by David BaconTruthout Report

Thousands of leftwing activists just spent a week at the US Social Forum in Detroit, gathered again under the banner “Another World is Possible!” Among them hundreds added a new subtext: “Another Immigration Policy is Possible!

This theme was especially popular among grassroots organizations in immigrant communities. Today non-traditional worker centers are spreading across the US, including ones for day laborers, domestic workers, farm workers and other low-wage immigrants. Most are Spanish-speaking migrants from Mexico and Central America, but many also come from the Philippines, India, Pakistan, China and the Caribbean.

If anyone should be in favor of immigration reform, these groups should be. Yet instead of embracing the proposals made in Washington by Representative Luis Gutierrez and Senator Charles Schumer, they reject them.

The Social Forum was over by the time President Barack Obama made a speech about immigration policy a week later, but the forum’s message could as easily have been given to him as well. There are no significant differences between Obama’s ideas and those of Gutierrez and Schumer.

These grassroots groups don’t like the proposals for new guest worker programs. They have been fighting raids, firings and increased immigration enforcement for years, and are angry that the Washington proposals all make enforcement heavier. They want the border demilitarized. And they believe any rational immigration reform must change US trade policies that displace people in other countries.

Washington’s proposals for immigration reform all have a similar structure. They assure a managed flow of migrant labor to employers at low wages, through expanded recruitment by contractors in countries like Mexico. Immigrants must work to stay, and those who aren’t working must leave.

To force the flow of undoc- umented workers into this program, the Washington bills all increase penalties for working or crossing the border without visas. And as the carrot, they propose limited legalization for undocumented people cur- rently in the US.

These proposals originally came from large corporations in the Essen- tial Worker Immigration Coalition, and were then supported by some unions and civil rights groups. These groups argued that corporations would never support legalization if they weren’t guaranteed a future fl ow of displaced people.

It’s not uncommon in Washington to hear ar- guments that “Mexicans would rather come to the US as braceros than die in the desert on the border,” or even “Mexicans are so desperate to migrate, they don’t care what kind of visa they have.”

In Detroit, it was obvious that immigrants do care. They don’t want to be used just as cheap labor, and want rights and equality with the people living around them. “We need a better alternative,” says Lillian Galedo, direc- tor of Filipino Advocates for Justice.

Renee Saucedo, who was born in Mexico and today directs the day labor program in San Francisco, says the biggest problem with the Washington con- sensus is that “it continues to mischaracterize migra- tion as a ‘criminal,’ or ‘il- legal,’ issue, rather than as a consequence of economic trade agreements and politi- cal repression that displace millions. Employers want to keep it this way to ensure their supply of cheap, vul- nerable, exploitable labor.

The Frente Indigena de Organizaciones Binacio- nales, with an indigenous membership on both sides of the Mexico/US border, has historically opposed contract labor, or guest worker, programs. “Mi- grants need the right to work, but these workers don’t have labor rights or benefi ts,” says FIOB’s bi- national coordinator, Gas- par Rivera Salgado. “It’s like slavery.” Many FIOB members are farm workers, and some remember the abuses of the old “bracero” program.

At the same time,Rivera Salgado cautions, “We need development in Mexico that makes migra- tion a choice rather than a necessity — the right to not migrate. Both rights are part of the same solution. But the right to not migrate has to mean more than the right to be poor or the right to go hungry and homeless.” For that reason, after a long consultation process, FIOB announced it would “work to renegotiate NAFTA, be- cause it creates migration by forcing poverty and inequal- ity on the communities we come from in Mexico.”

Immigrant activists In Detroit called for broad legalization that would give papers to all undocumented people. They want the US to make more residence visas available, allowing migrants to choose where to live without making them vulnerable to employers. They opposed trade agree- ments like NAFTA. But most of all, they called for ending the criminalization of immigrants, whether by Arizona’s infamous 1070 law, or through the fi rings of thousands of people for lacking work papers. Over 350,000 undocumented migrants were incarcerated last year alone, in private detention centers.

“We should never fi ght for the rights of some at the expense of others.” Saucedo declares. “Legal- ization would be an empty victory if most immigrants still faced high exploitation, fi rings and raids.”

http://www.truth-out.org/another-immi-gration-policy-is-pos-sible60995

by Raoul Lowery Contreras

President Barack Obama and AFL/CIO President Richard L. Trumka are lying, flaky politicians when speaking of immigration. The same must be said about Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. They are the most egregious dissemblers since a retired Army General lied to Americans and President Eisenhower that his “Operation Wetback” threw a million illegals out of the country back into Mexico.

