco and Agua Prieta -- is mostly unremarkable. Much of the "line" is demarcated with only a barbed wire fence. Trails wind along the terrain, created by crossing migrants and their coyotes or polleros, as the human smugglers are called.

84

Blue flags that rise out of the desert, alerting migrants to the presence of water stations. The water stations are set up and replenished by Humane Borders, a religious organization based in Tucson whose chief mission, in their blunt words, is to "take death out of the immigration equation." Beneath each flag sit barrels of water marked "AGUA" in large black letters.

Since the arrival of the Minutemen, politics have been a bit more evident on the border.

On a typical day of the Minutemen's watch, on the US side, volunteers sat in chairs neatly assembled along a road beside the border, and stared toward Mexico.

The border-watchers themselves were under the watch of legal observers from the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona and American Friends Service Committee.

On the Mexican side, curious Grupo Beta employees, on the lookout for migrants, kept an eye on both groups.

Early in the day, Palafox encountered a group of men hunkered below a ridge within fifty feet of the border. The men, not knowing that they had been discovered, kept popping their heads up and sneaking glances across the border at the Minutemen.

Palafox approached the migrants with a greeting that he had adopted since the Minutemen arrived: "Are you going to evade the gringos?" He used the Spanish verb toriar to liken migrants to toros, or bullfighters, in the path of an antagonist.

Palafox later recalled that as he was handing out tuna and water to the men, they told him that they had spent the last hour peering over the ridge, wondering why so many Anglos were sitting around with guns.

After explaining the situation, Palafox was able to convince the group to return to Agua Prieta for a meal and shower.

"Last night we put out signs all along this area, telling people not to cross because of the armed vigilantes," Palafox said, pleased that he was able to do his part in keeping the Minutemen bored. In a transnational game of cat-and-mouse, the people from Grupo Beta were doing their best to round up immigrants before they fell within eyesight of the Minutemen, hoping to avoid any confrontations.

For Palafox, it was heartening to see the vigilantes wasting their time. "Let them sit there staring at us," he said. "If you ask me, they are just ignorant racists."

Resolve Persists Despite Fears of Violence

Despite the well-publicized presence of the Minutemen, desperate migrants continued to cross along the southeastern border of Arizona, albeit at a diminished rate. After saving money to hire a coyote and traveling hundreds of miles to the border, the prospect of returning home empty-handed was more distressing than eluding an additional civilian force, even if some of those civilians were armed.

At dusk during the first week of the Minuteman Project, one group of eight men, determined to continue their journey north at all costs, gathered at Centro de Atención al Migrante Exodus, or CAME, a short-stay center housed in a catholic church in Agua Prieta.

Founded in 2002, CAME provides meals and beds for travelers preparing to cross over to the US. Two days before, the men had left their homes in the Mexican city of Veracruz, where they said no work was available. It was the first attempt at crossing for everyone in the group.

At the shelter, Ray Ybarra from the ACLU office in the small border town Douglas had come to speak to the group about the Minutemen, after another day of monitoring their activities at the border. "So far, nothing is happening on the border, which is good," he said, with evident relief. "As long as things remain

85

boring, I'm satisfied."

After dinner, Ybarra passed out flyers to the men, warning them about the Minutemen. As he explained the project, the migrants exchanged anxious glances. "This is the first time that they have come here?" asked Placido, a man in his twenties. Ybarra nodded, causing Placido and his companion Nicomendes, to laugh nervously. "Talk about good luck," Placido exclaimed sardonically.

"And you said that they have guns?" asked Nicomendes with a look of bewilderment. "Do you think they will shoot at us?" The other men in the group leaned forward; it was evidently the question on everyone's mind.

For now, gunfire seemed unlikely. A man named John, who had spent the previous three days monitoring the Minutemen, explained that the Minutemen seemed resolved to just watch the border and call border patrol if they saw anyone.

Placido and Nicomendes looked at each other, then at the other men. "Well, we'll see," said Nicomendes. Placido shrugged. Despite the warnings, no one seemed eager to return to Veracruz after successfully making it this far.

"¡Chicos a dormir!" interrupted a woman that worked at the center, announcing it was time for bed. The men stood up, said goodbye, and disappeared into their sleeping quarters, passing through a door with a sign taped to it that read, "Migrants, you are not alone."

Thompson, Gabriel. “Would-Be Migrants See Vigilante Border Patrol as Temporary Nuisance.” The New Standard. 20 April 2005. Web. 15 July 2015.

