A Bold Outspoken Leader

My commentary for this coming week about a speech made by Richard Trumka in Cleveland. I believe it is significant because in the last national debate on immigration reform, the labor movement was missing in action. Now the President of the AFL-CIO is a major supporter of reform.

Blessings/Bendiciones,
Fidel "Butch" Montoya

A Bold Outspoken Leader
By Fidel "Butch" Montoya
El Semanario 6/23/2010

Last week, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka spoke before the City Club of Cleveland, giving a major speech calling on union members from the economically hard hit rust-belt region to embrace comprehensive immigration reform.

Trumka acknowledged the economic predicament Cleveland union workers have endured due to the poor economy and great recession.

"Cleveland embodies both the consequences of our failed economic policies of the last three decades - and our hope for a different future. The economic crisis has hit hard here -116,000 lost jobs in the last decade in Cuyahoga County. Eighty-six thousand home foreclosures last year alone."

It was not only unusual for Trumka to give this speech supporting immigration reform in Cleveland in front of union members and business leaders, it demonstrated his exceptional leadership abilities to speak out on an issue he believes must be heard.

He criticized the low wage, high consumption society that imports more and more of what we consume and that it was time to embrace a new national strategy for a global economy.

But for our economy to change means acknowledging that the economic policies of the past have not worked and that it is going to take "world class workforce skills and workforce rights and trade policies that serve the interests of the American people."

Trumka made it clear that in order to have this national narrative about changing our economic strategy, a national introspective look at our personal opinions and political beliefs is necessary.

"Today I also want to talk to you about what may seem like a strange subject--immigration--because it is patently clear that we cannot talk about our national workforce strategy unless we face head-on our own contradictions, hypocrisy and history on immigration."

Trumka spoke of the bigotry and racism his family faced when they first came to this country. "My parents fled poverty and war from different corners of Europe. We were the last hired and first fired, the people who did the hardest and most dangerous work, the people whose pay got shorted because we didn't know the language and were afraid to complain."

He made the case that undocumented immigrants are facing the same intolerance his family faced years ago. Trumka said immigrant families who came to America to find their dream, are now biased of undocumented immigrants seeking the very same dream they wanted in America.

"And yet today I hear from working people who should know better, some in my own family - that those immigrants are taking our jobs, ruining our country. Haven't we been here before?

When I hear that kind of talk, I want to say, did an immigrant move your plant overseas? Did an immigrant take away your pension? Or cut your health care? Did an immigrant destroy American workers' right to organize? Or crash the financial system? Did immigrant workers write the trade laws that have done so much harm to Ohio?"

Trumka said the American Dream brought scores of people to this country, so that "all of us will have a fair portion of the good things in life. Time to be with our families. The chances for our children to get an education and the opportunity to make their own way in the world. Laws that protect us, not oppress us."

Trumka said it was time for immigration reform because employers like cheap labor, like workers who are afraid to organize, afraid to complain when they are mistreated or robbed of their wages and benefits. Borders that are "open enough to ensure an endless supply of socially and legally powerless cheap labor."

Outlining reasons for immigration reform, Trumka made it clear that as members of the union movement, it was time for workers to unite under a banner of fair wages, right to organize, right to work without fear of retaliation, and the right for a pathway that will allow undocumented immigrants to be part of our country from day one.

Trumka spoke passionately of how our country has turned to hate and dissension because of the lack of compelling moral leadership; allowing the voices of hate to feed the public's anger, pain and desperation. "We see today a dangerous drift toward a politics of hate."

Unless our leaders become advocates of change and push for a progressive perspective on the economy that respects workers, the voices of hate will only continue to breed and drag our country in the wrong direction.

Therein lays the problem. We need more leaders like Trumka who are not afraid to speak out to audiences who have used the undocumented immigrant as the scapegoat. The activists of hate have taken advantage of this economic recession to prey upon the anger, depression, and unemployment.

President Obama has not consistently called upon the "haters and racists" to put an end to their bigotry. There is no moral leadership from the President for comprehensive immigration reform. He has not even made comprehensive immigration reform a priority for his administration, much less articulating a political strategy pushing for legislation.

In fact, Obama has prioritized immigration enforcement concentrating on families, not those with criminal backgrounds.

Other politicians are missing in action as well when it comes to advocating for immigration reform or for calling an end to the hate and racism. Thank God, faith leaders have taken forceful steps to call upon the President for immigration reform and have condemned the unjust laws and hate in our country.

Richard Trumka has taken on a significant role as a leader and it was very bold for him to take his message into the heartland of the rust belt. As a strong American, he understands what is necessary so all can achieve the American Dream.

"We as a nation must be true to our better selves - employers must not make a buck on the backs of workers who live in fear of deportation, and workers must stand together in the workplace for good jobs, safe jobs, health care for all, and retirement security we can count on. And so when we talk about making the American Dream real, the labor movement stands for making it real for all of us who do the work of our country. All of us - no matter what we look like, who we choose to love, or where we come from. Surely there we can find common ground."

Our political leaders must change the dialogue and alter the national tone and narrative on comprehensive immigration reform. The voices of hate and dissension will only prey upon people who fail to realize undocumented immigrants only want what our immigrant families wanted and worked for, the American Dream.

http://www.elsemanario.net/
6/23/2010

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fidel "Butch" Montoya is Director of H. S. Power and Light Ministries - Latino Faith Initiative. He was the Vice President/News Director of KUSA - TV Channel 9 News from 1985-1990, and worked at the news station for 24 years. Montoya also served as Deputy Mayor of City and County of Denver from 1995-1999; as the Manager of Public Safety for the City and County of Denver from 1994-2000. Montoya was Licensed to preach in 1972. He serves on the Executive Council for the Hispanic Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reality at the U.S.-Mexico Border.

For Immediate Release

June 8, 2010

Reality at the U.S.-Mexico Border:

Experts Describe the Real Sources of Violence and How We Can Best Respond

Washington D.C. - On Monday, the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) hosted a teleconference with border and national-security experts who dissected the myths linking immigration and border violence. These experts shared their analyses of the reality of crime and violence along the U.S.-Mexico border, what the real sources of violence are, and how the U.S. should respond. They all made the point that nearly twenty years of immigration policy focusing on "securing the border first" has failed to address the underlying issues and criminal cartels that are the real cause of violence along the border. The experts noted that immigration laws and policies of the past two decades have, ironically, made the border less safe and have actually benefitted the traffickers and smugglers who operate at the border.

Benjamin Johnson of the American Immigration Council stressed the need to disentangle unauthorized immigration and border violence as a means for solving both problems, noting that "we are pursuing a lopsided approach of border-enforcement only and placing the highest priority on prosecuting nonviolent border-crossers rather than dangerous criminals. Everyone wants an easy solution to solving our problems at the border, but the reality is a simple solution does not exist for complex problems."

According to David Shirk, Director of the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego, "the Border Patrol has doubled to 20,000 agents, there are also more than 3,000 Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents, 300 National Guard troops (with 1,200 more on their way), and a significant surge in the number of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms personnel. However, border security-only advocates say that this is still not enough. Further saturating the border is costly and ineffective. Indeed, the border-centric approach has encouraged drug trafficking organizations to evolve from relatively small-scale, low-level operations in the 1980s into the highly sophisticated, heavily-armed criminal organizations that are today seriously undermining the Mexican state. The flow of drugs and immigrants continues practically unabated, despite these very costly investments in border security."

