The issue of illegal immigration in the United States requires an anti-logic of radical love.
...
We ought to welcome them as brother and sister citizens.
...
The question for me is: what would have happened had European-Americans welcomed African-Americans into the labor unions? What would have happened had they extended hospitality rather than violence?
History does not reveal its alternatives, but my guess is that race relations in the country would be very different. Cities would look very different. Knowing my own history, I say: welcome the stranger. Yes — they are not citizens of the United States as were African-Americans moving north during the Great Migration. However, they are human beings acting on the same human impulse to go where they can make a better life.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Welcoming the stranger is a nation-defining decision
Valerie Elverton Dixon in Sojo.net:
Friday, December 25, 2009
Another law that forgives
According to this Tennessean article by Chas Sisk, Tennessee State Rep. Brenda Gilmore has embraces the concept of earned legalization - for drivers - proposing to "forgiv[e] violators of up to half of their fines and penalties" and allow them "to work off a portion of their remaining fine through public service."
She is paraphrased as saying, "Many of these people are still driving despite having suspended licenses, and those who are not often have trouble finding transportation to and from work, making it harder for them to hold down jobs."
Serious driving offenses would not be covered.
Memphis and Milwaukee have done similar things, according to the article. Also, Nashville has the same kind of project on its agenda, sponsored by Erica Gilmore (daughter of Brenda) and Pro-English advocate Eric Crafton.
"Forgiving" laws are common in the United States.
She is paraphrased as saying, "Many of these people are still driving despite having suspended licenses, and those who are not often have trouble finding transportation to and from work, making it harder for them to hold down jobs."
Serious driving offenses would not be covered.
Memphis and Milwaukee have done similar things, according to the article. Also, Nashville has the same kind of project on its agenda, sponsored by Erica Gilmore (daughter of Brenda) and Pro-English advocate Eric Crafton.
"Forgiving" laws are common in the United States.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
The Immigration Serenity Prayer
by John Lamb
God grant us
the serenity to legalize the ordinary immigrants,
the courage to deport only the criminals, and
the wisdom to know the difference.
the serenity to legalize the ordinary immigrants,
the courage to deport only the criminals, and
the wisdom to know the difference.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
Protection of society's most vulnerable is not our concern
From The Jewish Daily Forward:
What’s most shameful about the Postville immigration raid is not the behavior of the immigrants or the company that hired them, but the priorities and values of the government that mounted the operation. After years of neglecting its legal duties to protect workers and consumers, it finally found the resources for a massive show of commitment to our unenforceable immigration rules, staged at the expense of hundreds of hard-working families and a struggling community. It chose the orderly over the humane. It declared to the world that protection of society’s most vulnerable is simply not its concern.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
The punishment is out of proportion with the offense
The first letter to the editor here illustrates two points related to immigration: our laws should impose a punishment proportionate to the offense, and not every infraction of the law is or should be criminal:
As a conscientious driver with an impeccable driving record, I wanted to offer my experience regarding moving over for stopped emergency vehicles ("Move over, or get a ticket," April 22 letter).
Last July, I received such a ticket, my first in 16 years of driving, while driving on Interstate 581. Upon returning home, I was horrified to learn that this was not a simple traffic offense. It is a Class 1 misdemeanor -- the same as reckless driving or DUI/DWI, and punishable by confinement in jail for not more than 12 months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both (as well as license suspension).
This simple offense had potentially jeopardized my career as a professional pilot because it is a criminal offense. I have spent hundreds of dollars and multiple days appealing this ticket (which, to this date, hasn't been officially closed).
While I believe such a law is important for the safety of our law enforcement and rescue public servants, I feel the punishment significantly out of proportion and needs to be revised. Virginia also needs to publicize the law (and the penalties) so that they are more widely known. Drivers beware.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
You might as well sit in your beach chair and tell the tide not to come in
MAYOR BLOOMBERG TESTIFIES BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FIELD HEARING ON FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION
July 5, 2006
The following is the text of Mayor Bloomberg's Testimony – Please Check Against Delivery
"Good morning, Chairman Specter and Senator Kennedy. Thank you for calling this hearing and inviting me to testify.
"Immigration reform is one of the most important issues this Congress faces, and no city will be more affected by the outcome of the debate than New York. To begin, let me say how appropriate it is that this hearing is taking place here in Philadelphia.
"Two hundred and thirty years ago yesterday, just around the corner from here, our founding fathers adopted the greatest statement on the right to self-government ever written. Among those who signed the Declaration of Independence were nine immigrants, and at every other crucial stage in American history - from ratification of the Constitution to the Civil War to the Industrial Revolution to the computer age - immigrants have propelled America to greatness.
"Today, we remain a nation of immigrants. People from around the world continue to come here seeking opportunity, and they continue to make America the most dynamic nation in the world. But it's clear we also have a problem on our hands - our immigration laws are fundamentally broken.
"It's as if we expect border control agents to do what a century of communism could not: defeat the natural market forces of supply and demand and defeat the natural human desire for freedom and opportunity. You might as well sit in your beach chair and tell the tide not to come in.
"As long as America remains a nation dedicated to the proposition that 'all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,' people from near and far will continue to seek entry into our country.
"New York City alone is home to more than three million immigrants, who make up nearly 40 percent of our entire population. About 500,000 came to our City - and continue to come - illegally.
"And let's be honest: they arrive for a good reason - they want a better life for themselves and their families, and our businesses need them and hire them!
"Although they broke the law by illegally crossing our borders or overstaying their visas, and our businesses broke the law by employing them our City's economy would be a shell of itself had they not, and it would collapse if they were deported. The same holds true for the nation.
"For our children to have a bright future, two things are true: a strong America needs a constant source of new immigrants. And in a post-9/11 world, a secure America needs to make sure that those immigrants arrive here legally.
"We have a right - and a duty - to encourage people to come, and at the same time, to ensure that no one who is on a terrorist watch list sneaks into our country. Right now, we neither invite those we want, nor keep out those we don't. If we are going to both strengthen our national security and keep our economy growing, you - our elected legislators - must devise a comprehensive approach to immigration reform.
"I believe that such an approach must embody four key principles: 1) reducing incentives; 2) creating more lawful opportunity; 3) reducing illegal access; and 4) accepting reality. Allow me to me briefly outline each of them.