86

ICE Report Offers Details on Immigrant Releases, Re-arrests

A group of undocumented immigrants awaiting deportation. (Jose Cabezas/AFP-Getty Images)

By Amy Taxin, Associated Press

LOS ANGELES — More than 1,800 immigrants that the federal government wanted to deport were nevertheless released from local jails and later re-arrested for various crimes, according to a government report released Monday.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement report — obtained by an organization that actively opposes illegal immigration — said the re-arrested immigrants were among 8,145 people who were freed between January and August 2014, despite requests from federal agents that they be held for deportation.

The report provided by the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies says about 23 percent were eventually taken into custody again on a variety of charges.

Many jurisdictions have stopped honoring so-called immigration detainers, saying they can’t hold arrestees without probable cause.

In a case drawing national attention to the issue, authorities say a woman was shot to death in San Francisco July 1 by a suspect who was released from jail despite an immigration detainer.

87

In the report, the top crimes for which immigrants were re-arrested were drug violations and drunken driving.

The report also cited six examples involving more serious offenses, including a San Mateo County case where an individual was arrested for investigation of five felony sex crimes involving a child under 14 after a detainer had been declined.

“This is a genuine safety problem, and also a crisis for immigration enforcement,” said Jessica Vaughan, the center’s director of policy studies. She added that the victims of what may appear to others to be less serious crimes still want to see the perpetrators held accountable.

More than 250 jurisdictions across the country have stopped fully honoring so-called immigration detainers, saying they can’t hold arrestees beyond their scheduled release dates without probable cause. California and Connecticut have passed state laws to limit the use of immigration detainers and jails in states from Oregon to Iowa also refuse to honor the requests.

The controversy surrounding immigration detainers has re-entered the national spotlight since the shooting death of 32-year-old Kate Steinle on Pier 14 on San Francisco’s waterfront. Suspect Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez was released from jail in April, even though immigration officials had lodged a detainer to try to deport him from the country for a sixth time.

In the last two weeks, a number of politicians and lawmakers have questioned the limits on the use of detainers. San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi has argued he was upholding local law, and that detainers are not a legal way to keep someone in custody and have been proven to erode police relations with immigrant communities.

Immigrant advocates said federal immigration agents already have information about who is in local jails, and they can make the arrests on their own.

“It is not correct to point to the detainers as the reason why people are getting re-arrested,” said Jennie Pasquarella, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. “ICE has had, and continues to have and develop its tools to be able to prioritize people who it believes are priority for removal, and to pick up those people.”

Following the pushback on detainers, ICE has said it will focus on more serious criminals and ask law enforcement agencies to notify them when they’re releasing immigrants from custody, if not actually hold them.

ICE officials did not immediately comment on the report.

88

Taxis, Amy. “ICE Report Offers Details on Immigrant Releases, Re-Arrests.” Associated Press. 13 July 2015. Web. 15 July 2015.

http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/07/13/ice-report-offers-details-on-immigrant- releases-re-arrests.

89

FOR ALL CHILDREN: A family's fight 60 years ago against a California school that turned away their kids because they were Mexican helped end segregation in public education

Tyche Hendricks, San Francisco Chronicle May 9, 2007

Sylvia Mendez was honored Tuesday at the San Francisco federal courthouse where her elementary school -- one reserved for "Mexicans" -- was outlawed 60 years ago in a decision that led California to desegregate all its schools and public facilities.Mendez's parents and four other Latino families in Orange County had sued four school districts, in Mendez vs. Westminster, and the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the decades-old federal doctrine of "separate but equal" violated the U.S. Constitution.

It was in their case that NAACP lawyer Thurgood Marshall tried out the winning arguments he was to make in Brown vs. Board of Education before the U.S. Supreme Court, which outlawed segregation nationwide in its decision on the case in 1954.Mendez, a 70-year-old retired nurse who lives in Fullerton, was feted at the Ninth Circuit's Seventh Street courthouse by the San Francisco La Raza Lawyers Association at a screening of an Emmy-winning documentary about her family's precedent-setting but little-known lawsuit, "Mendez vs. Westminster: For All the Children/Para Todos Los Niños."

She and the film's director, Sandra Robbie, plan to tour the country to raise awareness of the decision. The U.S. Postal Service plans to release a boldly colored stamp in September honoring the ruling's 60th anniversary.

The day in 1943 when 8-year-old Sylvia and her younger brothers were turned away from Westminster Elementary because of their dark skin and Spanish last name remains vivid to her.

She had been excited to start school in their new town after they moved from Santa Ana. Instead, dressed in her best with her hair neatly braided, she was sent away along with her brothers, even though their light-skinned cousins were allowed to enroll.