He added, "the argument that can be made is that we have gone as far as reasonable to secure this part of the comprehensive approach. We have entered into a free trade agreement with Mexico that allows the flow of goods and capital, but we have not figured out how to manage labor. Border security is made difficult by the creation of a haystack of people; 200,000 people were apprehended at the border last year and 200 were found to have criminal histories. In my view, we need to figure out how to get the 99% of people who don't pose a threat out of the way through work-visa programs or other means. This would make the Border Patrol's job much easier by shrinking the size of the haystack."

Jennifer Bernal Garcia of the Center for New American Security explained, "it's true that the U.S. faces a problem of national security relevance at its border. However, focusing on the problem of crime rather than crime and immigration is needed. When you build a fence, you are pushing immigrants straight into the arms of criminal cartels. There hasn't been enough of a focus placed on prosecution and enforcement measures against criminal cartels. Many think that the border is the 'choke point,' but drug cartels are sprawled out. We must think beyond the border. Going after scapegoats at the border does nothing to change or deter the criminal element." She explains, "what is needed along the border is a coordinated strategy among federal agencies and foreign governments, not incremental acts and feel-good deployments. Such a broad strategy would focus on reducing criminal groups' ability to violently contest state authority, both by diminishing the sources of their proceeds (drugs) and their social base (through a mix of regional law enforcement and social programs)."

Aarti Kohli of the Warren Institute at California State University at Berkeley noted that programs like Operation Streamline, which places all illegal border crossers in federal criminal proceedings in certain regions, are examples of a misdirected policy. "All border crossers regardless of their criminal history are pushed through federal district courts rather than through the civil immigration court. One of the unintended consequences is that resources are taken from prosecuting higher-level offenses. In 2009, federal prosecutors in border districts turned away 1,800 drug prosecutions mostly because they did not have enough investigative and prosecutorial resources. We have created an environment where non-violent border crossers are being prioritized over more dangerous criminals like kidnappers, drug smugglers, and others." In a recent report she found that "between 2002 and 2008, federal magistrate judges along the U.S.-Mexico border saw their misdemeanor immigration caseloads more than quadruple. Criminal prosecutions of petty immigration-related offenses increased by more than 330% in the border district courts, while smuggling and drug trafficking charges were brought less frequently or remained flat."

The panel made the compelling point that "border security first" as a policy choice long ago reached the point of diminishing returns. Reducing illegal immigration will not be accomplished solely by securing the border, but by a coordinated and comprehensive strategy. Creating sensible immigration policies, while simultaneously and comprehensively addressing the criminal issues that are at the heart of border violence, is the only way to provide genuine security along the border and throughout the United States.

To hear a recorded version of the call click here or go to:

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/ipc/7REALITY%20060710.mp3

To read further information see:

• Throwing Good Money After Bad: Immigration Enforcement without Immigration Reform Doesn't Work (IPC Fact Check, May 26, 2010)

• U.S. Border Enforcement Prioritizes Non-Violent Migrants Over Dangerous Criminals (IPC Press Release, May 20, 2010)

• New Data on Federal Court Prosecutions Reveal Non-Violent Immigration Prosecutions Up (IPC Fact Check, February 4, 2010)

###

For more information contact Wendy Sefsaf at 202-507-7524 or wsefsaf@immcouncil.org

The Immigration Policy Center (IPC) is the research and policy arm of the American Immigration Council. IPC's mission is to shape a rational national conversation on immigration and immigrant integration. Through its research and analysis, IPC provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with accurate information about the role of immigrants and immigration policy on U.S. society. IPC reports and materials are widely disseminated and relied upon by press and policy makers. IPC staff regularly serves as experts to leaders on Capitol Hill, opinion-makers and the media. IPC, formed in 2003 is a non-partisan organization that neither supports nor opposes any political party or candidate for office.

A division of the American Immigration Council. Visit our website at http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/.

Border Out of Control?

By Fidel “Butch” Montoya

When the issue of protecting one’s home or neighborhood comes up, the first thing we say as homeowners is we should have the right to determine what we want done to protect our quality of life.

If there is one thing home owners despise, it is having outsiders telling them what they think is the best approach to dealing with any safety issues. We have heard the heated arguments and the local refrain, “We live here and we know what is best for our area.”

An article in the Texas Observer explains how border communities are finally uniting to fight militarization of the border and determine what the best policies are to secure their communities.

The main complaint residents along the border have is that they have become the victims of politicians’ hateful rhetoric bent on perpetuating the fear about undocumented immigrants.

One of the main culprits is Arizona Senator Jon Kyl who tried to get an amendment passed that would throw undocumented immigrants in jail for two weeks before deporting them back to Mexico. Kyl said this would be a deterrent to them trying again. This is just another scheme to criminalize undocumented immigrants.

According to the Observer, border communities are concerned once the Democrats realize a lot of horse trading with the GOP is going to be necessary to push immigration reform forward, “Residents are already bracing to become the sacrificial lamb for Democrats desperate for Republican buy-in on immigration reform. They're already seeing it with the 1,200 guard troops and a Predator Drone dispatched to El Paso.”

Arizona Senator John McCain is so desperate to get re-elected; he has pushed aside his personal values and political beliefs and has become one of the strongest proponents of harsher laws against undocumented immigrants.

McCain attempted to have the Senate pass an amendment sending 6,000 National Guard troops to the border. Even after losing that vote, he still managed to sneak his amendment back in a defense bill that comes up for a vote later this year.

One of the leaders of the effort to unite border communities puts the nasty debate about border safety in perspective. Louie Gilot, director of the Border Network for Human Rights in El Paso told the Observer, “We’ve got to separate border security from immigration reform. We need to have an independent voice for the well being of the communities and so the border isn’t sacrificed the next time immigration reform is taken up.”

Gilot went to mention she is a resident of El Paso, Texas, and according to the latest FBI crime statistics just released; El Paso has the second lowest level of violent crimes per capita among the top 25 most populated cities. In plain language, El Paso is the second safest city in the USA!

Putting those statistics in better perspective, El Paso with a population of about 612,000 residents had 4 homicides last year. Our nation’s capital, with a smaller population of about 592,000 had 66 murders last year.

Yet, the people leading the effort to unite border communities rightfully complain that the border area is often described by the news media and the politicians that rarely venture out of the belt way in D.C. as “a war zone.”

Gilot says one of the main problems is that these politicians have a misperception about the border, and so when they discuss border options, they are made from a “border perceived to be a war zone.”

In March 2010, the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano issued a press release outlining the border security initiatives.

“Over the past year, our unprecedented cooperation with the Mexican government and sustained security efforts along the border have resulted in major progress in combating the ruthless cartels that threaten the safety of both our nations.”

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has also taken a tougher enforcement approach in trying to secure the border, but has focused on capturing undocumented immigrants instead of closing the border to the drug cartels and gangs that are involved in human trafficking.

But as one reviews the press release, one has to wonder why an additional 1,200 National Guard troops are needed at the border at this time? Ordering troops to border is just another example of how political rhetoric and bad policy decisions are meant only to exploit the politics of immigration reform, and create more fear and hate.

Texas Senator John Cornyn perhaps best exemplifies how the fear sound bite works to stall any efforts to move immigration reform forward by exploiting the issue of the border. "Until we deal with this broken border, we are not going to be able to deal with other aspects of our broken immigration system."

If the border is still considered “a war zone,” by the politicians back in Washington, D.C., we need to demand answers from them why all of the border initiatives Napolitano claims have made it safer are not working.

