Gov. candidates in 20 states endorse anti-immigration laws
Boxes&Books
USA Posts: 2,672
Politics Politics Politics.........
It’s not just Arizona.
In states far from the Mexico border — from liberal Massachusetts to moderate Iowa — Democrats and Republicans in gubernatorial races are running on strict anti-illegal-immigration platforms, pledging to sign an array of tough enforcement measures into law come January.
Of the 37 gubernatorial races this year, candidates in more than 20 states have endorsed adopting a strict Arizona-style immigration law or passing legislation that makes it harder for illegal immigrants to live, work and access basic public benefits in their states, according to a POLITICO analysis.
The prevalence of the issue means the Obama administration could find itself battling Arizona-style flare-ups in statehouses across the country, raising pressure on the White House and Congress to break the deadlock in Washington over comprehensive immigration reform.
The Justice Department sued Arizona in hopes of discouraging other states from following its lead and won a ruling blocking provisions of the law that immigrant advocates found most objectionable. But that hasn’t stopped some gubernatorial candidates from trying to one-up each other on the issue.
Georgia Democratic nominee Roy Barnes endorses an Arizona-style law for the state, saying he would sign similar legislation if elected. So does Georgia’s Republican nominee, former U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, a staunch critic of comprehensive immigration reform who used the first ad of his primary campaign to endorse the Arizona crackdown.
“If President Obama sues us too, we’re going to defend ourselves,” said Brian Robinson, communications director for Deal. “We’ve got to protect Georgia taxpayers if President Obama won’t.”
Alabama Republican Robert Bentley, who holds a double-digit lead over his Democratic challenger, vows to create “an environment that is unwelcoming to illegal immigrants.” He drafted a 10-point plan for what he describes as one of the most pressing problems facing the state, where the Pew Research Center found the immigrant population has at least doubled since 2005.
And in Massachusetts, Republican Charles Baker and independent Timothy Cahill are battling for the toughest-on-immigration title, while Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick takes hits from immigrant advocates for not being “proactive” enough.
The flood of get-tough statements could be just that — campaign talk that fades against the hard realities of governing and legal threats by the Justice Department. The outcome of a U.S. appeals court hearing on the Arizona law set for early November is likely to determine whether the state-level push stalls out or gains momentum.
But polls show voters want the government to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. And with Congress unlikely to act anytime soon, gubernatorial candidates are arguing that, as chief executives, they will try to do the job that they say the federal government has neglected.
The political pull can be fierce. At least three Republicans who initially expressed concern with the Arizona law walked back their opposition after taking heat from their party.
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum scrambled to match the hard line of his challenger, Rick Scott, by introducing a proposal late in the primary election campaign that he said would go further than the Arizona law, but McCollum still lost. Wisconsin Republican Scott Walker went from skeptic to supporter of Arizona’s approach, as did Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman, who has said he will work with the state attorney general to craft a law similar to Arizona's for the 2011 legislative session.
“In the absence of federal action, we will see devastating policies at the state and local level, as demagogues rush in to fill the breach,” said Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change, an immigrant advocacy group. “That is why it is critical that there is a renewed effort on the federal level.”
With state budgets in crisis and the economy struggling, candidates are framing the debate in financial terms, not simply as a law-and-order issue.
Illegal immigrants are already ineligible for all major government benefits, but that hasn’t stopped gubernatorial nominees from pledging to go even further in tightening verification requirements for public aid programs to establish an applicant’s legal status.
"This is purely about politics and not substance," said Jon Blazer, a public benefits attorney for the National Immigration Law Center, adding that the law is already restrictive.
Candidates are embracing E-Verify, a federal database that allows employers to check an employee’s Social Security number against government records. Only federal contractors are required to use the system, which has been criticized as unreliable. And governors in 13 states have signed legislation or executive orders mandating some level of participation from employers.
But if anti-illegal-immigration candidates win in November, more states, including Iowa, Georgia and Alabama, appear likely to jump on board or expand the program. Colorado Republican Dan Maes would require all private employers in his state to use E-Verify — the crux of his vision for legislation that “reduces the incentives to live, work and transfer funds from Colorado.”
Other top targets include scholarships, in-state tuition and driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants — flash points in states across the country.
In Massachusetts, Baker would tell state lawmakers to send him a package of hard-hitting immigration measures identical to a package that passed the Democratic-controlled state Senate this year but was eliminated from the final budget bill because of Gov. Patrick’s opposition, Baker spokesman Rick Gorka said.
It was considered an unusually tough measure for a state long represented by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, the architect of the modern-day immigration system. But a confluence of factors contributed to its near passage, spurred on by Arizona, including a poll of Massachusetts voters showing strong support for the crackdown and the case of Obama’s Kenyan aunt, who was living in public housing while she fought a deportation order.
The package expanded efforts to block illegal immigrants from accessing public benefits, established a telephone line for people to anonymously report people they suspect of being illegal and required companies working with the state to confirm the legal status of their hires.