Her parents, Gonzalo and Felicitas Mendez, who owned a cantina and had moved to Westminster to manage a farm, were appalled. They had thought all the students in the Santa Ana school were Mexican American because they lived in a Mexican American neighborhood. They had no idea state law allowed segregation against Mexican Americans, Sylvia Mendez said.

The couple found Los Angeles civil rights lawyer David Marcus and sued on behalf of

90

the estimated 5,000 Mexican American families in Orange County.

"After the school district saw that my father had gotten a lawyer, they said we could go to the school," Mendez said. "But he said, 'Forget it. I'm going to do this for everybody.' He decided to keep fighting."

When a federal district court ruled in the family's favor, civil rights groups across the country took notice. Attorneys had begun a campaign in the 1930s to challenge official segregation in the United States, and the NAACP had taken on segregated universities. But the district court's 1946 decision in Mendez tackled "separate but equal" more directly and gave credence to the notion that segregated schools hampered the education of minority students.

After the Mendez ruling, the NAACP filed lawsuits against five segregated school districts in Kansas and across the south, and the U.S. Supreme Court eventually addressed those cases simultaneously in its 1954 decision in Brown vs. Board of Education.

When the school district appealed, the NAACP, the ACLU, the Japanese American Citizens League, the American Jewish Congress and other groups filed briefs to support the ruling that segregated schools were inherently unequal. And the Ninth Circuit, on April 14, 1947, agreed that segregating schools on the basis of national origin violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

"It desegregated schools for all ethnic minorities in California seven years before the Brown decision," said Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney Christopher Arriola, an authority on the Mendez case. "And it has the legacy leading up to Brown because Thurgood Marshall for the first time argued outright for the overturning of Plessy vs. Ferguson, which allowed for segregation."

Earl Warren, then governor of California, within two months pushed through a state law invalidating all segregated facilities in California -- swimming pools, movie theaters, public parks and schools. In 1954, as chief justice of the United States, he wrote the Brown decision.

Robbie, the filmmaker, who grew up in Westminster many years after Mendez did, said she didn't know segregation had been part of California's history until she heard of the Mendez case.

"I thought that only happened in the American South," she said. "I knew this was a story my children -- every child -- had to know. It brought home the idea that the civil rights struggle didn't just happen in the American South but across the country and that it was about everybody of every color."She hopes to see the case taught in schools as part of the history of the civil rights movement.

91

The "Mexican" schools had dirt yards instead of grassy lawns and taught vocational skills instead of literature and science, Mendez said. But she said she fully understood discrimination for the first time when her family moved back to Santa Ana -- after the Ninth Circuit ruling -- and she enrolled as the first Latino student at a former "white" school and was beaten up and called a "dirty Mexican."

"I realized then what my father was fighting for," she said.

She is still inspired by her parents' fortitude.

"My father was really strong," she said. "He didn't want us to grow up thinking we're not equal."

When Mendez told her mother a few years later that she wanted to be a telephone operator, her mother insisted she sign up for microbiology and become a registered nurse instead.

This year also marks the 25th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Plyler vs. Doe, which overturned a Texas law denying illegal immigrant children access to public schools. The court ruled that children are entitled to an education regardless of immigration status, said Maria Blanco, director of the San Francisco Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights.

And that decision, in turn, was the federal district court's basis for overruling California's Proposition 187, which voters passed in 1994 and would have denied illegal immigrants access to public services.

Hendricks, Tyche. “FOR ALL CHILDREN: A family's fight 60 years ago against a California school that turned away their kids because they were Mexican helped end segregation in public education.” San Francisco Chronicle. 9 May 2007. Web. 15 July 2015.

92

Breaking Down Our Bilingual Double Standardby Karen Emslie, Project Literacy

It was medieval emperor-king Charlemagne who said, “To have another language is to possess another soul.” Considered by many to be the father of Europe, Charlemagne was a man of many languages, displaying a knack for Latin, Greek, and other European tongues. Yet more than two millennia later, our views on multilingualism have lost some of this nuanced perspective—despite research that demonstrates again and again just how beneficial it is to grow up multilingual.

Speaking at least two languages is known to improve multitasking and problem-solving skills, lead to greater future job opportunities, reduce once’s risk for dementia in later years, and give children insight into other cultures as they explore different cultural identities within themselves. And when a privileged child enriches her education by adding a second language—known as “additive bilingualism”—it’s generally acknowledged to be a positive, even prestigious, endeavor. But this isn’t the case when it comes to “subtractive bilingualism,” when a new language supplants the language spoken at home.

