Obama orders ‘softer’ tactics in anti-immigrant crackdown

Scan page 6

Despite repeated postponements of critical meetings and only vague references to immigration reform since President Obama’s inauguration in January, it seems that the debate over immigration policy is finally start­ ing to heat up. Although the Obama administration has failed to lay out a specific timeline for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, the appointment of Janet Napoli­ tano as the new head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has signaled a tactical shift in dealing with ever-mounting problems surrounding the floun­ dering U.S. immigration system.

Congress has recently moved on several new initia­ tives as well, including increased funding for build­ ing a physical wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, and expanded use of the E-verify system, which is used to check Social Security numbers of new workers against a massive government database.

But what is the meaning of this shift? Under the Bush administration, massive workplace raids seemed to be the standard. Plants were raided by ICE agents, and workers who were caught were shuffled through the national system of detention centers before being deported. Bush also supported increased funding for militarization of the border and more Border Patrol agents.

It is clear that the Obama administration is focusing more on employer sanctions, but what do these actu­ ally entail and what will be their effects, intended or otherwise, on the immigration system here in the U.S.? And, how do employer sanctions fit into the larger plan for immigration reform and the Democrats’ strat­ egy for pushing such legislation through Congress? The answer may surprise you. Let’s take a deeper look.

First, it is clear from Representative Gutierrez’s (DIl.) tour of immigration reform “pep rallies” earlier this year that the Democrats are gearing up to push the leg­ islation through Congress (whenever it is brought to the table). In order to gain bipartisan support as well as support from large sections of the American pub­ lic for their Comprehensive Immigration Reform pro­ posal, the Democrats need to make it clear that they are “cracking down” on illegal immigration through the use of stricter (and supposedly more effective) en­ forcement measures.

These recent “tough stance” initiatives include even more militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border, despite 6 SOCIALIST ACTION AUGUST 2009 the past failure of such measures to stem undocument­ ed migration flows. Napolitano recently launched an initiative to send an additional 360 agents to the bor­ der, supposedly to help stem the flow of illegal drugs and weapons into Mexico (The New York Times, April 6, 2009). The U.S. Senate voted in early July to require actual fencing (as opposed to technological and vehicle barriers) along 700 miles of the border. This initiative passed as part of a debate on a $42.9 billion measure to fund the DHS for the 2010 fiscal year.

However, similar initiatives in the past have failed to stem the flow of undocumented migration into the U.S., while non-governmental organizations like the Coalición de Derechos Humanos in Arizona have con­ sistently documented increased deaths crossing the border as a result of the necessity to cross at more dangerous points. Both the SEIU and the AFL-CIO en­ dorse increased border control measures as well.

Other “tough stance” initiatives include the expan­ sion of 287(g), which deputizes local police depart­ ments to enforce immigration law, and Secure Com­ munities, which will automatically check the immigra­ tion status of everyone in jail. On July 10, Napolitano announced that the DHS has granted 287(g) powers to 11 new jurisdictions. The Obama administration has pledged $195 million over the next year towards expanding the Secure Communities program, “with an eye towards establishing it nationwide by late 2012, when it is projected to cost about $1 billion a year” (The New York Times, July 26, 2009).

These expansions have already sparked heated de­ bate. Both programs lack oversight and tend to encour­ age racial profiling and abuses, while breaking down trust between local police officers and immigrant communities. But these “tough stance” initiatives are only trade-offs to give the Democrats the bipartisan support they need to push through new enforcementbased legislation focusing on employer sanctions.

This brings us to our main point, which is the need for the new immigration reforms to appear more “humane.” Increased use of so-called “employer sanc­ tions,” coupled with new “desktop raid” tactics, facili­ tate this shift in perspective.

In the past, large-scale workplace raids like those at the Swift meatpacking plant in Worthington, Minn., or at the Agriprocessors plant in Postville, Iowa, left families torn apart and whole communities destroyed. Huge public outcry and mass protests in the wake of (Left) U.S. border agent confronts two women from Oaxaca, Mexico, on the Arizona border.

these raids have left politicians gun shy. Even Gutierrez, in the midst of his vague and noncommittal speech on Comprehensive Immi­ gration Reform in Minneapolis in June, called for an end to the raids and deportations. As part of the new tactical shift on immi­ gration policy, the large-scale raids of the last few years have gradually given way to more small-scale home raids. These types of raids are more difficult to organize against and of­ ten pass under the public radar, receiving no media attention.