Some illegals were picked up by a tiny Border Patrol and the INS — La Migra — and deported but that number was but a small percentage of what the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) claimed in news releases. The retired General lied. It was almost 50 years before the truth came out that the actual number deported was tiny but the “estimated” totals were artificially inflated with people that came and went as they pleased without

fearing “la migra.”

So, will Obama and Trumka ever admit that they lied today, the day Obama gave an Immigration Speech at American University? No. They are trapped in their own lies.

Obama’s lies started during his 2008 campaign when he promised to fix the immigration mess in his first year in office — Didn’t happen. In fact, he says that as senator he supported Comprehensive Immigration Reform but he actually voted for Laborsponsored “poison pill” amendments that killed the Reform. His lies continued at American University by declaring that the nation needs Comprehensive Im- migration Reform now but offered no date as a goal to vote for a Reform.

Where was his detailed plan? Why didn’t he show us a plan and release it to the press after his speech. A plan would itemize im- migration solutions, point by point. Instead, all he gave us were verbal very foggy generalities. He has never outlined a detailed  “comprehensive” reformproposal.

Specifically, where is his guest worker program? Republicans insist such a program must be part of a Reform they can support. No mention by Obama. Nonetheless, he insists that a Reform must have Repub- lican support and votes. Yet, he does not mention a pro- gram that allows men and women to come into the country legally to work for, say, harvest times or tourist seasons then go home. That alone solves 95% of the ille- gal alien problem as all but a handful come to work.

Obama offers no such program. Why? Richard Trumka’s unions are against such a plan. They insist, as Trumka did after the Presi- dent’s speech that there be a “Commission” in place to decide when and where foreign temporary labor is needed.

We know from U.S. Department of Labor stud- ies that California’s half million farm workers — in the state’s largest industry – – are mostly here illegally. Would an Obama-appointed union-populated Commis- sion see a need for foreign farm workers in California if they could point to LA’s Watts neighborhood with its chronic Black unem- ployment? Of course a ommission wouldn’t. It would maintain that there are unemployed black work- ers thus no foreigners were needed. Would these chroni- cally black unemployed ap- ply for farm worker jobs a hundred miles away, would they, Trumka? No. Crops would rot and food prices would skyrocket because supply would shrink.

Nonetheless, Trumka declares that Labor is “one hundred percent” behind President Obama on Im-of course, as a union-popu-lated Labor Commission is empowered to decide when foreign workers are needed, how much they are paid, how many would be imported and for how long. As long as Labor insists on this Commission, Com- prehensive Immigration Reform is a non-starter as far as Republicans are concerned. Obama insists on Republican support, no?migration Reform as long,Conundrum..?\

For example, Politico and the Arizona Republic have published quotes of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer that make false and irresponsible claims. She says that “beheaded” bodies have been found in the desert that resulted from criminal illegal aliens and/or Mexican drug car- tels. There is no truth to her statements. Reporters checked with all Arizona county medical examiners who said no, no such bodies have turned up, none.

Another example: Brewer lied through her teeth when she declared that “most” illegals cross- ing over from Mexico were smuggling drugs. Even the Border Patrol union’s presi- dent declared her wrong.

Will there be Com-prehensive Immigration Reform this year or next year? There won’t be as long as the AFL/CIO President, the President of the United States and the Governor of Arizona dissemble truth.

We have a passive President of the United States that refuses to lead, a union President who lies and a state Governor who lies whenever she opens her mouth. Is there any wonder we don’t and won’t have Immigration Reform under Obama?

(Contreras’ books are available at amazon.com)

by the University of Michigan

ANN ARBOR, Mich.—With growing media attention to concussions among athletes young and old, and recent actions of the National Football League to reduce dangers from multiple concussions among its players, the spotlight is now on what schools are doing to protect their student- athletes.

Do parents feel that their kids are safe, and do parents agree with school policies?

The latest C.S. MottChildren’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health finds that nearly two-thirds of parents of young athletes, ages 12 – 17, worry that their children will get a concussion while playing school sports—yet half don’t know if their children’s school has a concussion policy.

Over the past few years, researchers have found that youth athletes are more likely to sustain concussions, and to take longer to recover from concussions,than adults. If a second concussion occurs before a child’s brain recovers from the fi rst, there is a greater chance of long-term neuro-logic affects.

