Take Our Jobs, Please

One of the more interesting ideas to influence public perception on the contentious immigration issue is the United Farm Worker union’s Take Our Jobs campaign. Comedy Channel’s Stephen Colbert has joined to help promote this campaign that uses existing (and therefore likely undocumented) farm workers to train U.S. citizens and legal residents in farm labor. The premise is that few, if any, U.S. citizens will actually want to undertake this grueling career (as of last week three had signed up), thus conveying a valuable lesson on our reliance on the sweat and grit of undocumented workers. The UFW website solicitation of trainees (http://www.takeourjobs.org/) warns that: “Job may include using hand tools such as knives, hoes, shovels, etc. Duties may include tilling the soil, transplanting, weeding, thinning, picking, cutting, sorting & packing of harvested produce. May set up & operate irrigation equip. Work is performed outside in all weather conditions (Summertime 90+ degree weather) & is physically demanding requiring workers to bend, stoop, lift & carry up to 50 lbs on a regular basis.”

In the interest of full disclosure, those U.S. residents interested in supplanting the labor of mostly Latino/a immigrants should know a few more things before they treat agricultural labor as the solution to our unemployment woes:

1. Salaries are abysmal. A 2005 report found it was rare for a farm worker to earn over $10,000 annually. In 2000, the median income for migrant and seasonal workers was just $6,250 a year.

2. There is almost no chance of salary advancement. Twenty years ago, a worker made 12, 13, or 14 cents for each bin picked of oranges. Today, that same work pays 15 or 16 cents despite 250 percent inflation in the interim.

3. Forget about health insurance and paid vacations.

4. Your salary might be undercut by a host of deductions for services ostensibly provided by your employer or the labor contractor—for example, gloves and transportation to the remote job-site.

5. You may be exposed to hazardous pesticides that you will share with your family when you arrive home with contaminated clothing.

6. Housing is hard to find proximate to farming locations, meaning you may be living in substandard converted housing and your children may be commuting long distances to school.

7. Most exciting of all, you can look forward to the average life expectancy of a farm worker—just 48 years!

U.S. residents undervalue the labor contributions of Latino/a immigrants, documented or not. Consider just the vitally important food supply, which used to anchor our economy and which we now largely take for granted as we focus national attention on other sectors such as the financial industry and manufacturing. Let’s thank these Latino/a immigrants for their contributions in the fields and beyond, as I don’t expect their labor to be displaced by Anglo workers anytime soon.

Editorial: Don’t copycat Arizona

The Orlando Sentinel editorialized today against copying Arizona’s SB 1070 and it specifically took on the mythology of the “criminal alien”.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/os-ed-gop-immigration-070910-20100708,0,4993250.story

The editorial noted that the Department of Justice has found that immigrants are generally more law-abiding than the general population and that Florida had a large drop in crime during the same period during which it ranked third nationally in the number of undocumented immigrants entering into the state.

SB 1070: United States v. Arizona

The United States has brought a lawsuit against the State of Arizona seeking to strike down the new Arizona immigration statute -- SB 1070-- on the ground that the "Constitution forbids Arizona from supplanting the federal government's immigration regime with its own state-specific immigration policy ...." The complaint filed by the United States is here: (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM156_doj_az_immigration_lawsuit.html). In bringing this action, the United States has strengthened the claims of the various plaintiffs in the related actions that SB 1070 is unconstitutional because it invades the province of the federal government to regulate immigration. The United States agrees with the plaintiffs on this point.

Los federales have sued Arizona

In a legal move that had been long awaited by immigrants' rights advocates and others who oppose S.B.1070, the Obama administration has sued Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and the state of Arizona, alleging that "S.B. 1070 unconstitutionally interferes with the federal government’s authority to set and enforce immigration policy, explaining that 'the Constitution and federal law do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.'”

The 25 page complaint, filed today in federal court in Arizona, further alleges that "a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and that [h]aving enacted its own immigration policy that conflicts with federal immigration law, Arizona 'crossed a constitutional line.'” The lawsuit requests an injunction and declaratory relief on the basis of violation of the Supremacy Clause, federal preemption and the Commerce Clause. The federal government also filed a 58 page brief in support of the motion for preliminary injunction. To read the pleadings, see http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/July/10-opa-776.html

TGH Preemption and An Unholy Alliance

A recent post of mine on whether the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (TGH) applied to the current and extreme reactionary tactics of Arizona’s anti-immigration “law” drew some favorable and not so favorable comments. They therefore drive the intent of this post. Specifically the TGH post sought illustrating the preemption of federal law in specific situations.