Appearing to crack down on employers also lends a softer face to raids. It makes re­ form look more humane and avoids political fallout and backlash from the public. Obama said in recent remarks that “the American people still want to see a solution in which we are … cracking down on employers” (Of­ fice of the Press Secretary, June 25, 2009). This will supposedly lead to new “softer” enforcement tactics in the future, such as the recent “automated raid” at Overhill Farms just outside of Los Angeles. According to the Los Angeles Times (June 12, 2009), “an In­ ternal Revenue Service audit found that 260 workers had provided ‘invalid or fraudulent’ Social Security numbers.” Although the IRS says that it does not mandate that employ­ ees be fired because of incorrect Social Secu­ rity numbers, the company felt the pressure. On May 31, Overhill Farms decided to fire its 260 employees rather than risk prosecution under tax and immigration laws.

But these so-called “employer sanctions” in reality deeply affect workers and their fami­ lies while employers tend to escape with a mere slap on the wrist. Although they have not at this time been deported, over 200 families affected by the Overhill raid were suddenly left without a source of income.

Silent raids still serve to terrorize the community. Vi­ sions of ICE agents and deportation centers in the af­ termath of workplace raids have already been burned into the collective memory of the immigrant com­ munity. And it seems unlikely that the raids will stop any time soon. Operation Endgame, the program put in place to manage massive raids and deportations, is funded until 2012 (Monthly Review, January 2007).

The Overhill raid was just the first installment in a new government plan to utilize programs like E-Verify and I-9 audits. Both of these tools would require com­ panies to check the social security numbers of new (and possibly even current employees) against a giant government database.

On July 1, Immigration Control and Enforcement (ICE) issued a statement on its website, saying that it was issuing Notices of Inspection (or I-9 audits) to 652 businesses nationwide. DHS Security Assistant Secretary for ICE John Morton said, “This nationwide effort is a first step in ICE’s long-term strategy to ad­ dress and deter illegal employment.” The U.S. Senate has already given its approval to make the voluntary E-Verify program permanent.

Janet Napolitano announced on July 8 that she was endorsing a Bush administrative initiative that would make the E-Verify system mandatory for federal con­ tractors and subcontractors. Mandatory use of E-Ver­ ify by government contractors would require some 170,000 companies to check the immigration status of new hires and potentially current employees as well (The Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2009). This new rule will go into effect on Sept. 8.

On July 9, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released a statement denouncing the Senate vote to pass an amendment by Senator David Vitter (R-LA). The Vitter amendment would require employers “to fire workers, including U.S. citizens, who are unable to resolve discrepancies in the Social Security records.”

The ACLU said that this vote could overturn Obama’s measure to rescind the infamously flawed Social Secu­ rity no-match rule. The no-match rule required com­ panies to issue notices to employees who were found to have a so-called “discrepancy” in the Social Secu­ rity number they had given to the company when first hired.

The use of no-match letters under the Vitter amend­ (continued on page 7)

Scan page 7

Lucas Jackson / Reuters (continued from page 6: “Professor Gates and the ‘teachable moment’”) ment could result in the illegal firing of tens of thou­ sands of legal U.S. citizens. This is because the Social Security database the government uses to check for discrepancies is rife with errors.

In 2007, a federal court blocked the use of the nomatch rule as a result of a suit levied against the DHS by the ACLU, AFL-CIO, and the National Immigration Law Center. The ACLU states that “according to the Social Security Administration’s own Inspector Gen­ eral, more than 70 percent of the discrepancies in the SSA database belong to U.S. citizens.”

Despite these blatant flaws, it seems that the plan to use Social Security audits is steadily moving forward. American Apparel recently announced that some 1800 of its employees had been found to have Social Security discrepancies after a recent ICE audit (Re­ uters, July 2, 2009). This is the largest use of the new I-9 audit tactic to date, and only signals more to come.