The DHS press release touts the facts about border improvements that are simply hard to rationalize. “Since last March, DHS has doubled the number of personnel assigned to Border Enforcement Security Task Forces; tripled the number of ICE intelligence analysts working along the U.S.-Mexico border; quadrupled deployments of Border Liaison Officers; and begun screening 100 percent of southbound rail shipments for illegal weapons, drugs and cash—for the first time ever.”

Yes, you read that correctly. Doubled the number of personnel assigned to Border Enforcement Security Task Forces. Tripled the number of ICE intelligence analysts working along the U.S.-Mexico border. DHS quadrupled deployment of Border Liaison Officers.

Most startling to me is the fact that for the very first time ever, the U.S. government has “begun screening 100 percent of southbound rail shipments for illegal weapons, drugs and cash - For the very first time ever!”

This means that for years, our government simply ignored the fact that shipments of weapons, drugs and cash were probably being shipped across the border without any threat of government intervention. Outrageous if you ask me!

The Border Patrol in its 85 year history has doubled its agents from 10,000 in 2004 to over than 20,000 agents in 2009.

A question that must be asked is that if the Department of Homeland Security is accomplishing all of these goals and making the border safer, why it is even necessary to talk about the border as “a war zone?” Why is Senator McCain still talking about adding 6,000 more National Guard troops to militarize the border?

It is time that the President along with his Department of Homeland Security and every elected politician in D.C. stop viewing the border as “a war zone” and need to demand accountability of all the high priced technology and border personnel being sent to the border.

It is also time to listen to the people living along the border who know better than anyone else what is actually happening at the border and stop this rhetoric of fear and panic the politicians use to politicize the immigration reform movement.

Lobbying for more troops on the border, Arizona Senator John McCain said, "The borders are broken. We have an obligation to our citizens to secure our border and allow them to lead lives where they not live in fear."

If anyone knows what border policies may actually allow residents to lead their lives where they are not living in fear, it is the residents who live on the border.

So why aren’t our politicians and President listening to these people? Militarizing our borders is bad public policy. We must stop paying attention to news media reports, politicians, and opinion pundits that claim the border is out of control.

For once, why don’t we let the people most affected by the impractical border initiatives from uninformed politicians in the DC beltway have a say in what is best for their communities?

El Semanario  http://www.elsemanario.net/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fidel "Butch" Montoya is Director of H. S. Power and Light Ministries - Latino Faith Initiative. He was the Vice President/News Director of KUSA - TV Channel 9 News from 1985-1990, and worked at the news station for 24 years. Montoya also served as Deputy Mayor of City and County of Denver from 1995-1999; as the Manager of Public Safety for the City and County of Denver from 1994-2000. Montoya was Licensed to preach in 1972. He serves on the Executive Council of the Hispanic Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Arizona's new immigration law rebutted

Ruben Navarrette Jr.

Monday, June 7, 2010

If Arizona's new immigration law is supposed to be the best thing since warm tortillas, why do supporters have to prop it up by engaging in falsehoods and scare tactics? Let me count the ways:

The law bans racial profiling. Truth: Racial profiling is already banned by federal statute, yet it happens. The Arizona law requires that once local and state police make contact with someone over an alleged infraction, they must determine legal status if they have "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the country illegally. It is naive to assume an officer can make that call without taking race into account.

Arizona is being invaded. The law is a cry for help. Truth: No, it's a claim to victimhood. Our society is full of people who duck responsibility for their actions by playing the victim. Now states are doing it. Arizona has illegal immigrants because Arizonans hire them. Take away the "help wanted" sign, and they won't come.

The federal government is doing nothing to stop illegal immigration. Truth: The Obama administration deported more illegal immigrants last year than the Bush administration did in its final year in office. There are 20,000 Border Patrol agents, more than any other federal law enforcement agency. The Border Patrol budget was $3 billion last year, and it has increased almost tenfold since 1992. Not exactly an "open border" policy.

The scope and intent of the law have always been clear. Truth: Supporters like to forget that there have been two versions of the law. The first was defective and had to be fixed one week after it was signed by Gov. Jan Brewer.

The Arizona law is no different than laws in other states, such as California, that require police to 'cooperate' with Border Patrol officers and allow them to inquire as to citizenship. Truth: (1) Cooperating with the Border Patrol isn't the same as impersonating Border Patrol agents; (2) California Penal Code 834b pertains to "any person who is arrested." That's the key difference. In Arizona, you need not be under arrest to be interrogated.

The Arizona law is a carbon copy of federal law. So, it can't be unconstitutional. Truth: The problem is how the law will be implemented. Under existing federal statutes, immigrants may have their citizenship questioned but only by federal agents. Under the Arizona law, that power is extended to local police. Many legal scholars believe this to be clearly unconstitutional because immigration policy is a federal responsibility and not something that can be done piecemeal by individual states.

The presence of immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, in a given town, city, county or state inevitably leads to more crime, i.e., burglary, assault, drunk driving, rape, murder, etc. Truth: For a variety of reasons, as the immigrant population increases, crime rates go down. For one thing, immigrants aren't as bold and defiant as people think. Various researchers who studied the rise in immigration during the 1990s concluded that cities with increased numbers of immigrants had the most significant drops in crime rates.

Americans show identification to cash checks, board planes, drive cars, etc. This is no different. Truth: In such transactions, we're asking for a privilege or a benefit and we willingly identify ourselves to get it. It's a quid pro quo. In Arizona, where you can be grilled for attending a house party with loud music or being a passenger in a vehicle, the "privilege" Latinos are asking for is simply to breathe. This shouldn't come at a price.

Latinos won't be racially profiled. But if they were, it would be justified given that most illegal immigrants come from Mexico and the rest of Latin America. Truth: Supporters can't have it both ways, insisting that a practice won't occur while justifying it as logical and thus likely to occur.

This law makes Arizonans safer. Truth: Quite the opposite. By sending illegal immigrants underground, Arizona has created a pool of ready-made victims who can be preyed upon at will because they won't report crimes to police. Scoundrels, thieves and predators will pounce.

If supporters of the Arizona law truly believe in this legislation, they should ditch their list of disingenuous talking points and start speaking honestly. It would do wonders for their credibility - not to mention the credibility of the dubious law they support.

San Diego Union-Tribune

To comment, e-mail Ruben Navarrette Jr. at ruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/07/EDDN1DPG7P.DTL

Q&A Guide to Arizona's New Immigration Law

For Immediate Release 

 Q&A Guide to Arizona's New Immigration Law

What You Need to Know About The New Law and How It Can Impact Your State

June 2, 2010

Washington, D.C. - Tomorrow Arizona Governor Jan Brewer will meet with President Obama to discuss border security and Arizona's controversial new immigration law SB 1070. Barely a month after passage of  SB 1070, both opponents and proponents are attempting to assess the impact the new law may have on residents of Arizona-citizens and immigrants alike. At the same time, approximately 22 states (at last count) are considering similar legislation. Multiple lawsuits have been filed challenging the constitutionality of the law, opponents are mounting a boycott, and numerous polls show that a majority of the public both supports the Arizona law and comprehensive immigration reform. 

The Immigration Policy Center has developed a Q&A Guide to Arizona's New Immigration Law. This guide provides key answers to basic questions about Arizona's law - from the substance of the law and myths surrounding it to the legal and fiscal implications. As other states contemplate similar legislation, knowing the answers to basic questions about Arizona's law will prove to be critically important in furthering the discussion.