This poll, conducted in May 2010, also finds that more than one-third of par- ents of young athletes are unaware of the dangers of repeat concussions.

“Even though parents of youth athletes lack awareness about effects of repeat concussions, they demonstrate strong support for strategies to minimize the risk of concussion,” says Sarah J. Clark, re- search assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan, and associate director of the poll.

The majority of parents would strongly support the following school

requirements:

• After a concussion, for athletes to be evalu- ated and cleared by a doctor before returning to sport 84 percent

• For coaches to receive education about the risks of concussions – 81 percent

• After a concussion, for athletes to have a mandatory period of nonparticipation in sports – 71 percent

• Having a certified trainer onsite for practices and games– 67 percent

Parents are well aware of the pressure to allow young athletes to continue playing, despite injury. In fact, 62 percent of respon- dents know of a parent who would have a young athlete return to school sports too soon after a concussion, and 50 percent know of a coach who would have a player return too soon.

“These fi gures are not surprising to those who work in youth sports,” says Clark. “However, the latest research makes it clear that early return to play after a concussion is very risky. High school athletic organizations, in- jury prevention groups and professional sports leagues have become increasingly active in promoting policies to minimize the risks of re- peat concussions among young athletes.

Typically, policies include educating coaches, requiring removal from play of any player with concussion-like symptoms, and requiring that a health care professional clear the athlete before he or she returns to play.

However, not all policies include educating par- ents, which Clark views as a missed opportunity.

“Parent involvement in guarding against repeat con- cussions is critical. Most concussions do not result in loss of consciousness, and symptoms may not oc- cur until several hours after the injury. If young athletes are afraid of losing playing time, they may not be hon- est with the coach or trainerabout their symptoms,” says Clark.

Parents are in a unique position to recognize con- cussion signs and symptoms that occur outside of school, and to work with coaches, trainers, and other health care personnel to ensure that  their child is appropriately monitored throughout his or her recovery and return to play.

Some common signs and symptoms of a concus- sion include: confusion, loss of memory (amnesia), headache, dizziness, a sen- sation of the world spinning (vertigo), imbalance, lack of awareness of surroundings,  and nausea and vomiting. If these symptoms appear after a head injury, consult a medical professional promptly for a full evaluation.

by Ernesto López

National Association of Hispanic Journalists members — tempers flaring and emotions running high — packed a general meeting, June 24, in Denver, Colo., during the groups’ annual convention, demanding answers to concerns about the organization’s financial woes and dwindling membership.

Board member tried to allay their fears, insisting the organization is not in deep debt, despite raiding the scholarship and reserve funds to make ends meet.

They acknowledged that if $125,000 is not raised by year’s end, NAHJ could be in the red. They are looking for members to dig int their pockets — even in this recession I which many have los or are in fear of losin their jobs — to sustain NAHJ’s future.

Members lobbed a series of questions, concerns and criticisms at board members, with some complaining NAHJ had not adequately communicated its financial woes.

Vicki Adame, a freelance writer and lifetime member, said she feels she has no voice on the board because her income doesn’t come primarily from journalism anymore.

“I will not donate until you give me a place where I will have a say,” she said. NAHJ executive director Iván Román tried to calm the tense crowd.

“I am very hopeful that we are going to make it,” he said. “Please be patient.” NAHJ officials said the organization’s future includes a commitment to training and continuing annual conventions but not depending on them as “cash cows.”

The association now counts 1,340 members, 40% of whom are students. They pay $35 in annual dues versus $75 for regular, associate and academic members.

“I am going to cut to the chase,” said Dino Chiecchi, NAHJ’s immediate past financial officer. “These are troubling financial times for NAHJ. We are in a difficult bind.”

Chiecchi said the association has had to make cuts in order to maintain services to members. Staff took a three-week furlough this past year, and $75,000 was borrowed from the student scholarship fund and another $75,000 from the association’s reserve account after a $300,000 shortfall in 2009. Staff and board members also raised $118,000 last year in an at-tempt to meet the shortfall.

“The money was bor- rowed from the student loan and the reserve account in order to survive,” Chiecchi said.

NAHJ officials had hoped to return the funds to the scholarship account, but Román said that the organi- zation’s fi nances prevented that from happening.

“To me, we are screwed,” NAHJ board member Brandon Benavides said during a panel meeting June 21. “We borrowed money from the scholar- ship account and we’re not putting it back.