I agree with one commentator and also add that the dominant legal discourse primarily rendered the TGH invisible. Further some of the comments against the framework of the current anti-immigrant rhetoric underscore the consequences of false legal norms. For example some Latinas/os support the anti-immigrant position for a number of vast and varied reasons but yet lack the requisite legal causation as to how state government actors breached federal law. The reason is part is because in innumerable situations legal educators have failed to include the wide diversity of the nation’s real history in training our youth.

Yet another reason remains. Until the entry of Latina/o law professors the Treaty’s legal story with very little exception thereby remained primarily the narrative of the Conqueror. This narrative reified false knowledge and left hidden the extent to which governmental actors employed law to dispossess the former Mexican citizens of their property interests.

Recent excursions in the historical record reveal a measure of how courts, attorneys and other government officials betrayed the supremacy clause and thus the Treaty’s intent.[1] That story however is beyond the limitations of this post but I’ve included a few examples of Latina/o law professors as well as a few others who have brought forth an alternative cuento that shows what occurs when the rule of law is ignored.

By analogy Arizona’s anti-immigration law highlights a realm of harmful consequences when governmental officials betray and violate federal law for their own personal gain.

A current example shows yet another instance of Arizona’s recalcitrance and insurgent actions where governmental actors fail to recognize the rule of law. In exchange violators of legal federalism guarantee chaos reins with arbitrary and unlawful costs foisted on those that demand accountability.

Specifically and drawing from an ABA Journal article the full title is provided because it speaks volumes —The Maricopa County Courthouse War, An Arizona Showdown Over Populist Politics, Abuse of Power and Pink Boxer Shorts in the ABA Journal — reports on a protest that took place in December 2009.[2] The protesters primarily lawyers had joined together at the Maricopa County courthouse with their posters declaring: “Rule of law!” and “Free Judges/Free People.” They “recited the oath they gave when joining the bar…” while emphasizing: “I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceeding that shall appear to me to be without merit or to be unjust.”

The lawyers were protesting the arbitrary and capricious actions of the local prosecutor who had brought charges of bribery without an indictment against a judge (although later dropped) without cause. The article further reported that “hardball politics overpower Maricopa courts,” and a host of overly intrusive governmental actions unite “totalitarianism” with the actions of Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his working arrangement with local prosecutor Andrew Thomas.

This unholy alliance has perpetuated a host of retaliatory actions for critics of Arpaio and Thomas that are steeped with “. . . . racism, cronyism, and widespread use of law enforcement and criminal prosecution to settle increasingly bitter political intrigues.” In essence brandishing a slew of retaliatory actions constituting “. . . normal political retribution… .” For daring to criticize Arpaio and Thomas extra-legal activities critics would face volatile retribution.

Even more astonishing (or perhaps not) is that for their protests critics against the arbitrariness of Arpaio and Thomas activities would in turn face indictments. In one instance one such critic faced 118 charges although they were finally dropped. Yet while later walking in a parking lot Arpaio’s deputies “perp-walked him before the media—without charges or warrant —citing probable cause.”

Other charges read as a horror story of retribution against those seeking the rule of law such as the arrest of individuals who had applauded upon hearing criticism of Arpaio at a public meeting. The list of abuse of power between the prosecutor and the sheriff is an endless litany of injury to those who dared to challenge the authority of both men. One such instance included a sheriff deputy who had removed an attorney’s work product while she was talking to the judge during a hearing. The deputy was held in contempt and jailed for refusing to apologize for his outrageous actions. Arpaio however defended the deputy by calling him a “political prisoner.”

The list is endless reading like a horror story of mind-blowing proportions. Jumping back to the Arizona’s anti-immigrant “law” it also gives one pause. Specifically the Governor rejects critics who remind her of the preemption of federal law and the attendant arbitrary and capricious actions that will result from innumerable law enforcement officials. With unmitigated restraint she declares that no racial profiling will take place by law enforcement officials in administrating its anti-immigrant measures. Ha! If you believe such a declaration I have a lead on a London bridge for sale.