To view the guide in its entirety see:

• Q&A Guide to Arizona's New Immigration Law (IPC Special Report, June 2, 2010)

###


For more information contact Wendy Sefsaf at 202-507-7524 or wsefsaf@immcouncil.org

The Immigration Policy Center (IPC) is the research and policy arm of the American Immigration Council. IPC's mission is to shape a rational national conversation on immigration and immigrant integration. Through its research and analysis, IPC provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with accurate information about the role of immigrants and immigration policy on U.S. society. IPC reports and materials are widely disseminated and relied upon by press and policy makers. IPC staff regularly serves as experts to leaders on Capitol Hill, opinion-makers and the media. IPC, formed in 2003 is a non-partisan organization that neither supports nor opposes any political party or candidate for office.

A division of the American Immigration Council. Visit our website at www.immigrationpolicy.org.

More About the Numbers....

by Fidel "Butch" Montoya

Thousands of marchers came from across the USA to march on May 29th in Phoenix, Arizona. It was pegged as one of the largest marches in the history of Phoenix as tens of thousands braved the dry hot conditions to march against injustice and racism. Viewing video from several news media sources, it was clear this was a mega march against SB 1070, supported by 100,000 marchers.

Pastor Eve Nunez, a Latina Evangelical pastor from Phoenix told me that she has marched from the early days with Cesar Chavez, and this was the biggest march she has seen in Phoenix. This is coming from someone who has committed her ministry to seeking justice and fighting unjust laws.

Pastor Nunez told me, “I have been in every Marcha since the 70s with Cesar. I asked police officers present (about the number of marchers), they said at least One Hundred Thousand. The Organizer Salvador Reza from Puente told me he believes there was more. This was the most Hispanic Clergy,” present in a march in Phoenix.

Yet if you read news accounts of the march, some news outlets estimated the crowd at 10,000. Others simply said, “Thousands marched against SB 1070.” The Los Angeles Times did try to estimate the crowd, one of the few to do so, but still did not give a figure. “Under a broiling desert sun, tens of thousands of protesters on Saturday slowly marched five miles to the state Capitol to rally against Arizona's controversial new immigration law. There was no official crowd estimate, but the march was by far the biggest demonstration since Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into law on April 23.”

Reading the New York Times, the reporter appeared to try and present “a balanced approach” to the story. “Two sides of the immigration debate converged here Saturday: a throng of several thousand marching for five miles opposed to Arizona’s new immigration law, and several thousand nearly filling a nearby stadium in the evening in support of it.”

Why is the news media attempting to down play the number of over 100,000 people who marched on May 29th in Phoenix? It seems very odd to me that the news media went out of it way to discount the tens of thousands who marched for several miles to the State Capitol building. 

Without a doubt, the news media can influence the outcome of a major mega march like the one in Phoenix. Readers and viewers who depend on these news outlets for news and information also expect for the reporters on the scene to be accurate and truthful, not just giving their opinions of what they believe actually happened. When reporters fail to accurately report the facts of a major march like the one in Phoenix, the credibility of these reporters becomes suspect.

Pastor Nunez felt strongly that it was the largest march she has seen in Phoenix and seemed perplexed by the low estimate by the news media. Aerial video of the march on CNN clearly showed that tens of thousands of people participated in the march. From viewing the video, it was clear to me that more than 10,000 people were marching. Even several police officers present at the march told Pastor Nunez that it appeared that there were 100,000 marchers on the streets of Phoenix. 

Julie Gonzales, one of Colorado’s best organizers for immigration reform did attend the march in Phoenix. I asked her what she thought about the number of people who marched the 5.7 miles in the heat. “Yes, it was absolutely over 10.000. I was about 15 blocks away from my friend who was much closer to the front of the march, and I then turned around and I still couldn't see the end of the march. And we're talking both sidewalks full of people. It wasn't just people in the street, or on one lane. It was building to building full of people.” 

Gonzales did admit that she could not estimate the crowd, but did say, “I can't really speak to whether it was 50 or 100 or 200 thousand. All I know is that it was massive.” But she also made it clear that it was far more than the 10,000 reported by some news media outlets.

The New York Daily News reported, “Thousands of civil rights and labor activists from across the United States – carrying banners that read:  “Obama Keep Your Promise” – rallied in Phoenix to protest the law, which requires state and local police to investigate the immigration status of people they suspect are in the country illegally.” Again, the newspaper reporter made no attempt to estimate the crowd, just the word, "Thousands.”

Pablo Alvarado of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, one of the primary organizers of the mega march on May 29th, in an email to supporters of the march wrote, “This weekend 100,000 people marched six miles from Steele Indian School Park to the State Capitol to denounce SB 1070 and demand President Obama intervene in the growing human rights crisis of Arizona.”

It is unfortunate that the news media reporting on the march did not report on the actual number of people who came from across the country to protest a law that has created what Alvarado calls, “the growing human rights crisis of Arizona.” 

Let me be very clear about one issue. It is not just about the number of people who marched, but about the number of people who came out on a very hot day to demand that SB 1070 be reversed and taken off the books as a hateful and illegal profiling law.

The fact that 100,000 people came together in the streets of Phoenix should serve notice that many thousands of people are opposed to this law. The accurate reporting on the events of the day should reflect the fact that thousands of people, 100,000 of them, were willing to travel to Phoenix and march demanding that President Obama intervene in this issue and challenge the law in the courts. 

It is time that the news media report accurately the fact the “civil rights movement of the 21st century” is a real a movement and it is only beginning to grow. Pastor Nunez mentioned that this was the first time that many members of the Hispanic clergy marched along the throngs of marchers demanding justice and righteousness. 

Under the leadership of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, more and more Latino faith leaders are voicing their opposition to the immoral and illegal law that allows police officers to profile any “brown person” whom they “reasonably suspect” might be an undocumented immigrant in the country illegally.

Already, many “brown” American citizens are being detained and put in detention facilities because police officers are not trained properly to determine who is illegal and who just because of their “Latino features” are immediately suspected as being illegal.

This is what brought over 100,000 to the streets of Phoenix on May 29th. This is what is causing the Latino clergy to understand that a prophetic and voice of spiritual leadership is needed today just as the Dr. Martin Luther King brought to the early civil rights movement. More and more national Latino spiritual faith leaders are demanding that we stand together in the face of hate and discrimination that has sprouted an ugly racist movement against Latinos.

In the future, one would trust that the news media would do a better job reporting on the nature of the event, highlighting the fact that the largest march against SB 1070 took place with over 100,000 marchers demanding justice and due process. The May 29th march was not just another march or civic expression of frustration and fear.

This is just the beginning of a new civil rights movement, one that is partnering with Black leaders who marched during past civil rights demonstrations demanding justice and equality. 

Together, we will bring Arizona to its knees, either by showing that a national boycott will cause unprecedented financial ramifications to the state economy, or to its knees asking forgiveness for being so open with their hate and bigotry toward Latinos.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fidel "Butch" Montoya is Director of H. S. Power and Light Ministries - Latino Faith Initiative. He was the Vice President/News Director of KUSA - TV Channel 9 News from 1985-1990, and worked at the news station for 24 years. Montoya also served as Deputy Mayor of City and County of Denver from 1995-1999; as the Manager of Public Safety for the City and County of Denver from 1994-2000. Montoya was Licensed to preach in 1972. He serves on the Executive Council for the Hispanic Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another “War on Drugs?”

By Fidel “Butch” Montoya

“La Casa Blanca” welcomed El Presidente and the First Lady of Mexico to the United States with great pomp and circumstance. Presidente Felipe Calderón, was welcomed as an important friend and ally of our country. There were honor guards, special luncheons, and of course, the highlight, a state dinner hosted by President Barrack Obama and First Lady Michele in the East Room of the White House.