"First, we must reduce the incentive to come here illegally. As a business owner, I know the absurdity of our existing immigration regulations all too well. Employers are required to check the status of all job applicants, but not to do anything more than eyeball their documents. In fact, hypocritically, under Federal law that Congress wrote, employers are not even permitted to ask probing questions. As a result, fake 'Green cards' are a dime a dozen - you can buy one for 40 bucks. Fake Social Security cards are also easily obtained. And for $50 cash, you can get both cards. Such a deal!
"As most members of the U.S. Senate recognize, we absolutely must have a Federal database that will allow employers to verify the status of all job applicants. But for this database to have any value, we must also ensure that the documentation job applicants present is incorruptible. That means we need to create a bio-metric employment card containing unique information - fingerprints or DNA, for instance.
"Every current job holder or applicant would be required to obtain a card, and every business would be required to check its validity against the Federal database. In theory, we already have such a card - it's called your Social Security card. But being a government product, naturally, its technology is way behind the times.
"By taking advantage of current technology, we can provide the Federal government with the tools necessary to enforce our immigration laws and protect workers from exploitative and abusive conditions. I want to be clear that this is not a national ID card, as some have suggested. This would be an employment card for the 21st Century. If you don't work, you don't need a card. But everyone who works would need to have an employment card.
"There must also be stiff penalties for businesses that fail to conduct checks or ignore their results.
"Holding businesses accountable is the crucial step, because it is the only way to reduce the incentive to come here illegally. Requiring employers to verify citizenship status was the promise of the 1986 immigration reform law. But it was an empty promise, never enforced by the Federal government.
"The failure to enforce the law was largely in response to pressure from businesses - which is understandable, because businesses needed access to a larger labor supply than Federal immigration laws allowed.
"Apparently, fixing that problem by increasing legal immigration, as opposed to looking the other way on illegal immigration, was never seriously considered by Congress, until very recently. Instead, by winking at businesses that hired illegal immigrants, the Federal government sent a clear signal to those in other countries: If you can make it into our country, you'll have no trouble qualifying for employment.
"And so - it's no surprise - people have been coming at such high levels that our border control simply cannot stop them. Unless we reduce the incentive to come here illegally, increasing our Border Patrol will have little impact on the number of people who enter illegally. We will waste the money spent, jeopardize lives, and deceive the public with a false promise of security that Congress knows it can't deliver.
"Second, we must increase lawful opportunity for overseas workers. Science, medicine, education, and modern industries today are all growing faster overseas than here in the U.S., reversing the century long advantage we've enjoyed. Baby boomers are starting to retire, America's birthrate continues to slow, and we don't have enough workers to pay for our retirement benefits. The economics are very simple: We need more workers than we have.
"That means we must increase the number of visas for overseas manual workers, who help provide the essential muscle and elbow grease we need to keep our economy running. It also means we must increase the number of visas for immigrant engineers, doctors, scientists, and other professionally trained workers-the innovators of tomorrow's economy. And we must give all of them, as well as foreign students, the opportunity to earn permanent status, so they can put their knowledge and entrepreneurial spirit to use for our country.
"Why shouldn't we reap the benefits of the skills foreign students have obtained here? If we don't allow them in, or we force them to go home, we will be sending the future of science-and the jobs of tomorrow-with them.
"Recent studies put the lie to the old argument that immigrants take jobs away from native-born Americans and significantly depress wages. Quite the contrary - they are what make our economy work. In most cases, those here illegally are filling low-wage, low-skill jobs that Americans do not want.
"Global economic forces are responsible for the declines in the real wages of unskilled workers and occur regardless of whether immigrants are present in a community. Moreover, the total economic effect of any slight wage decline produced by immigration is more than offset by substantial increases in productivity.
"To keep people and businesses investing in America, we need to ensure that we have workers for all types of jobs.
"Third, we must reduce illegal access to our borders, which, as I've said, is a matter of urgent national security. As President Bush recognizes, in some areas, particularly in border towns, additional fencing may be required; in open desert areas, a virtual wall - created through sensors and cameras - will be far more effective.
"However, even after we double the number of border agents, they will remain overwhelmed by the flood of people attempting to enter illegally. Only by embracing the first two principles - reducing incentives and increasing lawful opportunity - will border security become a manageable task.
"Members of the House of Representatives want to control the borders. So do all of us here. But believing that increasing border patrols alone will achieve that goal is either naïve and short-sighted, or cynical and duplicitous. No wall or army can stop hundreds of thousands of people each year.
"Fourth, and finally, we need to get real about the people who are now living in this country illegally - in many cases raising families and paying taxes. The idea of deporting these 11 or 12 million people - about as many as live in the entire state of Pennsylvania - is pure fantasy. Even if we wanted to, it would be physically impossible to carry out. If we attempted it - and it would be perhaps the largest round-up and deportation in world history - the social and economic consequences would be devastating.
"Let me ask you: Would we really want to spend billions of dollars on a round-up and deportation program that would split families in two - only to have these very same people and millions more, illegally enter our country again? Of course not. America is better than that - and smarter than that.
"That's why I do not believe that the American people will support the short-sighted approach to this issue taken by the House, which would make felons of illegal immigrants.
"The Senate's tiered-approach, however, is flawed, too. Requiring some people to 'report to deport' through guest worker programs - while leaving their spouses, children, and mortgages behind - is no less naïve than thinking we can deport 12 million people. What incentive would people have to show up?
"In fact, this approach would just create an enormous incentive for fraud, and there can be little doubt that the black market for false documentation would remain strong and real enforcement impossible. If we're going to create a market for deceit, why not have Uncle Sam sell the fake papers, so we can at least get paid for it? It would be absurd, of course, but no less so than expecting people to line up for deportation.
"There is only one practical solution, and it is a solution that respects the history of our nation: Offer those already here the opportunity to earn permanent status and keep their families together.
"For decades, the Federal government has tacitly welcomed them into the workforce, collected their income and Social Security taxes, which about two-thirds of undocumented workers pay, and benefited immeasurably from their contributions to our country.
"Now, instead of pointing fingers about the past, let's accept the present for what it is by bringing people out of the shadows, and focus on the future by casting those shadows aside, permanently.
"As the debate continues between the House and Senate, I urge members of Congress to move past the superficial debate over the definition of 'amnesty.' Buzz words and polls should not dictate national policies.
