NEWS
Immigrants, other minorities must find unity
By María Blanco, Eva Paterson, Hector Preciado and Van Jones
San Francisco Chronicle
During the unprecedented mobilizations for immigrants' rights, much has been written and said about tensions between the African American community and the immigrant community.
The common theme in many of these reports is that African Americans feel immigrants are responsible for the economic displacement of African Americans and for the lowering of wages, particularly in blue collar and service jobs. Reading between the lines, there is also a sense of a different kind of displacement when headlines, sound bites, and some immigrant rights spokespersons refer to the "new civil rights movement."
In the face of this much-publicized division (much of it based on the statements of a few individuals), many leaders in both communities have stepped forward to express unity between our two movements, fully aware that both of our communities have faced similar discrimination and scapegoating. The expression of unity is welcomed and needed.
But sometimes the rush to close ranks cuts short a discussion that is necessary in order to build genuine unity between our communities. For example, some of us wince when we hear the rallying cry: "We do the jobs that nobody else will do." Is that a positive, unifying message? Yes, it is positive because it rebuts the unfounded argument that immigrants drain, rather than contribute to the economy.
The May 1 marches publicly demonstrated what we all know to be the case from our personal experience: Immigrants are an integral part of our economy and our communities. But this statement of pride can have unintended divisive effects. African Americans in particular are acutely sensitive to the existence of a highly exploited, second tier work force.
It also prompts the question of why those subsistence jobs exist, and whether we should accept them as an unavoidable part of today's economic landscape.
The fact is that immigrants in the United States predominantly occupy jobs that cannot be outsourced by U.S. businesses seeking to compete in the global economy. As much as they may want to, companies cannot outsource jobs in the hotel, agriculture, construction, restaurants or meatpacking industries the way they have other jobs that used to be the mainstay of the U.S. worker: auto, steel, shoes, garment, textile, electronics and so on.
Instead of viewing immigrants who take low-paying jobs to help their families survive as the cause of low wages, effective unity in the civil rights movement involves taking a hard look in the opposite direction: at political and economic policies that have lowered wages, created jobs with no health insurance or safety regulations, and eliminated the safety net.
According to a recent study by the Commonwealth Fund, 41 percent of adults with incomes between $20,000 and $40,000 a year did not have health insurance for at least part of 2005, up from 28 percent without coverage in 2001. Blame for the existence of jobs without health insurance cannot be laid at the feet of immigrants. Nor can the demise of unions and extensive layoffs due to companies who go overseas.
Communities that face unemployment should focus on the policies that have created an unprecedented number of billionaires and millionaires and an unprecedented economic divide.
As for the new civil rights movement, perhaps much of the discomfort created by this phrase is due to the fact that there is still much unfinished business in the "old" civil rights movement. The immigrant rights movement has to be sensitive to that reality.
The spark that generated the mass mobilizations over the past month – a federal law that would make it a felony to be an undocumented immigrant or to provide any service to them -- echoes the fugitive slave laws of the 1840s.
Latino immigrants who today march for dignity know that they are part of the great tradition of the freedom marches, launched and led by African Americans. While immigrants have clearly mobilized in new ways, never to go back to an era where politicians and demagogues could use anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies to launch their political careers, maybe it is more accurate to say that the civil rights movement has grown and crossed borders, both literally and culturally.
Just before Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, he was expanding the reach of the civil rights movement with the "Poor People's March on Washington," a movement that brought together the issues of race and poverty.
The immigrant rights marches are part of that continuum. So are concerns about backlash that are making the rounds. The same was said in response to the huge civil rights marches and sit-ins of the 1960s. The naysayers will always be there. So will those who want to divide us. What we have before us is an opportunity to reinvigorate our mutual work with the energy captured by the spirited expression that rang out across the nation on May 1 -- sí se puede!
María Blanco is the executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights. Eva Paterson is the president of the Equal Justice Society. Hector Preciado is the director of strategic communications at the Greenlining Institute. Van Jones is the executive director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights.
____________________________________________
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/07/INGRFILDO11.DTL
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed by HispanicVista.com (www.hispanicvista.com) without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)