But beyond the all of the hype and ceremony, tough policy issues face both nations as we look to confront not only the immigration reform issues, but perhaps more importantly, the issue of drugs, trafficking, and weapons.

It is no secret that the drug cartels in Mexico are at war not only between one another, but against the government in their attempts to meet the ever growing illicit drug demand in the United States. While most of the most violent and inhumane crimes against humanity have been committed in Mexico, a growing trend of violent drug related crimes are spilling over the border into cities and towns along the border.

In addressing the drug problem, President Obama made it clear that his administration would work “to stem the southbound flow of American guns and money” and to once again work on “new approaches to reducing the demand for drugs in our country.”

In order to focus on the drug war going on in Mexico, efforts to decrease the American demand for those drugs coming from Mexico must be addressed. The “just say no” mentality of yesteryear isn’t working and demand for Mexican drugs on the street corners across America continues to grow.

There is no doubt, President Felipe Calderon listened with intense interest as President Obama spoke of making the Mexican drug war a priority for law enforcement on this side of the border.

President Obama, as he pledged he would increase pressure on criminal drug gangs that “traffic in drugs, guns, and people,” voiced American determination to stop the flow of drugs from Mexican drug cartels.

The violence in Mexico which has caused thousands of innocent people to become victims can be traced to the American drug demand. This demand has created a culture of violence by drug cartels as they seek to distribute and sell their drugs in the USA.

This time we must not permit law enforcement in the USA to get involved in losing another “war on drugs.” Words alone will not stop the flow of “American guns and money” to Mexico. This time, it is going to take more than slogans, cliché’s, and political rhetoric to fight this war on drugs.

While the debate on immigration reform has focused and often stalled on the one issue of “amnesty,” the drug violence caused by the Mexican drug cartels and American demand for drugs must also be addressed in any comprehensive immigration reform package.

When border issues are debated, it centers on the fact that “too many illegal immigrants are crossing the border undetected.” The reality is that too many shipments of illicit drugs are coming across the border undetected in huge amounts to meet the ever growing American demand for drugs.

In order to meet the pledge made by President Obama to join the war against criminal gangs with Presidente Calderon, it is going to take a major policy change for the Obama Administration. It is going to take a concerted by this President to put his words into action via a new policy for his border law enforcement agencies.

Right now, the Obama Administration has misplaced priorities when it comes to border security. The American Immigration Council believes policy makers must make a distinction in any comprehensive immigration reform package between undocumented immigrants crossing the border and the drug induced violence of the drug cartels. “But cracking down on unauthorized immigrants in the United States is not going to diminish violence in border communities because unauthorized immigrants aren't the perpetrators, criminal cartels are.”

The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity & Diversity just completed a study, “Assembly Line Justice: A Review of Operation Streamline.” Operation Streamline is a Bush era policy still in effect that has in fact created a paradox for American policy makers responsible for securing the border.

“Operation Streamline requires the federal criminal prosecution and imprisonment of all unlawful border crossers. The program, which mainly targets migrant workers with no criminal history, has caused skyrocketing caseloads in many federal district courts along the border. This Warren Institute study demonstrates that Operation Streamline diverts crucial law enforcement resources away from fighting violent crime along the border, fails to effectively reduce undocumented immigration, and violates the U.S. Constitution.”

In other words, if President Obama is pledging to reprioritize American law enforcement efforts, Homeland Security and the Border Patrol will need to put their resources to work on curtailing human trafficking and putting a stop to the drug shipments slipping over the border undetected. This will be no easy task.

Right now, the federal government is creating federal criminals out of simple border crossers who have no criminal histories. As the Warren Institute study points out, “By focusing court and law enforcement resources on the prosecution of first-time entrants, Operation Streamline also diverts attention away from fighting drug smuggling, human trafficking, and other crimes that create border violence.”

It is time to reevaluate Operation Streamline and synchronize the policy with the Obama initiative to stem the flow of weapons and money to Mexico. The Warren Institute Study calls for a complete change in policy by the Obama Administration.

“The program channels law enforcement funding and attention toward

the apprehension and prosecution of low-level offenders, rather than focusing on the crimes that create border violence, including human trafficking and drug smuggling. As petty immigration prosecutions have increased in the border district courts, drug prosecutions have declined.”

It is time to target the drug cartels and the violence caused by the illicit drug traffic demand. If law enforcement target drug cartels who have little or no regard for who gets hurt or killed, as drug related homicides in Mexico have increased year after year, we truly can expect a war on drugs.

The Warren Institute study makes it clear the present policy must be changed. “Operation Streamline does not target drug traffickers and human smugglers but rather migrants who are coming to this country in search of employment or to reunite with family.”

It is time for President Obama to change our present enforcement policy on border security and go after the real criminals, the criminals with weapons, money, and determination to sell their drugs in our country.

Fidel "Butch" Montoya is Director of H.S. Power and Light Ministries - Latino Faith Initiative. He was the Vice President/News Director of KUSA - TV Channel 9 News from 1985-1990, and worked at the news station for 24 years. Montoya also served as Deputy Mayor of City and County of Denver from 1995-1999; as the Manager of Public Safety for the City and County of Denver from 1994-2000. Montoya was Licensed to preach in 1972. He serves on the Executive Council for the Hispanic Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Anti-Immigrant Group Recommends Economic Self-Destruction for Arizona

For Immediate Release

May 18, 2010

Washington D.C. - In data released "exclusively to FoxNews.com," the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) - architects of the new Arizona law SB1070 - claim that unauthorized immigrants in Arizona are costing the state's taxpayers $2.7 billion per year for education, medical care, and incarceration. The release of this "fiscal analysis" takes advantage of the absence of any legitimate economic analysis by the state on what SB1070 will cost. However, judging from FAIR's track record when it comes to these kinds of state estimates, it is likely that their numbers are virtually meaningless. In its most recent state studies on unauthorized immigration in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, for instance, FAIR has dramatically exaggerated the fiscal "costs" imposed by unauthorized immigrants by including schooling and medical care for their native-born, U.S.-citizen children in its estimate, and conveniently forgetting to account for the economic role that unauthorized workers play as consumers who help support local economies.

FAIR's latest data fails to account for the property, sales, and income taxes paid by unauthorized immigrants. Nor does the data account for the consumer purchasing power of unauthorized immigrants - what they spend on goods, services, and housing - which actually creates jobs and generates additional tax revenue. They seem to forget that deporting workers also means deporting consumers and taxpayers.

However, in all fairness, they do acknowledge that the costs of implementing SB1070 will add to the economic strain on the state. In the absence of any state-generated fiscal data on the cost of the law's implementation, some Arizonans have pointed to a fact sheet produced by Yuma County Sheriff Ralph E. Ogden in response to similar legislation proposed in 2006. The Yuma county snapshot of enforcement costs is a sobering reminder of the overwhelming financial costs - up to $100 million for just one Arizona county - that will ensue if the state attempts to enforce its new law. Ultimately, this law will cost Arizona hundreds of millions of dollars to implement. Yet those costs are only part of the story and don't even account for lost revenue from losing a part of the workforce, not to mention a growing boycott and expensive lawsuits from which the state will have to defend itself.

For further information see:

• Implementation Costs of SB1070 to One Arizona County (IPC Press Release, April 23, 2010)

• How Much Will Arizona's Immigration Bill SB1070 Cost? (IPC Press Release (April 21, 2010)

• Arizona is Not the First State to Take Immigration Matters into their Own Hands (IPC Fact Check, May 6, 2010)

###

For more information contact Wendy Sefsaf at wsefsaf@immcouncil.org or 202-507-7524.