"We need Congress to lead from the front, not the back, and that means adopting a solution that is enforceable, sustainable, and compassionate - and that enables the American economy to thrive in the 21st century. Perhaps now more than ever before, it's time to vote for our future - and not pander to parochial fears.
"Only by embracing all four of the principles I've outlined today can we achieve those goals. If one principle is abandoned, we will be no better off than we were after passage of the 1986 law. A successful solution to our border problems cannot rest on a wall alone; it must be built on a foundation strong enough to support it, and to support our continued economic growth and prosperity.
"Before I close, there is one more critically important issue I'd like to raise about our policies towards those who are here illegally.
"Members of the House of Representatives have recently attached an amendment to the Appropriations bills that would deny all federal homeland security and Department of Justice funding to any city or state deemed in violation of a 1996 federal law. That law prohibits restrictions on any local or state employee from contacting the federal government about someone's immigration status.
"New York City cooperates fully with the Federal government when an illegal immigrant commits a criminal act. But our City's social-services, health, and education policies are not designed to facilitate the deportation of otherwise law-abiding residents. Our general policy in this area protects the confidentiality of law-abiding immigrants, regardless of their status, when they report a crime, or visit a hospital, or send their children to school.
"Without these protections, all our residents would be less safe and more likely to be at-risk for disease. Do we really want people who could have information about criminals - including potential terrorists - to be afraid to go the police? Do we really want people with contagious diseases not to seek medical treatment? Do we really want people not to get vaccinated against communicable diseases?
"Our policy is carefully crafted to comply with the 1996 law, but some members of Congress don't like it. They have asked the Department of Justice to review all local and state policies concerning this issue.
"We believe the review will validate our approach, but whatever the findings, let me be clear: the way to deal with this issue is not - not - by reducing the safety and security of our nation. There is already much too much politics in homeland security funding, which is one reason why New York City has consistently been short-changed of the money we need to protect our City. But this would really take the cake.
"If Congress attempts to cut off all of our homeland security funding, not to mention DOJ funding for many other essential programs, I promise you will have one heck of a battle on your hands. We are not going to let Congress cut-and-run from New York City - nor can our nation afford it.
"New York remains the country's top terror target, and if Congress passes this amendment, no one will cheer louder than al-Qaeda.
"Let me close by thanking you, along with President Bush, for taking up the issue of immigration reform.
"I urge the members of this Committee, and all members of Congress, to reject the false promise of easy answers, and to have the courage to do everything necessary - and that means standing up to both businesses and those with nativist impulses - to ensure our national security and prosperity.
July 5, 2006
The following is the text of Mayor Bloomberg's Testimony – Please Check Against Delivery
"Good morning, Chairman Specter and Senator Kennedy. Thank you for calling this hearing and inviting me to testify.
"Immigration reform is one of the most important issues this Congress faces, and no city will be more affected by the outcome of the debate than New York. To begin, let me say how appropriate it is that this hearing is taking place here in Philadelphia.
"Two hundred and thirty years ago yesterday, just around the corner from here, our founding fathers adopted the greatest statement on the right to self-government ever written. Among those who signed the Declaration of Independence were nine immigrants, and at every other crucial stage in American history - from ratification of the Constitution to the Civil War to the Industrial Revolution to the computer age - immigrants have propelled America to greatness.
"Today, we remain a nation of immigrants. People from around the world continue to come here seeking opportunity, and they continue to make America the most dynamic nation in the world. But it's clear we also have a problem on our hands - our immigration laws are fundamentally broken.
"It's as if we expect border control agents to do what a century of communism could not: defeat the natural market forces of supply and demand and defeat the natural human desire for freedom and opportunity. You might as well sit in your beach chair and tell the tide not to come in.
"As long as America remains a nation dedicated to the proposition that 'all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,' people from near and far will continue to seek entry into our country.
"New York City alone is home to more than three million immigrants, who make up nearly 40 percent of our entire population. About 500,000 came to our City - and continue to come - illegally.
"And let's be honest: they arrive for a good reason - they want a better life for themselves and their families, and our businesses need them and hire them!
"Although they broke the law by illegally crossing our borders or overstaying their visas, and our businesses broke the law by employing them our City's economy would be a shell of itself had they not, and it would collapse if they were deported. The same holds true for the nation.
"For our children to have a bright future, two things are true: a strong America needs a constant source of new immigrants. And in a post-9/11 world, a secure America needs to make sure that those immigrants arrive here legally.
"We have a right - and a duty - to encourage people to come, and at the same time, to ensure that no one who is on a terrorist watch list sneaks into our country. Right now, we neither invite those we want, nor keep out those we don't. If we are going to both strengthen our national security and keep our economy growing, you - our elected legislators - must devise a comprehensive approach to immigration reform.
"I believe that such an approach must embody four key principles: 1) reducing incentives; 2) creating more lawful opportunity; 3) reducing illegal access; and 4) accepting reality. Allow me to me briefly outline each of them.
"First, we must reduce the incentive to come here illegally. As a business owner, I know the absurdity of our existing immigration regulations all too well. Employers are required to check the status of all job applicants, but not to do anything more than eyeball their documents. In fact, hypocritically, under Federal law that Congress wrote, employers are not even permitted to ask probing questions. As a result, fake 'Green cards' are a dime a dozen - you can buy one for 40 bucks. Fake Social Security cards are also easily obtained. And for $50 cash, you can get both cards. Such a deal!
"As most members of the U.S. Senate recognize, we absolutely must have a Federal database that will allow employers to verify the status of all job applicants. But for this database to have any value, we must also ensure that the documentation job applicants present is incorruptible. That means we need to create a bio-metric employment card containing unique information - fingerprints or DNA, for instance.
"Every current job holder or applicant would be required to obtain a card, and every business would be required to check its validity against the Federal database. In theory, we already have such a card - it's called your Social Security card. But being a government product, naturally, its technology is way behind the times.
"By taking advantage of current technology, we can provide the Federal government with the tools necessary to enforce our immigration laws and protect workers from exploitative and abusive conditions. I want to be clear that this is not a national ID card, as some have suggested. This would be an employment card for the 21st Century. If you don't work, you don't need a card. But everyone who works would need to have an employment card.
"There must also be stiff penalties for businesses that fail to conduct checks or ignore their results.