The use of the new “automated” or “silent” raid tac­ tic (as used in the Overhill Farm case) is an important part of the transition towards a national guest worker system. It allows employers to safely and quickly get rid of large numbers of undocumented employees while hiring new employees under the E-verify pro­ gram (which automatically checks their Social Secu­ rity numbers). Employers can therefore avoid any le­ gal repercussions for themselves, while succumbing to increasing pressure (or even mandates) from the U.S. government to participate in employer sanction programs such as E-verify.

Participation in these programs makes it more dif­ ficult for employers to hire undocumented workers under the table in the future. If they want to continue to exploit cheap labor flows, their only option would be to participate in a national guest worker (or tem­ porary work visa) program. It’s already becoming clear that such a guest worker program will likely be included in any proposal for Comprehensive Im­ migration Reform legislation that is brought to the negotiating table in coming months. Senator McCain (R-Ariz.) has been particularly adamant that Republi­ cans will not back any immigration reform legislation that does not include some type of guest worker sys­ tem (The Hill, June 25, 2009).

Plans for a guest worker system will likely include an independent commission to oversee labor flows. The AFL-CIO and Change to Win state on their web­ sites that they support the use of such a commission.

Essentially, the labor commission would act to regu­ late the flow of temporary workers into the United States. If a company were short on workers (or just wanted a cheap and temporary source of labor) they could apply to the commission, which would grant them permission to bring in a certain number of for­ eign workers on temporary work visas. These work­ ers would be highly subject to exploitation, because they would depend entirely on their employers for their work visas. Any complaints about wages or worker abuses could become deportable offenses.

A guest worker system would essentially be a legal­ ized system of indentured servitude for foreign work­ ers, similar to the Bracero program which pro­ vided temporary agricultural workers from Mexico to the United States from 1942 to 1964. According to an article in Monthly Review (January 2007), “the bracero experience was characterized by poverty wages, substandard working conditions, social discrimination, and lack of even the most basic social services for braceros and their families.” This program is essentially the historical and legal precedent for the guest worker system of labor exploitation currently in the works.

So in reality, employer sanctions are just one more part of the plan to ensure cheap and “legal” labor flows to the U.S. made up of workers who are easily exploited. Analysts have already made it clear that the U.S. economy depends in large part on the cheap labor provided by the approximately 12 million un­ documented workers who currently reside here in the United States.

Employers have traditionally hired undocumented workers under the table, paying them super cheap wages for long hours of labor. Workers under these conditions have little recourse to protect their rights as workers and as human beings. And the govern­ ment’s new emphasis on the use of employer sanc­ tions are only helping facilitate the transition to a new form of legalized exploitation under a guest worker system.

Other pieces of the upcoming Comprehensive Immi­ gration Reform legislation, such as the “path to citi­ zenship” that Obama so strongly supports also help to channel workers into a new guest worker system. The so-called “path to citizenship” would probably be pretty stringent.

The Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act of 2005 and the Comprehensive Immigra­ tion Reform Act of 2007 (both supported by Senator McCain) included requirements such as proficiency in the English language and a wait of at least five years for processing of visa applications. They also required people to “go to the back of the line,” to go back to their country of origin, and to pay a $2000 fine and thousands of dollars in back taxes. Although they were never passed, these bills were the predecessors for today’s immigration reform legislation.

Furthermore, it is clear that employer sanctions and the guest worker programs that they support will be especially lucrative to big business (and especially devastating to immigrant families) in light of the se­ vere economic depression we are currently slogging through. It just provides the ruling elite with one more tool to exploit cheap labor and keep their profit margins high (while ensuring their ultimate survival) during difficult financial times.

Andrew Winning / Reuters (Above) Workers march in Mexico City in April 2006 in solidarity with striking miners. U.S. immigration activists must solidarize with workers and peasants in Latin America increasingly impoverished by U.S. policies.

(Left) Thousands march in Los Angeles as part of April 2006 nationwide demonstrations against anti-immigrant legislation in Congress.