Claire Bowern, associate professor of linguistics at Yale University, explains that for these children, their bilingualism tends to be viewed as a challenge to be overcome, rather than an opportunity to be embraced:

“The reasons for that are probably not to do with language, but more to do with ethnic identity and the fact that a lot of the groups that are adding English as a second language are already often underrepresented minorities, [such as Native Americans or Aboriginal Australians, whose educations occur in English, rather than their native languages], or immigrant groups.”

It’s true that when bilingual children from such groups enter the education system, they rarely sound like their native peers; it can also take them quite a long time to attain fluency in the language used by their fellow students and teachers. As a consequence, according to Bowern, non-native speakers are often put in special education programs, which can carry a lasting stigma, as well as set back a student’s proficiency in a number of areas.

“The reason they don’t sound like native speakers of English, is because they are not native speakers of English—not because they have got a learning difficulty,” says Bowern.

The fear that bilingualism could harm a child’s education creates early obstacles for language learning at home. When children who are acquiring two languages start to talk (around the age of one or two), it’s common for them to go through a stage in which they mix up the languages. This can mean that they won’t do as well as their monolingual peers in the early years of kindergarten, though according to Bowern, these students soon catch up and may even surpass other students.

“There tends to be community resistance to bilingualism because there is this feeling that kids are not doing so well and they should just focus on one thing from the start. But like everything, if you start it early enough, you get really good at it, because you have a lot of time to practice and the skills become routine,” says Bowern.

During a series of focus groups in 2013, the Clinton Foundation’s Too Small to Fail project found that “Spanish-only or Spanish-dominant Hispanic families reported worrying that speaking Spanish at home could hurt kindergarten-readiness. But the research couldn’t be more clear that children who speak two languages perform better in school and have more advanced executive function skills.”

Too Small to Fail is working to break down this resistance by encouraging bilingual households to celebrate diversity of language. Their Pequenos y Valiosos project (a partnership with Univision) aims to inspire Hispanic families to talk, read, and sing to their young children in the language they feel most comfortable using, which encourages language acquisition while boosting brain development.

93

However, even when bilingualism is encouraged in pre-school children, whether a child eventually reaches her potential may then depend on how governments approach bilingual education in later years. Claire Bowern notes similarities in American and Australian attitudes toward indigenous and immigrant bilingualism, and in turn, how bilingualism in these communities is often approached as an educational problem to be solved, rather than an advantage to be exploited.

“The two countries are somewhat similar in that they have a small indigenous minority population, historically and currently discriminated against, but they also have large immigrant populations, and the immigrant populations are also historically and currently discriminated against,” she says.

A monolingual approach may make it easier, and less costly, to teach and assess educational aims and outcomes. However, as standardized English tests fail to allow for nuances of pronunciation, such assessments may not be an accurate reflection of a child’s ability. As an example, Bowern offers up test results from predominantly Aboriginal schools, which were compared to predominately white schools in North Queensland, Australia. “There were cases of the kids reading at pretty much the same level, but the aboriginal kids being coded as much lower because they have a different accent.”

In terms of indigenous languages, Australia’s Northern Territory features schools with bilingual programs covering 34 languages and dialects. However, as education in Australia is overseen by state and federal governments, bilingual school closures and the erosion of funding for such programs have become an ongoing bone of contention between local communities and the centralized legislature.

Bowern also likes to look to the Native American population in the United States, where reservations enjoy more autonomy than Aboriginal Australian communities, and it is easier for educators to teach local languages in tribal schools. However, children in these schools may still be disadvantaged by standardized English tests that do not allow for the subtleties of bilingualism.

“You could be the best school in the country on Navajo education and the kids would be, by qualitative measures, doing really well. They are attending school, they are engaged, and they are learning all about Navajo. They are transferring those skills to English and math. But if they are not doing well on the English portion of the standardized test score [then] that score, and those teachers, are going to be marked as failures,” says Bowern.

Bowern suggests that rather than trying to “fix the problem” of bilingualism by finding ways to improve the standardized test results of bilingual children, it would be more useful to allow for nuances in language and accent when interpreting test scores. Even better, she says, to set a maximum amount of time in the curriculum for core test subjects such as English and math, then give schools the flexibility to tailor other parts of the curriculum to the specific needs of local communities (be they cultural, athletic, or language-related), without paying the perceived penalty of cutting back on what seemed to be more “important” subjects.

By supporting bilingualism in schools and at home, all children who speak more than one language—whatever their native tongue—might have the opportunity to enjoy the benefits that bilingualism ought to afford them.