"Holding businesses accountable is the crucial step, because it is the only way to reduce the incentive to come here illegally. Requiring employers to verify citizenship status was the promise of the 1986 immigration reform law. But it was an empty promise, never enforced by the Federal government.
"The failure to enforce the law was largely in response to pressure from businesses - which is understandable, because businesses needed access to a larger labor supply than Federal immigration laws allowed.
"Apparently, fixing that problem by increasing legal immigration, as opposed to looking the other way on illegal immigration, was never seriously considered by Congress, until very recently. Instead, by winking at businesses that hired illegal immigrants, the Federal government sent a clear signal to those in other countries: If you can make it into our country, you'll have no trouble qualifying for employment.
"And so - it's no surprise - people have been coming at such high levels that our border control simply cannot stop them. Unless we reduce the incentive to come here illegally, increasing our Border Patrol will have little impact on the number of people who enter illegally. We will waste the money spent, jeopardize lives, and deceive the public with a false promise of security that Congress knows it can't deliver.
"Second, we must increase lawful opportunity for overseas workers. Science, medicine, education, and modern industries today are all growing faster overseas than here in the U.S., reversing the century long advantage we've enjoyed. Baby boomers are starting to retire, America's birthrate continues to slow, and we don't have enough workers to pay for our retirement benefits. The economics are very simple: We need more workers than we have.
"That means we must increase the number of visas for overseas manual workers, who help provide the essential muscle and elbow grease we need to keep our economy running. It also means we must increase the number of visas for immigrant engineers, doctors, scientists, and other professionally trained workers-the innovators of tomorrow's economy. And we must give all of them, as well as foreign students, the opportunity to earn permanent status, so they can put their knowledge and entrepreneurial spirit to use for our country.
"Why shouldn't we reap the benefits of the skills foreign students have obtained here? If we don't allow them in, or we force them to go home, we will be sending the future of science-and the jobs of tomorrow-with them.
"Recent studies put the lie to the old argument that immigrants take jobs away from native-born Americans and significantly depress wages. Quite the contrary - they are what make our economy work. In most cases, those here illegally are filling low-wage, low-skill jobs that Americans do not want.
"Global economic forces are responsible for the declines in the real wages of unskilled workers and occur regardless of whether immigrants are present in a community. Moreover, the total economic effect of any slight wage decline produced by immigration is more than offset by substantial increases in productivity.
"To keep people and businesses investing in America, we need to ensure that we have workers for all types of jobs.
"Third, we must reduce illegal access to our borders, which, as I've said, is a matter of urgent national security. As President Bush recognizes, in some areas, particularly in border towns, additional fencing may be required; in open desert areas, a virtual wall - created through sensors and cameras - will be far more effective.
"However, even after we double the number of border agents, they will remain overwhelmed by the flood of people attempting to enter illegally. Only by embracing the first two principles - reducing incentives and increasing lawful opportunity - will border security become a manageable task.
"Members of the House of Representatives want to control the borders. So do all of us here. But believing that increasing border patrols alone will achieve that goal is either naïve and short-sighted, or cynical and duplicitous. No wall or army can stop hundreds of thousands of people each year.
"Fourth, and finally, we need to get real about the people who are now living in this country illegally - in many cases raising families and paying taxes. The idea of deporting these 11 or 12 million people - about as many as live in the entire state of Pennsylvania - is pure fantasy. Even if we wanted to, it would be physically impossible to carry out. If we attempted it - and it would be perhaps the largest round-up and deportation in world history - the social and economic consequences would be devastating.
"Let me ask you: Would we really want to spend billions of dollars on a round-up and deportation program that would split families in two - only to have these very same people and millions more, illegally enter our country again? Of course not. America is better than that - and smarter than that.
"That's why I do not believe that the American people will support the short-sighted approach to this issue taken by the House, which would make felons of illegal immigrants.
"The Senate's tiered-approach, however, is flawed, too. Requiring some people to 'report to deport' through guest worker programs - while leaving their spouses, children, and mortgages behind - is no less naïve than thinking we can deport 12 million people. What incentive would people have to show up?
"In fact, this approach would just create an enormous incentive for fraud, and there can be little doubt that the black market for false documentation would remain strong and real enforcement impossible. If we're going to create a market for deceit, why not have Uncle Sam sell the fake papers, so we can at least get paid for it? It would be absurd, of course, but no less so than expecting people to line up for deportation.
"There is only one practical solution, and it is a solution that respects the history of our nation: Offer those already here the opportunity to earn permanent status and keep their families together.
"For decades, the Federal government has tacitly welcomed them into the workforce, collected their income and Social Security taxes, which about two-thirds of undocumented workers pay, and benefited immeasurably from their contributions to our country.
"Now, instead of pointing fingers about the past, let's accept the present for what it is by bringing people out of the shadows, and focus on the future by casting those shadows aside, permanently.
"As the debate continues between the House and Senate, I urge members of Congress to move past the superficial debate over the definition of 'amnesty.' Buzz words and polls should not dictate national policies.
"We need Congress to lead from the front, not the back, and that means adopting a solution that is enforceable, sustainable, and compassionate - and that enables the American economy to thrive in the 21st century. Perhaps now more than ever before, it's time to vote for our future - and not pander to parochial fears.
"Only by embracing all four of the principles I've outlined today can we achieve those goals. If one principle is abandoned, we will be no better off than we were after passage of the 1986 law. A successful solution to our border problems cannot rest on a wall alone; it must be built on a foundation strong enough to support it, and to support our continued economic growth and prosperity.
"Before I close, there is one more critically important issue I'd like to raise about our policies towards those who are here illegally.
"Members of the House of Representatives have recently attached an amendment to the Appropriations bills that would deny all federal homeland security and Department of Justice funding to any city or state deemed in violation of a 1996 federal law. That law prohibits restrictions on any local or state employee from contacting the federal government about someone's immigration status.
"New York City cooperates fully with the Federal government when an illegal immigrant commits a criminal act. But our City's social-services, health, and education policies are not designed to facilitate the deportation of otherwise law-abiding residents. Our general policy in this area protects the confidentiality of law-abiding immigrants, regardless of their status, when they report a crime, or visit a hospital, or send their children to school.