The Immigration Policy Center (IPC) is the research and policy arm of the American Immigration Council. IPC's mission is to shape a rational national conversation on immigration and immigrant integration. Through its research and analysis, IPC provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with accurate information about the role of immigrants and immigration policy on U.S. society. IPC reports and materials are widely disseminated and relied upon by press and policy makers. IPC staff regularly serves as experts to leaders on Capitol Hill, opinion-makers and the media. IPC, formed in 2003 is a non-partisan organization that neither supports nor opposes any political party or candidate for office.

A division of the American Immigration Council. Visit our website at http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/.

Talk About a Double Standard

By Fidel "Butch" Montoya

In Florida, Latino Marco Rubio, who is running as a Republican for the United States Senate has now come out against SB 1070, the Arizona racial and ethnic profiling law. Rubio who is being backed by conservatives and many Tea Party elite has allowed politics to play a major role in his decision to deport all undocumented immigrants and have nothing to do with “amnesty.”

Rubio at one point criticized SB 1070 and found the law strictly focused on racial profiling. One would have expected that a person whose parents were Cuban refugees and faced many of the same life experiences that many undocumented immigrants face today would stand against the intent of the Arizona law and the hate it creates.

Rubio who seems not to be able to find his place at the table of immigration reform originally was a fierce critic of SB 1070. Rubio claimed, “From what I have read in news reports, I do have concerns about this legislation. While I don't believe Arizona's policy was based on anything other than trying to get a handle on our broken borders, I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with 'reasonable suspicion,' are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens."

But Rubio who is considered the sweetheart of conservatives seems to now have now changed his opinion about SB 1070. He now claims the changes in the law have made it acceptable. Jason Mattera of Human Events interviewed Rubio after the changes were made.

In that interview Rubio said, “But right now, for the people of Arizona , this is not (from what I gathered) this is not even an immigration issue. This is a public safety issue. And the fact is that Mexican drug violence has tragically crossed over the border and into an American state and American cities. So I congratulate them on taking steps to clarify even further the intent of the law.” So the whole issue is not even an immigration issue.

Rubio pushed the issue even further by rejecting the whole concept of a “pathway to citizenship” or “amnesty.” He claims that despite all of the “human stories” about hardships faced by undocumented immigrants today, these stories mean nothing to the heartless Rubio.

“I understand the human stories that we’re going to...We’re gonna....There are going to be stories of very young kids that were brought to this country at a very young age who don’t even speak Spanish that are going to be sent back to Nicaragua or some other place. And it’s gonna feel weird and I understand that. The goal here is to have an immigration policy that works. And if you provide a path for people to enter this country illegally and if they stay here long enough and pay enough in taxes, well let them stay legally...why would anyone come in through the legal process?”

So who cares about young kids that were brought to this country at a very young age who don’t even speak Spanish that are going to be deported back to Nicaragua or some other place? Rubio doesn’t care about those young kids or the circumstances many of them faced when brought to this country.

Rubio, being Cuban and whose parents fled Castro’s Cuba many years ago seems to have forgotten the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966, which still applies to any Cuban who basically touches US soil and are then permitted to remain here. No questions asked. No ICE investigations. No detention while status is determined. Just reach out and touch US soil and you are safe. But according to Rubio, that may be too much to provide any other group of people who also have “reached out and touched US soil.”

Legal experts will tell you that no other people from any other country than Cuba have these special rights, privileges, and special advantages.

The United States Coast Guard does deport any Cuban caught trying to enter the United States through the traditional escape route from Cuba, the Florida Straits.

The Houston Times reporting on this issue points out very clearly how Cuban immigrants are treated differently than other groups caught trying to cross the US border. “The agreement also led to the creation of a "wet foot/dry foot" policy. Cubans caught in the water are now taxied back to the island on Coast Guard ships. But, if Cubans can make it to U.S. soil, they can stay and seek legal ­residency.”

The Houston Times explains why Cubans are making the risky trek via Mexico . "Dry foot" Cubans technically enter the country on a one-year parole. At the end of that time, they are required to appear before an immigration judge to have their status upgraded to permanent residency.

The new phenomenon of Cubans crossing Mexico by land has given rise to a new term: "dusty foot.”

The Houston Times says this “policy has been widely criticized as hypocritical since its inception.”

From Mexico, Cubans make the trip up to the Texas border, where on the same day they cross, they are registered as "political asylees." From day one, no detention, no background investigation, or no ICE intimidation, but are given legal status to remain in the country.

The Houston Press reports that “The number of Cubans entering Texas has skyrocketed. About 11,500 crossed the border legally last year, almost all through Brownsville , which is three times the number that enter through Florida .”

Just maybe Rubio ought to go back and review his family heritage and see where changes in immigration law might be made. Maybe the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 ought to be changed so that it applies equally to all others who have reached out and touched US soil.

Rubio’s position on immigration reform is the real definition of a political hypocrite. A law that applies to “his people” by giving them special privileges to stay in the United States no questions asked, but who is willing for young kids who were brought here at a young age and don’t speak Spanish, to be deported back to a country they don’t even recognize or remember and even after listening to these stories, they do nothing to appeal to this man’s sense of humanity.

It is time that someone called Marco Rubio out as a hypocrite and that as a candidate for the United States Senate, his integrity and character are questionable. Rubio is merely a political hand puppet of the extreme conservatives and patrons of the Tea Party who would rather play politics with the issue of immigration than work for comprehensive reform.

For Rubio to back away from his earlier condemnation of the Arizona law, and now become a strong proponent of deporting young kids back where they came from and to ignore the special privileges afforded Cubans who leave Castro’s Cuba is simply hypocritical.

Marco Rubio is simply a disgrace to not only Cubans who have worked hard to attain their rightful place in our society as former refugees, but to others who seek the same American dream. Rubio ought to stop playing politics with the important issue of comprehensive immigration reform and work to find a resolution that meets the needs of so many people who merely only want a better life.

Even if his conservative supporters and Tea Party cohorts disagree with the fundamental core values of immigration reform, Rubio should remain true to the ideals of providing safe haven to all who seek freedom and security. Rubio might even stop and listen carefully to all the human stories that demand that our government immediately enact comprehensive immigration reform.

Rubio must understand the issue of comprehensive immigration reform is not a Republican or Democratic issue; it is about human stories of people seeking to find a better life free from many of the same issues why Cubans flee Cuba today.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fidel "Butch" Montoya is Director of H.S. Power and Light Ministries - Latino Faith Initiative. He was the Vice President/News Director of KUSA - TV Channel 9 News from 1985-1990, and worked at the news station for 24 years. Montoya also served as Deputy Mayor of City and County of Denver from 1995-1999; as the Manager of Public Safety for the City and County of Denver from 1994-2000. Montoya was Licensed to preach in 1972. He serves on the Executive Council for the Hispanic Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Say what you will, SB 1070 is still profiling.

By Fidel “Butch” Montoya

The Arizona Legislature after running into harsh criticism and condemnation of SB 1070 as the worst racial and ethnic profiling law in the land, took some feeble steps to change the intent of the law by trying to ensure that law enforcement officers didn’t abuse their authority by stopping and questioning every person who fit the profile of an “undocumented immigrant,” by amending the law with HB 2165.

Governor Jan Brewer signed the bill passed by the Arizona Legislature that now requires every alien present in the state to carry proper documentation that they are legally in the state. The police can use “reasonable suspicion” to question any suspected undocumented immigrant in the state about their legal status. If undocumented immigrants do not carry “their papers,” police can charge them with additional fines, and in effect, making innocent men, or women – criminals.