Emslie, Karen. “Breaking Down Our Bilingual Double Standard.” Project Literacy. 14 July 2015. Web. 16 July 2015. http://magazine.good.is/articles/bilingualism-is-only-seen-as-good-for-privileged

94

Growing Labor Movement Shakes Up Silicon ValleyBy Beth Willon, JULY 14, 2015

In East San Jose’s Mayfair Neighborhood, a young Cesar Chavez first started mobilizing farmworkers to get them better wages and working conditions. The area was then known as Sal Si Puedes, meaning “get out if you can.”

It was the 1950s, and Chavez often drove a bus to the fields in Santa Clara County and brought back the fruit pickers to Mayfair’s Our Lady of Guadalupe Church to talk about labor organizing and voting.

It was no coincidence that a new labor campaign was launched at the same church in February. This time the issue is the low wages of service workers who clean, cook and stand guard at the sprawling campuses of Silicon Valley’s tech giants.

Called Silicon Valley Rising, this coalition of labor unions, faith leaders and community-based organizations is orchestrating a campaign to raise families out of poverty by pushing for a livable wage, affordable housing and corporate responsibility. They are now highlighting the plight of service workers, the majority of which are immigrants.

Longtime South Bay labor activist Bob Brownstein says Silicon Valley Rising has symbolic parallels to the farmworkers movement.

“The grape strike wasn’t just about grapes,” he says, referring to the 1965 Delano Grape Strike, when workers walked off farms demanding wages equal to the federal minimum wage. “It was about the plight of the agricultural workers.”

Today “the struggles of security guards and cafeteria workers and shuttle drivers —  it’s not just about them. It’s about a much larger low-wage sector that’s trapped in Silicon Valley,” he says.

The campaign has resulted in hundreds of cooks, shuttle drivers, groundskeepers and maintenance workers staging nearly monthly demonstrations for higher wages and better benefits in front of high-profile tech companies and contractors’ offices.

In June, dozens of workers rallied outside the Capitol in Sacramento in support of wage and labor bills.“We want corporations to hire responsible contractors,” says Rebeca Armendariz, a spokeswoman for SEIU United Service Workers West. “We want them held accountable for following labor law. For not ripping off their workers, for paying them honest and fair wages.”

Wage demands for service workers isn’t a new issue. Twenty-five years ago, janitors in Santa Clara County mobilized for better wages and benefits in the “Justice for Janitors Campaign.” San Jose’s Cisco Systems Inc. was a major target, and the company eventually agreed to a union contract providing descent pay and benefits.

But today’s organizers feel this labor movement is more broadly based, and that the volatile debate about growing income inequality is helping its cause. This campaign “is being viewed as a much larger problem because the level of inequality in the Silicon Valley — actually, the country — has gone rogue,” says Brownstein. “It’s no longer sustainable.”

Last month, a new study calculated the income gap between the top and bottom Bay Area households at more than a quarter-million dollars, 50 percent higher than the gap nationwide.

95

Russell Hancock, president of Joint Venture Silicon Valley, a research think tank that did the report, says the wage gap in this region is a stark situation for workers in the service sector.

“They make this economy hum and their wages have been stagnant,” he says. “There’s no growth in their wages over a period of decades.”

Silicon Valley Rising took two years to get organized. Father Jon Pedigo, the pastor of Our Lady of Guadalupe Church, is one of the leaders who worked to hammer out a shared strategy for the campaign. He says extensive groundwork had to be laid down.

“It wasn’t like, ‘Let’s all get on board and do this together.’ It was really through some meetings of getting people to listen, to talk to each other and kind of trust each other,” he says.

The campaign is intended to focus attention on workers such as 33-year-old Maria, a cafeteria worker at Sunnyvale-based Yahoo.  She doesn’t want to use her real name for fear of losing her job with Bon Appetit, the Palo Alto-based company Yahoo contracts with for food services.  A single mother, she lives in a tiny trailer not far from Our Lady of Guadalupe Church.

“I get paid $12 an hour, and it is hard work for $12,” she says.

After she pays for her trailer space — $700 a month — and other bills, she says she has barely $400 for food and to support her 15-year-old and 10-year-old daughters.

Her older daughter says her mother doesn’t have the time to participate in Rising Silicon Valley activities, but hopes the organizing will pay off in her workplace.

“She feels if she keeps working there, she’ll get paid more so she does have hope,” she says.

Asked for comment on this story, both Yahoo and Bon Appetit emailed identical statements that said their contractors’ wages and benefits compare favorably with those across the food service industry.

Silicon Valley companies are reluctant to discuss the issue of wages and their relationships with their service workers. And they refuse to discuss the recent labor agitation and organizing.