"Without these protections, all our residents would be less safe and more likely to be at-risk for disease. Do we really want people who could have information about criminals - including potential terrorists - to be afraid to go the police? Do we really want people with contagious diseases not to seek medical treatment? Do we really want people not to get vaccinated against communicable diseases?
"Our policy is carefully crafted to comply with the 1996 law, but some members of Congress don't like it. They have asked the Department of Justice to review all local and state policies concerning this issue.
"We believe the review will validate our approach, but whatever the findings, let me be clear: the way to deal with this issue is not - not - by reducing the safety and security of our nation. There is already much too much politics in homeland security funding, which is one reason why New York City has consistently been short-changed of the money we need to protect our City. But this would really take the cake.
"If Congress attempts to cut off all of our homeland security funding, not to mention DOJ funding for many other essential programs, I promise you will have one heck of a battle on your hands. We are not going to let Congress cut-and-run from New York City - nor can our nation afford it.
"New York remains the country's top terror target, and if Congress passes this amendment, no one will cheer louder than al-Qaeda.
"Let me close by thanking you, along with President Bush, for taking up the issue of immigration reform.
"I urge the members of this Committee, and all members of Congress, to reject the false promise of easy answers, and to have the courage to do everything necessary - and that means standing up to both businesses and those with nativist impulses - to ensure our national security and prosperity.
Friday, February 01, 2008
The bosom of America is open
The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions, whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.
-George Washington, in his Address to the Members of the Volunteer Association and the Other Inhabitants of the Kingdom of Ireland Who Have Lately Arrived in the City of New York, December 2, 1783"
-George Washington, in his Address to the Members of the Volunteer Association and the Other Inhabitants of the Kingdom of Ireland Who Have Lately Arrived in the City of New York, December 2, 1783"
Saturday, December 01, 2007
"Accommodate, assist, guide, and educate"
From theNewspaper.com: "In other words change the emphasis from 'threaten, enforce, punish, and penalize' to 'accommodate, assist, guide, and educate,' Baxter said. "Then we'll see the ... numbers move in the right direction -- downward."
Do you agree? Beware; this advocate is not talking about immigrants. Read the original story here, and see if your opinion changes.
Do you agree? Beware; this advocate is not talking about immigrants. Read the original story here, and see if your opinion changes.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Some GOP candidates resist total immigration negativity
Positive excerpts from last night's presidential debate
MR. GUILIANI:New York City allowed the children of illegal immigrants to go to school. If we didn't allow the children of illegal immigrants to go to school, we would have had 70,000 children on the streets at a time in which New York City was going through a massive crime wave, averaging 2,000 murders a year, 10,000 felonies a week.MR. ROMNEY:
The only two exceptions related to care -- emergency care in the hospital and being able to report crimes. If we didn't allow illegals to report crimes, a lot of criminals would have gone free because they're the ones who had the information.
Are you suggesting, Mayor, that if you have a company that you hired to provide a service ... that you now are responsible for going out and checking the employees of that company, particularly those that -- that might look different or don't -- doesn't have an accent like yours, and ask for their papers? I don't think that's America...SEN. MCCAIN:
[W]e need to sit down ... as Americans and recognize these are God's children as well and they need some protections under the law and they need -- (applause) -- and they -- they need some of our love and compassion. ... [W]e'll solve this immigration problem and we won't demagogue it ... and we won't have all this other rhetoric that unfortunately ... contributes nothing to the national dialogue. (Applause.)MR. HUCKABEE:
This bill would have said that if you came here not because you made the choice but because your parents did, that we're not going to punish a child because the parent committed a crime. That's not what we typically do in this country. It said that if you'd sat in our schools from the time you're 5 or 6 years old and you had become an A-plus student, you completed the core curriculum, you were an exceptional student, and you also had to be drug and alcohol free, and the other provision, you had to be applying for citizenship. It accomplished two thing that we knew we wanted to do, and that is, number one, bring people from illegal status to legal status; and the second thing, we wanted people to be taxpayers, not tax takers, and that's what that provision did. ... In all due respect, we're a better country than to punish children for what their parents did. We're a better country than that.(Cheers, applause.)
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Many confront difficulty by immigrating
Immigrating!
The word meant failure, loss and defeat in the lives of people who sought refuge in other countries. It meant loss, too, to the families who had depended on the physical proximity of the immigrant. It branded the immigrant with the stigma of a loser in the game of life.
In my 25 years as a immigration attorney, I have seen thousands of families confront the pain of admitting financial failure by immigrating. But the families I see are not walking away from their responsibilities. They take on the arduous task of living in a foreign land to support themselves and their families. Many of them fail; the burdens on them are just too great. Many of them successfully make the transition.
It is unfortunate that recent immigration reform failed — lacking the support of both Tennessee senators — leaving the barriers and punishments for immigrating in place, with loopholes for the wealthy and well-connected.
At first blush, the Tennessee immigrating rate may cause concern. But the nation's immigration bureaucracy would be far better off had Congress seen how immigrants assume responsibility and try to succeed the best they can. They use the system in the right way, when it lets them.
Do you agree? If not, see if you agree with the original article, which has nothing to do with immigrants. With apologies to Hank Hildebrand.
The word meant failure, loss and defeat in the lives of people who sought refuge in other countries. It meant loss, too, to the families who had depended on the physical proximity of the immigrant. It branded the immigrant with the stigma of a loser in the game of life.
In my 25 years as a immigration attorney, I have seen thousands of families confront the pain of admitting financial failure by immigrating. But the families I see are not walking away from their responsibilities. They take on the arduous task of living in a foreign land to support themselves and their families. Many of them fail; the burdens on them are just too great. Many of them successfully make the transition.
It is unfortunate that recent immigration reform failed — lacking the support of both Tennessee senators — leaving the barriers and punishments for immigrating in place, with loopholes for the wealthy and well-connected.
At first blush, the Tennessee immigrating rate may cause concern. But the nation's immigration bureaucracy would be far better off had Congress seen how immigrants assume responsibility and try to succeed the best they can. They use the system in the right way, when it lets them.
Do you agree? If not, see if you agree with the original article, which has nothing to do with immigrants. With apologies to Hank Hildebrand.
Friday, August 03, 2007
Given the likely prevalence of such commonplace behavior, criminal charges are a "major waste"
"Given the likely prevalence of such commonplace behavior ..., criminally charging [illegals] with [this commonplace crime] represents a major waste of prosecution dollars, writes Fred Grimm in the Miami Herald."