And most sadly, these new policies will only lead to increasing discrimination and racism against people of Hispanic descent. In a recent article (April 29), immigrant rights activist David Bacon reported that “four years after [the employer] sanctions began, the Government Accountability Office reported that 346,000 US employers applied immigration-verifi­ cation requirements only to job applicants with a ‘foreign’ accent or appearance. Another 430,000 only hired US-born applicants.”

The use of racist xenophobia against Latinos living in the U.S. only serves to divide the American work­ ing class. The creation of a national system for tem­ porary workers would only serve to create a group of second-class and disposable workers doomed to sell their labor for super-cheap wages.

We must come to realize that denying labor rights and equitable wages to undocumented workers only drives down wages and working conditions for all Americans.

It is clear that the government is especially adept at using Orwellian doublespeak. Phrases such as “I-9 audits” or “employer sanctions” make new tactics ap­ pear softer while hiding the reality of their devastat­ ing effects on families and communities. We must not be fooled by this tactic, but instead must reclaim the language for ourselves. An automated raid is still a raid, no matter how silent!

But we must not be silent. It is crucial that labor groups, immigrant rights activists, and the immi­ grant community and its allies join together to pre­ pare a response, defense, and alternative plan to the Obama administration’s Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation. We must continue to oppose all government attacks on immigrants, while pressuring for a moratorium on raids and deportations and un­ conditional legalization for all undocumented people currently living in the United States.

It is also essential for us to study and recognize the roots of the immigration “problem” we face today. As David Bacon notes, “Employer sanctions have failed to reduce undocumented migration because NAFTA and globalization create huge migration pressure. … Ismael Rojas, who arrived without papers, says, ‘You can either abandon your children to make money to take care of them, or you can stay with your children and watch them live in misery. Poverty makes us leave our families.’”

Bacon helps us realize that unless we address the root causes of migration, more people will continue to come to the U.S. as a result of economic pressure and the lure of better wages. Only by changing U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America and working to reduce poverty in that region can we truly protect peoples’ indelible “right to stay at home.”

So which path will we take in the coming months? Will we allow the government to continue to crimi­ nalize and persecute undocumented immigrants? Or will we join together to defend our common rights as workers like we did in the mass protests of 2006, raising our fists and shouting, “An injury to one is an injury to all!” n

Scan page 8

(continued from page 1: “Pittsburgh national antiwar conference demands ‘Out Now!’”) begin to effectively challenge the U.S. warmakers.

Members and leaders of Veterans for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, Code Pink, American Friends Service Committee, Peace Action, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, US Labor Against the War, Pax Christi, the Iraq Moratorium, Progressive Democrats of Amer­ ica, the Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and other national groups actively participated. Close to a dozen socialist organizations were also represented, as were scores of leading activists from local and re­ gional antiwar organizations across the country.

The conference was held at La Roche College in Pitts­ burgh and was hosted by the peace committee of the Thomas Merton Center, the main peace and justice organization in the area. National antiwar leaders in attendance included Cindy Sheehan; Col. Ann Wright; Donna Dewitt, president of the South Carolina AFL-CIO; and long-time peace activist Molly Rush of the Plowshares 8, who is also a founding member of the Thomas Merton Center.

Keynote and featured rally speakers also included Michael McPhearson, executive director of Veterans for Peace and co-coordinator of UFPJ; Brian Becker, national coordinator, ANSWER Coalition (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism); Iraqi poet and National As­ sembly leader Zaineb Alani; National Assembly leader and unjustly disbarred human rights attorney Lynne Stewart; and Michael Zweig, an economics professor and leader of US Labor Against the War.

A special presentation by Elie Domota, general sec­ retary of the General Union of Workers of Guadeloupe, brought down the house with thunderous applause when Domota described what a united workers’ move­ ment and 45-day general strike on the French-con­ trolled Island of Guadeloupe had accomplished. The united mass movement there extracted major conces­ sions from the island’s ruling rich and from the French government. Representatives of the peace and labor movements from Canada and Haitian trade unionist Fignolé St. Cyr, general secretary, Autonomous Con­ federation of Haitian Workers (CATH), were also active conference participants.