But they have to be aware of the increased activism. In February, for example, shuttle bus drivers for Yahoo, Apple, Genentech, eBay and Zynga voted to join the Teamsters union.

And tech corporations have made a number of policy changes impacting service workers.

In March, Mountain View-based Google gave pay raises to its shuttle drivers, who did not join the Teamsters. Also in March, Cupertino-based Apple brought contract security workers onto its payroll.

Menlo Park-based Facebook in May said its contractors with more than 25 employees must pay them at least $15 an hour and provide sick leave and vacation.

Lori Goler of Facebook says the social media company increased wages and benefits because it was the right thing to do.

“We’ve really been working on it awhile, and it sort of came from us and our thinking about what’s important to us and our business and our community,” she says.

This is Part 1 of two-part series on activists taking on tech companies over the wages of service workers. Part 2 looks at how Silicon Valley corporations are responding.

96

Willon, Beth. “Growing Labor Movement Shakes Up Silicon Valley.” KQED News. 14 July 2015. Web. 16 July 2015. http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/07/14/growing-labor-movement-shakes-up-silicon-valley?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=FBKQED5635

PROCLAMATION OF THE DELANO GRAPE WORKERS FOR INTERNATIONAL BOYCOTT DAY, May 10, 1969

By Dolores Huerta

Introduction:

Although women have stood at the forefront of many reform movements in American history, their contributions have often been slighted or forgotten. Few know the name of Lucy Gonzalez Parsons, who was born in Texas of African and Mexican heritage and was an important figure in the early twentieth century labor movement and an activist for working women's rights. Many who have heard of César Chavez do not know the name of Dolores Huerta, the co-founder of the United Farm Workers, who led the grape boycott while raising eleven children.

Born in a small New Mexico mining town, Huerta grew up in Stockton in California's San Joaquín Valley. She quit her teaching job in 1962 in order to join Chavez in forming the United Farm Workers. "I couldn't stand seeing kids come to class hungry and needing shoes," she later said. "I thought I could do more by organizing farm workers than by trying to teach their hungry children."

In Spanish, Dolores means "sorrow" and Huerta "orchard"--appropriate names for an organizer of farm workers. Twenty times she was jailed for her part in union protests. While Chavez spent time with workers in the fields, she did much of the negotiation and legislative lobbying. She also organized voter registration drives and taught citizenship classes. Among her successes was the repeal of a California law that required citizenship for public assistance and passage of a law that extended disability and unemployment insurance to farm workers. She also organized the successful 1970 and 1975 grape boycotts. The proclamation announcing the grape boycott in 1969 follows.

Document:

We, the striking grape workers of California, join on this International Boycott Day with the consumers across the continent in planning the steps that lie ahead on the road to our liberation. As we plan, we recall the footsteps that brought us to this day and the events of this day. The historic road of our pilgrimage to Sacramento later branched out, spreading like the unpruned vines in struck fields, until it led us to willing exile in cities across this land. There, far from the earth we tilled for generations, we have cultivated the strange soil of public understanding, sowing the seed of our truth and our cause in the minds and hearts of men.

We have been farm workers for hundreds of years and pioneers for seven. Mexicans, Filipinos, Africans and others, our ancestors were among those who founded this land and tamed its natural wilderness. But we are still pilgrims on this land, and we are pioneers who blaze a trail out of the wilderness of hunger and deprivation that we have suffered even as our ancestors did. We are conscious today of the significance of our present quest. If this road we chart leads to the rights and reforms we demand, if it leads to just wages, humane

97

working conditions, protection from the misuse of pesticides, and to the fundamental right of collective bargaining, if it changes the social order that relegates us to the bottom reaches of society, then in our wake will follow thousands of American farm workers. Our example will make them free. But if our road does not bring us to victory and social change, it will not be because our direction is mistaken or our resolve too weak, but only because our bodies are mortal and our journey hard. For we are in the midst of a great social movement, and we will not stop struggling 'til we die, or win!

We have been farm workers for hundreds of years and strikers for four. It was four years ago that we threw down our plowshares and pruning hooks. These Biblical symbols of peace and tranquility to us represent too many lifetimes of unprotesting submission to a degrading social system that allows us no dignity, no comfort, no peace. We mean to have our peace, and to win it without violence, for it is violence we would overcome-the subtle spiritual and mental violence of oppression, the violence subhuman toil does to the human body. So we went and stood tall outside the vineyards where we had stooped for years. But the tailors of national labor legislation had left us naked. Thus exposed, our picket lines were crippled by injunctions and harassed by growers; our strike was broken by imported scabs; our overtures to our employers were ignored. Yet we knew the day must come when they would talk to us, as equals.