The whole issue of racial profiling and ethnic intimidation allowing police to question anyone, who fits a profile of an undocumented immigrant, has raised a new issue of defining what an undocumented immigrant looks like. Even Governor Brewer who claims that police will undergo new training in identifying what a undocumented immigrant looks like, could not even venture a response to a question from a reporter what that training will entail.

But like all politicians, she couldn’t pass the chance to give a vague response. "I do not know," she said. "I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks like. I can tell you that I think that there are people in Arizona who assume they know what an illegal immigrant looks like. I don't know if they know that for a fact or not."

Mike Littwin, columnist of The Denver Post, wrote the best response to the question. She said that they're still trying to come up with guidelines for the law. We all know what the law will do — go after those with the wrong accents or the wrong shoes or who press 2 at the ATM.

The bottom line, civil rights organizations are already lining up to sue the state and demand that the racial profiling law be reviewed by the courts. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Arizona filed their challenge against Arizona’s Latino racial profiling law last week.

In a major show of support and unity with the Latino community, the NAACP, the nations’ oldest and respected civil rights organization in the country called SB 1070 an attempt to roll back the clock on civil rights protections in our country. The NAACP is outraged that Arizona would pass a law that empowers the police to legally use racial profiling as a means by which to target the Latino community.

The Black community lead the civil rights movement back in the 1950’s, suffering the indignity and injustice of police abuse and brutality during non-violent civil disobedience protests, know what racial profiling can lead to when police abuse the authority given them under the law.

They also understand how the moral disregard of the law can be abused when segregationist Public Safety manager of Birmingham used his police against non-violent protestors in Birmingham. Theophilus Eugene “Bull” Connor was responsible for the ugliest images embedded in our minds of cops and dogs brutally attacking innocent victims of the civil rights demonstrations. Dr. Martin Luther King called, “Birmingham the most segregated city in America.” It was here that America watched in horror on television as police used police dogs to drag away protestors in the streets of Birmingham. But one of the most dreadful images caught by news photojournalists of the time were the high powered water fire hoses used to push and wash Black protestors off their feet and into submission. Speaking from a sense of history and outrage, NAACP Chairman Roslyn M. Brock condemned the fact that SB 1070 was a violation of the moral and human rights standard in our country and an attempt to roll back the clock.

“The passage of SB1070 is an embarrassment to the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution, and if we are not careful will leave a permanent stain on the United States’ reputation throughout the world. As an association that has fought for more than 100 years to ensure that basic rights and freedoms would be equally extended to all, it is disheartening to see the State of Arizona enact a law that tramples on the civil rights of Hispanic persons, and one that cannot be enforced without resorting to racial and ethnic profiling. We intend to use the full weight of our 2200 branches and units to ensure that this law is repealed and does not happen in other states across this nation.”

In Colorado, a highly respected civil rights lawyer took the time to analyze SB 1070 and the feeble attempt by the Arizona Legislature to amend the law (HB 2162) in their efforts to quiet claims that by allowing police to use “reasonable suspicion,” basically meant racial and ethnic profiling was legal in Arizona. Joseph Salazar, who “read and dissected SB 1070,’ even after the legislature passed HB 2165, wrote, “HB 1070 is severely flawed. There are no real safeguards prohibiting unconstitutional conduct, such as racial profiling.” Salazar opined, “The fact is that SB 1070 violates the scared principles of our federal government’s power to regulate immigration.”

Salazar took the task upon himself to read and analyze SB 1070 after Scott McInnis, Republican running for governor of Colorado, claimed that even though he had not read or studied SB 1070, he would sign such a bill if he were Governor of Colorado. The same gentlemen who while in Congress warned the nation right after the 911 terrorist attacks on our country, “the need for profiling for the national security of this country."

David Sirota, columnist for a syndicated column in Oregon Live. Com wrote, “Brandishing his past experience as a police officer, he implored lawmakers "to quit being politically correct" and let authorities make "ethnic background a legitimate component" of law enforcement investigations -- just as Arizona's new statute allows.

“Insurance companies profile for risk. That is what I am asking that we continue to do -- we need to profile for risk," he thundered, adding that using ethnicity as a risk factor "is very legitimate -- I think it is smart.”

Commenting further, Sirota wrote, In other words, we should do to civil rights what insurance firms have done to, say, health care -- namely, deny people rights and privileges based on their ascribed characteristics.

No wonder, McInnis didn’t need to read SB 1070 and stand before he stood before the microphones and proudly stated he would readily agree to sign it into law if he were elected Governor of Colorado. It is part of his DNA as a former cop to understand how easily it is to make “ethnic background a legitimate component” for profiling people who look like the bad guys.

With McInnis’s lack of political astuteness and understanding that SB 1070 is morally reprehensible to a large group of voters in Colorado, he allowed his own personal feelings about racial and ethnic “profiling for risk” to blurt out without understanding the political repercussions of being so frank and in this case, dishonest.

So while civil right lawyer Salazar took the time to read and analyze the law, it was very easy to see that the intent of the Arizona law – as written in the law itself, “The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local governmental agencies in Arizona.”

For McInnis and others who champion the violation of civil rights under the guise of protecting our country by using racial and ethnic profiling might want to take the same amount of time and effort as Salazar and find out for themselves that, “HB 1070 is severely flawed. There are no real safeguards prohibiting unconstitutional conduct, such as racial profiling.” Salazar opined, “The fact is that SB 1070 violates the scared principles of our federal government’s power to regulate immigration.”

No matter how much the Arizona Legislature tried to hide the true intent of SB 1070 by amending the law with HB 2165, putting lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.

Fidel "Butch" Montoya is Director of H.S. Power and Light Ministries. He was the Vice President/News Director of KUSA Channel 9 News from 1985-1990, and worked at the news station for 24 years. Montoya also served as Deputy Mayor of City and County of Denver from 1995-1999; as the Manager of Public Safety for the City and County of Denver from 1994-2000. Montoya was Licensed to preach in 1972. He serves on the Executive Council for the Hispanic Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Immigration Reaches the Boiling Point, How will Washington Respond?

For Immediate Release
May 3, 2010

Immigration Reaches the Boiling Point, How will Washington Respond?

More Enforcement or Genuine Reform?

Washington D.C. - As the constitutional and civil rights consequences of Arizona's punitive new immigration law become ever more apparent, proponents and opponents of the law seem to share only one area of agreement: America's immigration laws are broken and must be repaired. The proposed solutions however, are as different as night and day. Supporters of the law champion federal and state enforcement-only solutions premised on the belief that we must secure the borders before taking any other action to reform the system. Opponents of the law know that a border-first strategy is short-sighted, has failed in the past, and cannot provide a solution to the larger immigration problem. As these two forces mobilize for yet another immigration debate, the stakes grow ever higher and the need for accurate information grows more acute.

Although it may be politically popular to call for additional border and interior enforcement, the real solutions and the facts call for a comprehensive approach. In order to truly solve the problem we must address the root causes of illegal immigration: inadequate legal means for working and immigrating to the United States, a deportation-driven strategy that focuses on numbers rather than genuine threats to national security, and a failure to enact a consistent and balanced federal plan for regulating immigration.

Pouring billions of dollars more into border enforcement alone or venting frustration through questionable state laws will not solve the problem. Turning off the jobs magnet, expanding effective worker verification programs, providing a legal and regulated flow of workers, and getting millions of workers right with the law - paying taxes and contributing to our nation's recovery - is a recipe for reform. Throwing billions at enforcement-only has been the modus operandi in Washington for nearly two decades, and the results have been an increasingly dysfunctional system.