Agree or disagree?
It's not about migration, though. It's a more impolite subject, so be forewarned: original post here.
Agree or disagree?
It's not about migration, though. It's a more impolite subject, so be forewarned: original post here.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Foreign flag will no longer fly in Tennessee
A foreign flag that was flown in Nashville will be removed from Tennessee altogether.
A good thing?
Read more
A good thing?
Read more
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Legal and religious authorities offer "second chance" to lawbreakers
From the Nashville City Paper:
Local police, prosecutors and clergy are hoping that as many as hundreds of fugitives will take advantage of a rare opportunity to turn themselves in during the first week of August. The reason: That’s when law enforcement officials will be willing to give those persons the most favorable treatment possible and even “a second chance.”What values are behind this program, and do we have those values in the immigration bureaucracy?
Under a program called “Fugitive Safe Surrender,” which began two years ago in Cleveland, Ohio, the Galilee Baptist Church in North Nashville will transformed into a courthouse from Aug. 1-4, and those persons with outstanding warrants for non-violent criminal offenses who come to church to surrender “stand a good chance of clearing up their warrants on the spot without going to jail,” police said.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Not just unfair but also immoral to make it much more burdensome
"It's not just unfair but also immoral to make it much more burdensome for seekers of something worthy - not abusers - to do this."
This is a paraphrase of a quote on what topic? It's not the immigration bureaucracy.
Should that sentiment apply to expatriate policy?
read the original story here
This is a paraphrase of a quote on what topic? It's not the immigration bureaucracy.
Should that sentiment apply to expatriate policy?
read the original story here
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Stunning cost and infuriating application of law raise Constitutional, fairness concerns
The law has been criticized because the cost to the lawbreaker is "stunning," punishment is non-negotiable and cannot be modified by a judge, and application of the law is unequal and "infuriating."
The stated reason for the law is to address a group of lawbreakers who have become an economic burden to the government.
Civil rights organizations invoke the U.S. Constitution when they decry the "undue, extreme and discriminatory punishments" on the lawbreakers.
The executive branch reports receiving complaints about "inequities in the law," hinting at the need for legislative reform.
Some people react (among them are likely lawbreakers and sympathizers with the lawbreakers):
Or is it good enough as is, because we are a "nation of laws"?
Before you decide, none of the above has anything to do with the immigration bureaucracy.
The law is a new statute that allows $3000 speeding tickets for going over 80 MPH in Virginia (stories here, here, and here).
Can the same reactions Virginians have to the $3000 speeding ticket be applied to immigration law? What kind of rules do expect our laws to follow (reasonable punishment, equal application, etc.)?
The stated reason for the law is to address a group of lawbreakers who have become an economic burden to the government.
Civil rights organizations invoke the U.S. Constitution when they decry the "undue, extreme and discriminatory punishments" on the lawbreakers.
The executive branch reports receiving complaints about "inequities in the law," hinting at the need for legislative reform.
Some people react (among them are likely lawbreakers and sympathizers with the lawbreakers):
“I feel like [it] is a little too much”Would you want the law changed?
"I don’t think [the lawbreakers] are the problem, but I don’t know that [one of the potential punishments] is the best way to go."
“That’s BS, why can’t anybody that’s [potentially breaking the law] get the same treatment?”
"I think it’s a little harsh and out of my [ability to comply with the punishment]"
Or is it good enough as is, because we are a "nation of laws"?
Before you decide, none of the above has anything to do with the immigration bureaucracy.
The law is a new statute that allows $3000 speeding tickets for going over 80 MPH in Virginia (stories here, here, and here).
Can the same reactions Virginians have to the $3000 speeding ticket be applied to immigration law? What kind of rules do expect our laws to follow (reasonable punishment, equal application, etc.)?
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
This is evil talk
Here We Go Again
By Aunt B.
It’s not a perfect analogy, but let’s say you live in a little village on one side of the interstate, next door to the most awesome bar imaginable.
Say that your buddy John lives on the other side of the interstate, directly across from you and the bar. But it’s rural nowhere, so, if he’s going to actually drive to the bar, he’s got to go ten miles down to the nearest exit, cross the interstate there, and then come ten miles up.
Then, he sits at the bar and gets drunk and has to drive twenty miles home, when his house is just across the road there.
So, he shouldn’t do it. It’s dangerous and it’s illegal, but he crosses the interstate on foot.
Y’all wish he wouldn’t, but you can see why he does.
If he’s sitting at the bar, no car in the parking lot, do the police have a right to arrest him? He’s not crossing the interstate at the moment, but clearly, he got to the bar by crossing the interstate.
Would it be weird if folks at the bar started thinking of John as not having a right to be at the bar? Would it be weird if they started thinking that John was taking up a space at the bar that belonged to someone who didn’t cross the interstate on foot?
Now, here’s where it gets important. If the police aren’t interested in stopping John from crossing the interstate, do the people at the bar have the right to prohibit him from doing it? Would it be okay if they shot him?
I assume we’re all in agreement that, if the penalty for crossing the interstate on foot is a fine and possibly a little jail time, having people talking about opening fire on ole John is, perhaps, a little extreme.
There was a time in the not-too-distant past when coming into this country illegally was considered about on par with John’s crossing of the interstate. Sneaking across the border was a crime, but once you had sneaked across the border, you were, for the most part, done committing the crime.
That’s why, even until recently, illegal immigrants could get drivers licenses in Tennessee. That’s why they can get in-state tuition in some states. The crime had been committed, but if the border crosser could figure out how to reside here without committing any more crimes, he or she was mostly left alone to be a productive part of the community.
Over the past few years, the rhetoric has changed. Now we talk about illegal immigration as an ongoing crime. From the moment you enter the country illegally until the moment you leave, you are in a state of “illegal immigration.” Everything you do is wrong and might be criminalized because you are committing an ongoing crime. Your existence in this country is a crime.
I should point out that it’s still a crime with a punishment of either being sent back to your home country or, at the most, given a couple of years in prison. That’s it.
This “terrible” crime is punishable by a year or two in prison or being deported.
Is there any other crime a person could commit punishable by just a couple of years in jail that you’d be comfortable when people started talking about shooting the offender?