We have been farm workers for hundreds of years and boycotters for two. We did not choose the grape boycott, but we had chosen to leave our peonage, poverty and despair behind. Though our first bid for freedom, the strike, was weakened, we would not turn back. The boycott was the only way forward the growers left to us. We called upon our fellow men and were answered by consumers who said--as all men of conscience must--that they would no longer allow their tables to be subsidized by our sweat and our sorrow: They shunned the grapes, fruit of our affliction.

We marched alone at the beginning, but today we count men of all creeds, nationalities, and occupations in our number. Between us and the justice we seek now stand the large and powerful grocers who, in continuing to buy table grapes, betray the boycott their own customers have built. These stores treat their patrons' demands to remove the grapes the same way the growers treat our demands for union recognition-by ignoring them. The consumers who rally behind our cause are responding as we do to such treatment-with a boycott! They pledge to withhold their patronage from stores that handle grapes during the boycott, just as we withhold our labor from the growers until our dispute is resolved.

Grapes must remain an unenjoyed luxury for all as long as the barest human needs and basic human rights are still luxuries for farm workers. The grapes grow sweet and heavy on the vines, but they will have to wait while we reach out first for our freedom. The time is ripe for our liberation.

98

The pay gap between CEOs and workers is much worse than you realize

By Roberto A. Ferdman, The Washington Post, September 25, 2014

Americans might think they know how bad inequality is, but it turns out they actually have no idea.

A new study conducted at Harvard Business School found that Americans believe CEOs make roughly 30 times what the average worker makes in the U.S., when in actuality they are making more than 350 times the average worker. "Americans drastically underestimated the gap in actual incomes between CEOs and unskilled workers," the study says.

But that underestimation isn't merely drastic—it is also unmatched in the world. The gap between Americans' perception and reality is the most among any of the 16 countries for which the researchers measured both the perceived and actual pay inequality.

Part of that stems from Americans’ comparatively modest estimation. The citizens of four countries—South Korea, Australia, Chile, and Taiwan—estimate a higher pay gap between CEOs and low level workers. In South Korea, the perception is that CEOs make 42 times more than the average worker; in Australia, it’s just over 41; in Taiwan, it’s roughly 34; and in Chile, it’s about 33.

But the reason Americans are so bad at guessing how much CEOs make may also be tied to the fact that American CEOs are significantly better paid than those from just about anywhere else

99

The average Fortune 500 CEO in the United States makes more than $12 million per year, which is nearly five million dollars more than the amount for top CEOs in Switzerland, where the second highest paid CEOs live, more than twice that for those in Germany, where the third highest paid CEOs live, and more than twenty one times that for those in Poland.

While a handful of countries might perceive larger pay gaps than the United States, none of the ones surveyed have an actual pay gap anywhere nearly as large. In Switzerland, the country with the second largest CEO-to-worker pay gap, chief executives make 148 times the average worker; in Germany, the country with the third largest gap, CEOs make 147 times the average worker; and in Spain, the country with the fourth largest gap, the ratio is 127 to one.

Look no further than a few of America's largest corporations for evidence of the country's exceptionally large pay gap. An analysis from last year estimated that it takes the typical worker at both McDonald's and Starbucks more than six months to earn what each company's CEO makes in a single hour.

What Americans share with the rest of the world is a collective disdain for pay inequality. People of all ages, education levels, and income brackets, the study found, believe that low-skilled workers are getting paid too little and high-skilled workers are getting paid too much. "The consensus that income gaps between skilled and unskilled workers should be smaller holds in all subgroups of respondents regardless of their age, education, socioeconomic status, political affiliation and opinions on inequality and pay," the study says.

One can only imagine what that disappointment would look like if everyone had a better sense of how great the pay gap actually is.

100

Immigration and the MoviesMany of our most memorable images of the past come from movies. Films set in the past provide a vivid record of history: of the "look," the clothing, the atmosphere, and the mood of past eras. Nevertheless, movies remain a controversial source of historical evidence. Because moviemakers are not held to the same standards as historians, historical films often contain inaccuracies and anachronisms. Further, films frequently blur the line between fact and fiction and avoid complex ideas that cannot be presented visually.

Of course, no one goes to a movie expecting a history lesson. Feature films are a form of art and entertainment, and screenwriters frequently take license with historical facts in order to enhance a movie's appeal and drama. Feature films rely on a variety of techniques that tend to distort historical realities. For one thing, popular films tend to be formulaic; they draw upon a series of conventions, stereotypes, and stock characters to tell a story. Also, films tend to "personalize" history by using individual characters to illustrate larger social processes and conflicts.