The Immigration Policy Center has developed fact sheets and reports that breakdown the problems and solutions to our broken immigration system, and provide a summary of the most recent proposal for immigration reform. These publications provide readers with a comprehensive overview of what's wrong with our immigration system and the steps we need to take in order to fix it. The Senate proposal is an important first step, but much work still must be done to turn these concepts and various other legislative proposals into a truly bi-partisan bill ready for debate.

For further information see:

Breaking Down the Problems, What's Wrong with Our Immigration System? (IPC Special Report)

Focusing on the Solutions: Key Principles of Immigration Reform (IPC Special Report)

Real Enforcement with Practical Answers for Immigration Reform (REPAIR) Proposal Summary (IPC Fact Check)

###

For press inquiries contact Wendy Sefsaf at wsefsaf@immcouncil.org or 202-507-7509.

The Immigration Policy Center (IPC) is the research and policy arm of the American Immigration Council. IPC's mission is to shape a rational national conversation on immigration and immigrant integration. Through its research and analysis, IPC provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with accurate information about the role of immigrants and immigration policy on U.S. society. IPC reports and materials are widely disseminated and relied upon by press and policy makers. IPC staff regularly serves as experts to leaders on Capitol Hill, opinion-makers and the media. IPC, formed in 2003 is a non-partisan organization that neither supports nor opposes any political party or candidate for office.

A division of the American Immigration Council. Visit our website at http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/.

5 Myths about Immigration

Washington Post, By Doris Meissner Sunday, May 2, 2010; B02

Despite the fact that we are a nation of immigrants -- or perhaps because of it -- immigration continues to be one of America's most contentious topics. The new law in Arizona authorizing police to arrest individuals who cannot show documents proving that they are in the country legally has set off a fresh bout of acrimony. But as in the past, much of the debate is founded on mythology.

1. Immigrants take jobs from American workers.

Although immigrants account for 12.5 percent of the U.S. population, they make up about 15 percent of the workforce. They are overrepresented among workers largely because the rest of our population is aging: Immigrants and their children have accounted for 58 percent of U.S. population growth since 1980. This probably won't change anytime soon. Low U.S. fertility rates and the upcoming retirement of the baby boomers mean that immigration is likely to be the only source of growth in what we call the "prime age" workforce -- workers ages 25 to 55 -- in the decades ahead. As record numbers of retirees begin drawing Social Security checks, younger immigrant workers will be paying taxes, somewhat easing the financial pressures on the system.

Moreover, immigrants tend to be concentrated in high- and low-skilled occupations that complement -- rather than compete with -- jobs held by native workers. And the foreign-born workers who fill lower-paying jobs are typically first-hired/first-fired employees, allowing employers to expand and contract their workforces rapidly. As a result, immigrants experience higher employment than natives during booms -- but they suffer higher job losses during downturns, including the current one.

It's true that an influx of new workers pushes wages down, but immigration also stimulates growth by creating new consumers, entrepreneurs and investors. As a result of this growth, economists estimate that wages for the vast majority of American workers are slightly higher than they would be without immigration. U.S. workers without a high school degree experience wage declines as a result of competition from immigrants, but these losses are modest, at just over 1 percent. Economists also estimate that for each job an immigrant fills, an additional job is created.

2. Immigration is at an all-time high, and most new immigrants came illegally.

The historic high came more than a century ago, in 1890, when immigrants made up 14.8 percent of our population. Today, about two-thirds of immigrants are here legally, either as naturalized citizens or as lawful permanent residents, more commonly known as "green card" holders. And of the approximately 10.8 million immigrants who are in the country illegally, about 40 percent arrived legally but overstayed their visas.

It's worth noting that although the unauthorized immigrant population includes more people from Mexico than from any other country, Mexicans are also the largest group of lawful immigrants. As for the flow of illegal immigrants, apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexico border have declined by more than 50 percent over the past four years, while increases in the size of the illegal population, which had been growing by about 500,000 a year for more than a decade, have stopped. This decline is largely due to the recession, but stepped-up border enforcement is playing a part.

3. Today's immigrants are not integrating into American life like past waves did.

The integration of immigrants remains a hallmark of America's vitality as a society and a source of admiration abroad, as it has been throughout our history. Although some people complain that today's immigrants are not integrating into U.S. society as quickly as previous newcomers did, the same charge was leveled at virtually every past wave of immigrants, including the large numbers of Germans, Irish and Italians who arrived in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Today, as before, immigrant integration takes a generation or two. Learning English is one key driver of this process; the education and upward mobility of immigrants' children is the other. On the first count, today's immigrants consistently seek English instruction in such large numbers that adult-education programs cannot meet the demand, especially in places such as California. On the second count, the No Child Left Behind Act has played a critical role in helping educate immigrant children because it holds schools newly accountable for teaching them English.

However, the unauthorized status of millions of foreign-born immigrants can slow integration in crucial ways. For example, illegal immigrants are ineligible for in-state tuition at most public colleges and universities, putting higher education effectively out of their reach. And laws prohibiting unauthorized immigrants from getting driver's licenses or various professional credentials can leave them stuck in jobs with a high density of other immigrants and unable to advance.

4. Cracking down on illegal border crossings will make us safer.

The job of protecting the nation's borders is immense, encompassing nearly 7,500 miles of land borders, 12,380 miles of coastline and a vast network of sea ports, international airports, ports of entry along the Mexican and Canadian borders and visa-issuing consulates abroad.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, we have dramatically strengthened our borders through the use of biometrics at ports of entry, secure cargo-shipment systems, intelligence gathering, integrated databases and increased international cooperation. The Border Patrol has nearly doubled in size in the past five years, to more than 20,000 agents. The Department of Homeland Security says it is on schedule to meet congressional mandates for southwestern border enforcement, including fence-building. And cooperation with the Mexican government has improved significantly.

Still, our southwest border is more a classic law enforcement challenge than a front line in the war on terrorism. Antiterrorism measures rely heavily on intelligence gathering and clandestine efforts that are unrelated to border enforcement.

The seasoned enforcement officials I have spoken with all contend that if we provided enough visas to meet the economy's demand for workers, border agents would be freed to focus on protecting the nation from truly dangerous individuals and activities, such as drug-trafficking, smuggling and cartel violence.

5. Immigration reform cannot happen in an election year.

The politics of immigration can be explosive and can chase lawmakers away, especially as elections near, with the result that Congress infrequently and reluctantly updates immigration laws. However, all the significant immigration bills enacted in recent decades were passed in election years, often at the last minute and after fractious debates.

This list dates back to the Refugee Act of 1980, which established our system for humanitarian protection and refugee and asylum admissions. Next came the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which made it illegal to hire unauthorized immigrants and provided amnesty for 2.7 million illegal immigrants. The Immigration Act of 1990 increased the number of visas allotted to highly skilled workers. And the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act charged immigration agencies with implementing significant new law enforcement mandates.

Legislative attempts to make urgently needed changes fizzled in the House in 2005 and in the Senate in 2006 and 2007, and the to-do list for this Congress is substantial. But ruling out immigration reform, whether because Congress has other priorities or because it's an election year, would be a mistake. The outline for immigration legislation that Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and his Democratic colleagues unveiled last week, together with the uproar over the Arizona law, may help convince lawmakers that there's no time like the present.

Doris Meissner, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, served as commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1993 to 2000. She will be online Monday, May 3, at 11 a.m. ET to chat. Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.