Do you think it should be okay for folks to talk seriously about non-police U.S. citizens shooting shoplifters? Tax cheats? Illegal music downloaders?
And yet, damn it, Kleinheider, there’s just such a discussion going on over at Volunteer Voters right now.
Donna Locke says:
Seriously. She foresees violent revolution in the U.S. because the government’s not doing enough to chase down folks who’ve done nothing worse than shoplifting?
The Blue Collar Republican is just as ridiculous:
Really? The job is deporting people or putting them in prison for a couple of years. Is that what the Blue Collar Republican is advocating, because, I have to say, it seems to me that he’s not advocating that armed militias round up folks and fly them back to Mexico. It seems to me pretty damn clear that he’s explaining that soon enough folks will just start shooting people.
This is evil talk.
Let me repeat. This is evil talk.
Sitting around discussing throwing a tantrum so big that it includes violence against real live people because the government isn’t doing enough to keep the brown people away from you is evil.
And Kleinheider, damn it! Do you call either one of them on that eliminationist nonsense? No, you fucking “Good point. Very good point, in fact.”
What the fuck are you talking about? It’s a “good point” when the Blue Collar Republican insinuates that, if the Government won’t enforce immigration laws to the linking of jingoists, the jingoists will start shooting people?
That’s not a good point. That’s ridiculousness bordering on psychopathy. You don’t go around shooting people or even threatening to shoot people because the federal government isn’t dealing with them fast enough for your liking.
As of May 7th, there were just over six million people living in Tennessee. Just under six hundred thousand of us live in Davidson County. Three percent of people in the whole state are Hispanic. In Davidson County, it’s right around seven percent–42,000 people, give or take a few.
How many of them are here illegally? I’ve spent the evening perusing pro- and anti-immigration sites and I don’t think anyone can say for sure.
But we’re devoting a whole lot of energy and resources to locating these illegal immigrants and purging them from our community. Shoot, folks over at Volunteer Voters are barely satisfied with a purge. They have their guns ready just in case someone needs killing.
America, let me tell you something. We have a habit of doing shit like this. In this very state, on this very land. This is not new. When we wanted the land and resources of the Cherokee people, we reinterpreted our arrangement with them, rounded them up, and sent them off to some “homeland” out west.
Shoot, on the rare occasion when we freed slaves here in Tennessee, we required them to leave the state when we were done with them, even if Tennessee was the only home they’d ever known, even if their families were here.
And here we go again. We’ve decided that the Mexicans (and let’s not be coy about who we’re singling out. There’s a reason TnRIP is all “Nashville or Tijuana?”) have resources that we can justify to ourselves belong rightfully to us, so we’ve decided to change the terms of our agreement (immigrating here illegally used to be like shoplifting once, now we treat it like an ongoing series of armed robberies) in order to relocate them someplace where we can’t hear them when they complain about us stealing their shit and destroying their families.
And shoot, if we can terrorize the Mexicans who are here legally, too, all the better.
“No, Aunt B., it’s not about terrorizing all Mexicans, we swear.”
Oh yeah, how do you suppose we’re going to locate those illegals? We’re going to tolerate the continual harassment of all Mexicans, that’s how.
I mean, come now. We all know that 287(g) means that every Hispanic-seeming person who comes to the attention of the police in Davidson County is going to get run through the system.
I could forget my drivers license at home and just be given a ticket. You can’t tell me Tia B. isn’t going to be taken downtown in case she needs to be deported. What’s a ten or fifteen minute uncomfortable encounter with the police for me is going to end up being an all day thing for some people.
Keep ‘em all afraid and all inconvenienced and maybe they’ll all leave–legal or not–our brown neighbors. At least, that seems to be the attitude.
And shame on you all for embracing it.
But you know what? Fuck it. Kleinheider’s all
Seriously, what’s he complaining about? Our culture and heritage have a strong strain of forcibly removing non-white people from our midst. He shouldn’t feel any anxiety. He should be pleased to see we’re continuing that age-old American tradition of fucking as hard as we can with the weakest and most vulnerable among us.
I mean, shoot, if folks can talk openly about shooting people just because they’ve picked the wrong place to live–in a city in a state in a region that ought to know what happens when folks are talking that way–and not one person calls them on how evil they sound, well, shucks, America, I about don’t know what to say.
I’ll be practicing “Lo siento,” though.
By Aunt B.
It’s not a perfect analogy, but let’s say you live in a little village on one side of the interstate, next door to the most awesome bar imaginable.
Say that your buddy John lives on the other side of the interstate, directly across from you and the bar. But it’s rural nowhere, so, if he’s going to actually drive to the bar, he’s got to go ten miles down to the nearest exit, cross the interstate there, and then come ten miles up.
Then, he sits at the bar and gets drunk and has to drive twenty miles home, when his house is just across the road there.
So, he shouldn’t do it. It’s dangerous and it’s illegal, but he crosses the interstate on foot.
Y’all wish he wouldn’t, but you can see why he does.
If he’s sitting at the bar, no car in the parking lot, do the police have a right to arrest him? He’s not crossing the interstate at the moment, but clearly, he got to the bar by crossing the interstate.
Would it be weird if folks at the bar started thinking of John as not having a right to be at the bar? Would it be weird if they started thinking that John was taking up a space at the bar that belonged to someone who didn’t cross the interstate on foot?
Now, here’s where it gets important. If the police aren’t interested in stopping John from crossing the interstate, do the people at the bar have the right to prohibit him from doing it? Would it be okay if they shot him?
I assume we’re all in agreement that, if the penalty for crossing the interstate on foot is a fine and possibly a little jail time, having people talking about opening fire on ole John is, perhaps, a little extreme.
There was a time in the not-too-distant past when coming into this country illegally was considered about on par with John’s crossing of the interstate. Sneaking across the border was a crime, but once you had sneaked across the border, you were, for the most part, done committing the crime.
That’s why, even until recently, illegal immigrants could get drivers licenses in Tennessee. That’s why they can get in-state tuition in some states. The crime had been committed, but if the border crosser could figure out how to reside here without committing any more crimes, he or she was mostly left alone to be a productive part of the community.
Over the past few years, the rhetoric has changed. Now we talk about illegal immigration as an ongoing crime. From the moment you enter the country illegally until the moment you leave, you are in a state of “illegal immigration.” Everything you do is wrong and might be criminalized because you are committing an ongoing crime. Your existence in this country is a crime.