Still, if analyzed critically, films can provide a valuable window onto the past. History is not simply an accumulation of objective facts; it is also an attempt to interpret facts. Like a novel, a film can offer an interpretation of the past. Indeed, filmmakers' freedom can give them an opportunity to explore issues of character and psychology that historians sometimes avoid.

Immigration has long been a popular cinematic theme. The birth of film coincided with an unprecedented wave of global immigration. Immigrants formed a large share of film's early audience, and many early films, including the first "talkie," The Jazz Singer, dramatized and personalized the immigrant experience.

Carlos E. Cortés (in Robert Brent Toplin, ed., Hollywood as Mirror (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1993), argues that Hollywood films offer a great deal of valuable information on the subject of immigration. Silent movies, for example, can provide clues about popular attitudes toward immigrants, about immigrants' aspirations, and about the obstacles immigrants encountered as they sought to enter new societies. In addition, silent films provide vivid glimpses of ethnic neighborhoods and enclaves. A number of films released during World War I address the issue of national loyalty. They ask whether immigrants would remain loyal to their place of birth or identify with their new homeland.

During the 1920s, many popular films emphasized themes of assimilation and acculturation. Such films as Abie's Irish Rose (1929) celebrated ethnic intermarriage as a vehicle of assimilation, while other popular films, such as The Jazz Singer (1927), praise characters who overcome the pressure to maintain ethnic or religious traditions or refuse to follow their father's vocation.

During the Great Depression's earliest years, when the conventional ladder of success seemed to have broken down, many films looked at crime as a vehicle for upward mobility. The popular urban gangster film typically focused on the struggle of young ethnic of Chinese, Irish, or Italian descent to overcome a deprived environment and achieve wealth and power. Later in the Depression, many popular films celebrated immigrants' efforts to enter mainstream society and achieve material success through a combination of optimism and hardwork. World War II combat films portrayed the military as an ethnic melting pot where men of diverse ethnic backgrounds melded together to form an effective fighting unit.

The early post-war era saw a proliferation of "social problem" films that emphasized the

101

problems of poverty, prejudice, and discrimination immigrants faced as they entered a new society. The late 1960s and 1970s witnessed a host of popular films that explored Italian and Jewish ethnic groups' immigrant roots, sometimes nostalgically, as in Hester Sreet (1975), and sometimes critically, as in The Godfather (1972).

Popular film's interest in migration persists. In recent years, many films have examined the plight of undocumented immigrants, economic competition among ethnic groups, problems of cultural and linguistic adjustment, and the generation gap among immigrants and their children.

One project that many students might find appealing involves watching a film dealing with migration. The students, then, would be asked to answer a series of questions specially designed to help them develop "visual literacy." Not only will students learn about migration, they will also develop a skill that is particularly valuable in an era saturated with media images: how to read a film.

Question to consider: How does the film dramatize the subject of migration? Does the film portray migration in positive terms, as an opportunity for economic

mobility or greater freedom, or in more negative terms? Does the film's portrayal of immigration seem accurate and realistic? Is the immigrant depicted as odd and eccentric or as threatening? How is the immigrant treated by the new society? Is the immigrant discriminated

against or victimized? Is assimilation and acculturation depicted positively, negatively, or with mixed

emotions?

African Migration and Assimilation- The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman- Coming to America- Queen- Roots (1977)- Sankofa- Los Boys of Sudan- Le Havre

Asian Migration and Assimilation- Bend It Like Beckham- China Girl (1987)- Dim Sum: A Little Bit of Heart (1984)- Eat a Bowl of Tea (1988)- Journey of Hope (1990)- The Joy Luck Club- Mississippi Masala- Nisei Daughter- Not Without My Daughter- Picture Bride- The Kite Runner

European Migration and Assimilation

102

- A Tree Grows in Brooklyn- Avalon (1990)- Blood Red (1988)- This Displaced Person (1976)- Far and Away (1992)- Fiddler on the Roof- Gangs of New York- Hester Street (1975)- The Immigrant (1917)- In America- Italian (1915)- The Manions of America (1981)- Moscow on the Hudson (1984)- Pelle the Conqueror (1988)- Stranger Than Paradise (1984)- The Wedding Night (1935)- Wait Until Spring, Bandini (1990)- Where is My Child (1937)- White Nights

Latin American Migration and Assimilation- A Day Without a Mexican (2005)- Arizona (1986)- El Norte (1983)- La Bamba- Marcados por el Destino (1987)- Maricela (1988)- Selena- West Side Story (1968)- The Border

Some Other Possibilities with Descriptions: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls051658814/

103