All those in attendance at this inclusive and open an­ tiwar conference had voice and vote in all proceedings.

The main plenary sessions were dedicated to devel­ oping a united action proposal for the coming period and adopting a structure proposal for the National Assembly’s functioning. A 14-person Administrative Body was elected to help lead the organization. This body is subordinate to the National Assembly’s lead­ ing decision-making committee, the Continuations Body (CB), which includes representatives from all local and national organizations that agree to the As­ sembly’s five points of unity. These are the construc­ tion of a democratic (one-person-one-vote), united, independent, mass action, and Out Now! antiwar movement. To date, 44 organizations are represented on this open-ended body.

The central objective of the National Assembly is building a U.S. antiwar movement, in all its diversity, united around specific mass actions. Mass action is seen by NA organizers as an indispensable weapon to win fundamental social change—and as a fundamental tactical and strategic organizing principle. It is based on the premise that the people of the world are fully capable of making their own history provided only that they are united, clearly focused, and organized in­ dependently of the institutions of the status quo.

Five Action Proposals were circulated prior to the conference to all participants. One, submitted by the National Assembly’s CB leadership, had been dis­ cussed and debated for several months prior to the conference.

The remaining proposals came from writer/activist David Swanson, leader of the After Downing Street group; the World Can’t Wait coalition; and a group of 9/11 truth activists who sought adoption of a proposal 8 SOCIALIST ACTION AUGUST 2009 Barry Weisleder / Socialist Action supporting a New York City referendum for an inde­ pendent 9/11 investigation.

Another proposal, submitted by the Bail Out the Peo­ ple Campaign, was withdrawn and later submitted for the consideration of the Assembly’s post-conference CB meeting. All proposals were discussed and debat­ ed, and in the end, in the spirit of unity that prevailed throughout the conference, all of the resolutions, with the exception of the proposal from the 9/11 truth ac­ tivists, were consolidated into a unified action propos­ al and unanimously approved.

The major difference in emphasis between all the proposals presented centered on whether the pres­ ent movement was capable of organizing a major mass antiwar action today. Those who were skeptical about such a possibility preferred a weekday event, where the anticipated modest turnout would not highlight the movement’s present limited organizing capacity. Those favoring a focus on Saturday, Oct. 17, eventually prevailed, albeit with a clear understanding that pres­ ent conditions were not yet amenable to mobilizing the massive protests that marked the movement in its earlier stages.

October actions to highlight anniversaries The Oct. 17 date was selected to mark the anniversa­ ry of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and the decision to go to war against Iraq as well as to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Vietnam Moratorium, the 1969 mobilization that drew hundreds of thousands into the streets to oppose the U.S. war against the peo­ ple of that country. At the same time, however, virtual­ ly all present understood that posing modest weekday actions was not at all counterposed to efforts at larger mobilizations.

The NA call aimed at promoting and organizing a series of actions in September and October and a na­ tionally coordinated mobilization next spring around the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Actions will take place in Pittsburgh during the Sept. 24-25 G-20 summit meeting of leaders of the world’s most pow­ erful industrialized nations. The conference voted to organize a National Assembly “Out Now!” antiwar contingent on Sept. 25. This day has been set aside by Pittsburgh G-20 organizers and NA supporters for a massive, peaceful, legal demonstration around the de­ mand, “Money for Human Needs, Not War.”

The National Assembly will urge that the Oct. 17 ac­ tions include the following demands:

• Immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all U.S. troops, military personnel, bases, contractors, and mercenaries from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan!

• End U.S. support for the Israeli occupation of Pales­ tine! End the siege against Gaza!

• U.S. hands off Iran and North Korea!

• Self-determination for all oppressed nations and peoples!

• End war crimes, including torture!

The Assembly will also support and endorse a twoweek period of united actions, beginning Oct. 3 and culminating on Oct. 17. This includes Monday, Oct. 5, as the date for a national mass march and non-violent civil resistance at the U.S. House of Representatives of­ fice buildings and at the White House.