I should point out that it’s still a crime with a punishment of either being sent back to your home country or, at the most, given a couple of years in prison. That’s it.
This “terrible” crime is punishable by a year or two in prison or being deported.
Is there any other crime a person could commit punishable by just a couple of years in jail that you’d be comfortable when people started talking about shooting the offender?
Do you think it should be okay for folks to talk seriously about non-police U.S. citizens shooting shoplifters? Tax cheats? Illegal music downloaders?
And yet, damn it, Kleinheider, there’s just such a discussion going on over at Volunteer Voters right now.
Donna Locke says:
As an immigration controller, I am fairly pessimistic on this issue at this point, as far as peaceable, political solutions go. I believe we had windows of opportunity to effect change on this issue through political means, but those windows have closed and passed. There are still laws and changes in laws we must pursue, but many years of inaction have now diverted the United States onto the path of another probable future. A path of eventual revolution. [Emphasis mine.]
Seriously. She foresees violent revolution in the U.S. because the government’s not doing enough to chase down folks who’ve done nothing worse than shoplifting?
The Blue Collar Republican is just as ridiculous:
We have plenty of laws, but no will to enforce them. I am afraid you are right about it being “too late”, but some are being patient and giving the process a chance. But make no mistake, many are arming themselves to do the job themselves if the government will not.
Really? The job is deporting people or putting them in prison for a couple of years. Is that what the Blue Collar Republican is advocating, because, I have to say, it seems to me that he’s not advocating that armed militias round up folks and fly them back to Mexico. It seems to me pretty damn clear that he’s explaining that soon enough folks will just start shooting people.
This is evil talk.
Let me repeat. This is evil talk.
Sitting around discussing throwing a tantrum so big that it includes violence against real live people because the government isn’t doing enough to keep the brown people away from you is evil.
And Kleinheider, damn it! Do you call either one of them on that eliminationist nonsense? No, you fucking “Good point. Very good point, in fact.”
What the fuck are you talking about? It’s a “good point” when the Blue Collar Republican insinuates that, if the Government won’t enforce immigration laws to the linking of jingoists, the jingoists will start shooting people?
That’s not a good point. That’s ridiculousness bordering on psychopathy. You don’t go around shooting people or even threatening to shoot people because the federal government isn’t dealing with them fast enough for your liking.
As of May 7th, there were just over six million people living in Tennessee. Just under six hundred thousand of us live in Davidson County. Three percent of people in the whole state are Hispanic. In Davidson County, it’s right around seven percent–42,000 people, give or take a few.
How many of them are here illegally? I’ve spent the evening perusing pro- and anti-immigration sites and I don’t think anyone can say for sure.
But we’re devoting a whole lot of energy and resources to locating these illegal immigrants and purging them from our community. Shoot, folks over at Volunteer Voters are barely satisfied with a purge. They have their guns ready just in case someone needs killing.
America, let me tell you something. We have a habit of doing shit like this. In this very state, on this very land. This is not new. When we wanted the land and resources of the Cherokee people, we reinterpreted our arrangement with them, rounded them up, and sent them off to some “homeland” out west.
Shoot, on the rare occasion when we freed slaves here in Tennessee, we required them to leave the state when we were done with them, even if Tennessee was the only home they’d ever known, even if their families were here.
And here we go again. We’ve decided that the Mexicans (and let’s not be coy about who we’re singling out. There’s a reason TnRIP is all “Nashville or Tijuana?”) have resources that we can justify to ourselves belong rightfully to us, so we’ve decided to change the terms of our agreement (immigrating here illegally used to be like shoplifting once, now we treat it like an ongoing series of armed robberies) in order to relocate them someplace where we can’t hear them when they complain about us stealing their shit and destroying their families.
And shoot, if we can terrorize the Mexicans who are here legally, too, all the better.
“No, Aunt B., it’s not about terrorizing all Mexicans, we swear.”
Oh yeah, how do you suppose we’re going to locate those illegals? We’re going to tolerate the continual harassment of all Mexicans, that’s how.
I mean, come now. We all know that 287(g) means that every Hispanic-seeming person who comes to the attention of the police in Davidson County is going to get run through the system.
I could forget my drivers license at home and just be given a ticket. You can’t tell me Tia B. isn’t going to be taken downtown in case she needs to be deported. What’s a ten or fifteen minute uncomfortable encounter with the police for me is going to end up being an all day thing for some people.
Keep ‘em all afraid and all inconvenienced and maybe they’ll all leave–legal or not–our brown neighbors. At least, that seems to be the attitude.
And shame on you all for embracing it.
But you know what? Fuck it. Kleinheider’s all
However, just because the celebration seems hypocritical, we cannot avoid the fundamental questions that Fortuyn brings up. If he had every right to protect his culture and heritage from demographic annihilation, do we, as Americans, not have that very same right?
Seriously, what’s he complaining about? Our culture and heritage have a strong strain of forcibly removing non-white people from our midst. He shouldn’t feel any anxiety. He should be pleased to see we’re continuing that age-old American tradition of fucking as hard as we can with the weakest and most vulnerable among us.
I mean, shoot, if folks can talk openly about shooting people just because they’ve picked the wrong place to live–in a city in a state in a region that ought to know what happens when folks are talking that way–and not one person calls them on how evil they sound, well, shucks, America, I about don’t know what to say.
I’ll be practicing “Lo siento,” though.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
"We also must accept responsibility for these workers"
Undocumented workers need to be respected, paid and given a way forward
Farmers admit we need immigrant laborers; now we have to step up to be accountable for their role.
By David Mas Masumoto
"Agriculture has openly acknowledged the need for labor: We also must accept responsibility for these workers."
"As these new Americans are recognized, wages, working conditions and health benefits must be addressed. This will challenge farmers and the old ways of doing business. Agriculture has openly acknowledged the need for labor: We also must accept responsibility for these workers."
"I farm with a social contract—a network of honorable, mutually supporting relationships that contribute to the quality I seek. My work can't be done by machines. I want to grow 'face food,' produce with faces and their stories, keeping alive the legacy of good, authentic food."
"Undocumented workers are part of this food system. We all have a stake in immigration reform, and the need to recognize the important role of all food workers. We need to support farming that contributes true flavors to life."
Read the entire article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)