In the interim, check out the article as a reminder of a concrete instance when government officials betray their oath of office (that obligates upholding federal and state law). The value of the article moreover shows what occurs when insurgent harmful laws breach federal preemption of a particular field such as the supremacy of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo over state driven measures. In sum, the article adds immeasurably to arguments against simplistic “get tough approaches” such as those adopted in Arizona and which in their recalcitrance ultimately deny the rule of law.

---

[1]The list would include the work of inter alia Professors George Martinez, Christopher Ruiz Cameron, Placido Gomez, Laura Gomez and the author of this post. Of course a debt is owed the Chicana/o historians that opened the door to studies on the Treaty and especially Malcolm Ebright and his work on the New Mexico land grants.

[2]Terry Carter, ABA Journal (April 2010).

American Bar Association Submits Brief in Support of the MALDEF/ACLU Motion for a Preliminary Injunction; Hearing Set for July 22, 2010

In an extraordinary move, the American Bar Association has submitted an amicus brief in support of MALDEF's motion for a preliminary injunction to block the implementation of the new Arizona immigration statute. The ABA explained this unusual lower court intervention by stating that "while the ABA typically files amicus briefs only in the highest federal or state court that will consider a matter, the ABA believes the issues before this court are of such significance to the American people and the practice of law that they must be addressed at this stage of the proceeding." The ABA is particularly concerned that SB 1070 will lead to "the increased use of racial profiling in law enforcement," the "mandatory detention of citizens and noncitizens," an "increased burden on ... Arizona's indigent defense system," and an invasion of federal authority to regulate immigration. The ABA's amicus brief is here: (http://www.abanet.org/media/nosearch/friendly_house_v_whiting.pdf). Federal Judge Susan Bolton has set July 22, 2010 as the date for a hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction in the MALDEF case. (E.J. Montini, SB 1070 Injunction Hearing Set for July 22, The Arizona Republic, June 30, 2010).

Border Smokescreens

Fear of encroaching drug violence from Northern Mexico increasingly provides cover for anti-immigrant measures and ramping up border enforcement—whether at the state level through malicious laws such as Arizona’s draconian immigration crimes, or federally through funding of enhanced border security. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer defended her state’s immigration law by contending outlandishly that most undocumented immigrants are drug mules. Media and xenophobes now routinely mention rampant violence in the drug trade as additional justification for constructing Mexican immigrants as a threat to local communities and even national security given the conflation of the international drug trade with the war on terror. The fact that Mexican traffickers supply about 65 percent of all narcotics sold in the United States is seen as further indictment of the Mexican character as criminal rather than of the insatiable U.S. demand for narcotics from suburban soccer moms to college fraternities.

Over the years, the drug trade has converged on Mexican smuggling routes. When U.S. enforcement impeded the 1970s French Connection funneling heroin through Turkey and France into the United States, the Mexican cartels filled the void. When Miami Vice-style enforcement found success in scuttling the cocaine trade from South America through Florida, the Mexican alternate route flourished. When the United States ramped up internal detection and eradication of marijuana growing operations, Mexican traffickers took up the slack. And when the U.S. began tightly regulating the core ingredient of methamphetamine, Mexicans imported mass quantities of pseudoephedrine (legally at first and now unlawfully) and took over that trade.

Rather than serving as an indictment of the Mexican character, the preeminence of Mexican drug traffickers mostly reflects a combination of the absence of financial opportunity that breeds illicit economies, geographical proximity and, most important, exploiting the world’s busiest border. Without counting sometimes millions of crossings into the United States on foot outside the official ports of entry in bordertowns or U.S. arrivals by plane or boat, in one recent year the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics counted 4.23 million semi trucks, 7,774 trains containing 266,469 loaded rail cars, 88 million passenger vehicles, 319,087 buses with 3.7 million passengers, and 48,663,773 people crossing the U.S./Mexico border on foot. Border traffic of this magnitude offers cover to smuggling operations given the impracticality of methodically searching every person or vehicle, as proven by Nixon’s failed Operation Intercept that essentially shut down the border in 1969. The interconnectedness of the Mexican and United States economies and cultures increases over time, bolstering the appeal of illicit border crossings taking advantage of the incessant border traffic.

U.S. drug policies belong in the consideration of any comprehensive immigration/border reform. Until the United States confronts its own demand for cheap labor and illicit narcotics that pulls both Mexican labor and drug trafficking north, border solutions will be flawed and continue to emphasize security over reason at any cost.