The NA’s Action Program includes the organization of a national speaking tour, collaboration with other groups on organizing a week of student antiwar pro­ tests, and projected nationally coordinated mass ac­ tions in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Los Ange­ les in the spring of 2010. The NA is presently engaged in a campaign to win endorsements for Oct. 17.

Inspiring conference statements by leaders of the national antiwar groups and by participating rally and panelist speakers effectively promoted a new and wel­ come spirit of unity that few have witnessed in past years. The amended Action Program, was approved unanimously.

Eighteen workshops, organized in two sessions, saw many of the movement’s most hotly debated issues Barry Weisleder / Socialist Action (Above) Conference Presiding Committee members (from left) Jeff Mackler, Donna DeWitt, Marilyn Levin, and Jerry Gordon. discussed in civil tones. Workshops focused on the war’s effect on the economy; women and war; stu­ dents and youth; current developments in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Pakistan; lessons of the Vietnam War; immigrant rights/ICE raids; soldiers, veterans, and military families; Guadeloupe and Haiti; and more. The G-20 workshop saw some of the first organizing for the Sept. 24-25 Pittsburgh demonstra­ tions.

A typical example of one of the many well-planned workshops was entitled, “Torture, Rendition, Deten­ tions, Guantanamo and Wrongful Prosecutions: Hold­ ing Those Who Give the Orders Responsible.” Present­ ers included Lynne Stewart; Jules Lobel, U.S. Center for Constitutional Rights litigator; Janet McMahon, man­ aging editor, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs; David Swanson, cofounder of After Downing Street; and Katherine Hughes from the Dr. Dhafir defense committee in Syracuse.

Resolutions on Palestine, Haiti, Honduras The conference approved by unanimous votes criti­ cal resolutions on Honduras, Palestine, and Haiti. The Honduras resolution demanded the immediate and unconditional return of deposed President Manuel Ze­ laya, and a U.S. Hands Off! policy.

The Palestine resolution demanded the immediate release of Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails and supported the Palestinian right to self-determi­ nation. A Palestine Working Committee was also es­ tablished “to help ensure that the antiwar movement stands in solidarity with the people of Palestine and integrates the issue of Palestine in the broader antiwar struggle.”

The resolution continued, “The movement should promote efforts to break the siege of Gaza, oppose attacks and incursions in the occupied territories, actively support the call of the Palestine Civil Society movement for boycotts, divestments and sanctions, and call for an end to U.S. support for Israel’s occupa­ tion of Palestine.”

The resolution on Haiti demanded “… the immediate withdrawal of the 12,000 UN occupation troops from Hai­ ti and the return of democracy, beginning with the return of all exiled political leaders, particularly Jean Bertrand Aristide.”

The agenda featured a half-hour discussion and de­ bate on the situation in Iran, wherein some 20 speak­ ers in rapid succession expressed a broad range of of­ ten opposing views and opinions. It was clear that the vast differences expressed would not and could not re­ sult in a broadly accepted united agreement on wheth­ er the conference should stand in solidarity with the Iranian masses who rose to challenge the oppressive Iranian clerical corporate regime and threatened to go beyond the framework of the present repressive sys­ tem itself.

Opponents of this position argued that the massive challenge to the “more progressive” regime of Presi­ dent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was in large part or­ chestrated by or benefited U.S. imperialism. This was a point of view that allowed no common ground with these writers and many other conference participants. The sharp division made it clear that the conference was compelled to refrain from adopting any position on the internal politics of Iran.

By unanimous agreement, however, the adopted Ac­ tion Proposal approved the position that had been put forward by the CB, which opposed all U.S. sanctions against Iran and U.S. threats of intervention and war. A policy supporting the right of self-determination of the Iranian people and demanding, “U.S. Hands Off!” was also approved unanimously.

For further information and to endorse the Oct. 17 actions contact: natassembly.org and natassembly@ aol.com. n

Scan page 9

Wathiq Khuzaie / Getty Images

----- pull-quotes -----

The creation of a system for ‘temporary’ immigrant workers would only create a group of workers who are disposable and doomed to sell their labor for super-cheap wages.

SOCIALIST ACTION AUGUST 2009 7 ... National antiwar conference demands ‘U.S. Troops Out Now!’