According to Chiecchi, NAHJ is in defi cit primarily because of a lack of profi t from the Denver conven- tion and fewer vendors who bought booths. He added that in previous years, convention profi ts were as high as $300,000. Last year in Puerto Rico, NAHJ made a $20,000 profi t. This year, the convention is expected to break even.

Corporate and founda-tion sponsors contributed only $400,000 to NAHJ this year, just half of the $800,000 collected in 2007 during its San Jose, Calif., convention.

On top of that, con- vention attendance has also rapidly declined since 2006, when 1,800 people converged in Fort Lauder- dale, Fla.

This year, only 700 people attended the con- vention in Denver. “Hav- ing a profi t from the annual conventions is what helps sustain NAHJ’s yearround expenses,” said Román.

by the El Reportero’s staff

The elections for 12 governors, 14 state legislatures and mayors in 15 states in Mexico are the biggest political challenge yet for the government of Felipe Calderon. The Mexican president has deployed troops and federal police to wrest back territory from drug traffickers. But drug-related violence, which is widespread in the country, has prevented many Mexicans from participating in the vote. Many see the elections as a major test of public support for Calderon and his economic and security policies. Al Jazeera’s Tom Ackerman reports. [July 4, 2010]

Should Calderón stand down the troops and negotiate with the drug cartels?

President Felipe Calderón finds himself ever more frequently compelled, not only to defend his anti-cartel strategy, but also to argue against an alternative that has gained the support of influential advocates: striking a pact of coexistence with the cartels, similar tothat which prevailed underprevious administrations.

A mayor of the ruling party has struck such a deal in one of Mexico’s most affl uent municipalities, and claims to have achieved an almost total cessation of violence and most serious crime. Calderón says that this option is both ethically and institutionally unac-ceptable.

What will hap- pen after Torre Cantú’s assassination? On 28 June, Rodolfo Torre Cantú, the main opposition Partido Revolucionario Insti- tucional (PRI) candidate for governor of the violent bor- der state of Tamaulipas, was ambushed and killed along with four other people. The killings shocked Mexico, even though this year’s death toll from gang-related killings is on course to pass 10,000 for the fi rst time.

Why is Brazil do- ing so much better than Mexico?

The record upgrading, y the Brazilian central bank, hardly a body known for hot-headed enthusiasms, of its GDP growth forecast from 5.8 percent to 7.3 per- cent in 2010 shows just how well the Brazilian economy  is doing. Mexico’s economy, by contract may not even hit this year’s growth target of 3.5 percent.

Bolivia exports more natural gas to Argentina Bolivia increased its natural gas supplies to Argentina to 7.4 million cubic meters per day, re- ported the Bolivian state oil company, Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales de Bolivia (YPFB).

Through a press re-lease, the company said this amount is almost all that is required by Buenos Aires.

This greater volume of gas transported is due to the increased demand in the neighboring country because of the season, the message states.

Bolivia and Argentina signed in April an agree-ment for sending 7.7 mil-lion cubic meters of gas per day, until such time as further investments allow the transportation capacity to reach 13 million.

These improvements should go in parallel with the construction of the new Argentine northeast gas pipeline Juana Azurduy through which Bolivia should supply up to 27 mil-lion cubic meters a day dur-ing the 20-year contract.

­ Young people protest at Apple Corporation suicides in China. (photo and text BY DAVID BACON)

Chinese immigrants and Chinese-Americans in San Francisco protest the long hours and bad conditions at the Foxconn factory in southern China, where the Apple iPad is manufactured. They lined up in front of Apple’s flagship store in San Francisco, holding signs with the names of workers at the factory who have committed suicide because of the conditions.

Those conditions include 80 hours of overtime a month, according to the Chinese media. Chinese law limits overtime to 36 hours per month. No one is allowed to talk on the production line, and workers complain of constant high line speed and speedup. Most workers live in huge dormitories, where often 12 people share a room.

The suicides include a man who jumped from a dormitory. He’d worked there for two years. Another man, recently hired, slit his wrists and was taken to a hospital. A woman hanged herself in the bathroom, and a man drowned in a company swimming pool. The latest person committed suicide right after Foxconn’s head, Terry Guo, had visited the factory and taken journalists on a tour.

Apple Corporation was embarrassed by the disclosure of the conditions for the people who make iPhones, iPods and iPads. The company,which has pushed for extra production of the newly unveiled iPad, said it would compensate workers by increasing the money it was paying Foxconn.

­