“We would make sure state services are for state residents,” Gorka said. “This is a cost-saving measure; it is a responsible measure.”
Massachusetts had been known as one of the most welcoming to immigrants in the country, Eva Millona, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigration and Refugee Advocacy Coalition said. But lately, she said, “this is the most anti-immigrant climate we have witnessed.”
Even Patrick has turned cautious, doing little to act on a series of pro-immigrant recommendations from a state advisory panel. “Deval hasn’t been as proactive as we would have liked him to be,” said Millona, a co-chairwoman of the panel.
In New Mexico, a border state that has traditionally taken a more lenient approach than adjacent Arizona, Democrat Diane Denish and Republican Susana Martinez would stop issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. But Martinez would go a step further in repealing the 2003 state law and revoking thousands of licenses. Martinez, who won the Republican primary by making her opponent look weak on border security, would also eliminate taxpayer-funded lottery scholarships.
“Not only does this provide further incentive for illegal immigrants to come to New Mexico,” Martinez says on her campaign website, “it is simply wrong to provide free scholarships to illegal immigrants when members of the military stationed in New Mexico are not eligible for the same benefits.”
Taking a position that goes further than other GOP candidates, former Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, who is trying to unseat the Democratic governor, said a long-standing Supreme Court decision that forced states to educate the children of illegal immigrants should be overturned.
And when people are stopped for a criminal or traffic violation, they should be detained and turned over to the federal government if they can’t prove their legal status, Branstad has said.
“Iowans are frustrated,” Branstad spokesman Tim Albrecht said. “Either we are going to enforce the laws or we are not going to enforce the laws, and Gov. Branstad is on the side of wanting to enforce those laws.”
Millona said the November elections will be a test: A strong showing by enforcement-only proponents could make it harder for Democrats and Republicans to come together on a comprehensive overhaul next year.
“If they don’t win, it will be very clear — as it is clear to most of us — that the enforcement-only measures don’t work,” Millona said.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/09 ... z0yOfII2p8
It’s not just Arizona.
In states far from the Mexico border — from liberal Massachusetts to moderate Iowa — Democrats and Republicans in gubernatorial races are running on strict anti-illegal-immigration platforms, pledging to sign an array of tough enforcement measures into law come January.
Of the 37 gubernatorial races this year, candidates in more than 20 states have endorsed adopting a strict Arizona-style immigration law or passing legislation that makes it harder for illegal immigrants to live, work and access basic public benefits in their states, according to a POLITICO analysis.
The prevalence of the issue means the Obama administration could find itself battling Arizona-style flare-ups in statehouses across the country, raising pressure on the White House and Congress to break the deadlock in Washington over comprehensive immigration reform.
The Justice Department sued Arizona in hopes of discouraging other states from following its lead and won a ruling blocking provisions of the law that immigrant advocates found most objectionable. But that hasn’t stopped some gubernatorial candidates from trying to one-up each other on the issue.
Georgia Democratic nominee Roy Barnes endorses an Arizona-style law for the state, saying he would sign similar legislation if elected. So does Georgia’s Republican nominee, former U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, a staunch critic of comprehensive immigration reform who used the first ad of his primary campaign to endorse the Arizona crackdown.
“If President Obama sues us too, we’re going to defend ourselves,” said Brian Robinson, communications director for Deal. “We’ve got to protect Georgia taxpayers if President Obama won’t.”
Alabama Republican Robert Bentley, who holds a double-digit lead over his Democratic challenger, vows to create “an environment that is unwelcoming to illegal immigrants.” He drafted a 10-point plan for what he describes as one of the most pressing problems facing the state, where the Pew Research Center found the immigrant population has at least doubled since 2005.
And in Massachusetts, Republican Charles Baker and independent Timothy Cahill are battling for the toughest-on-immigration title, while Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick takes hits from immigrant advocates for not being “proactive” enough.
The flood of get-tough statements could be just that — campaign talk that fades against the hard realities of governing and legal threats by the Justice Department. The outcome of a U.S. appeals court hearing on the Arizona law set for early November is likely to determine whether the state-level push stalls out or gains momentum.
But polls show voters want the government to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. And with Congress unlikely to act anytime soon, gubernatorial candidates are arguing that, as chief executives, they will try to do the job that they say the federal government has neglected.
The political pull can be fierce. At least three Republicans who initially expressed concern with the Arizona law walked back their opposition after taking heat from their party.
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum scrambled to match the hard line of his challenger, Rick Scott, by introducing a proposal late in the primary election campaign that he said would go further than the Arizona law, but McCollum still lost. Wisconsin Republican Scott Walker went from skeptic to supporter of Arizona’s approach, as did Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman, who has said he will work with the state attorney general to craft a law similar to Arizona's for the 2011 legislative session.
“In the absence of federal action, we will see devastating policies at the state and local level, as demagogues rush in to fill the breach,” said Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change, an immigrant advocacy group. “That is why it is critical that there is a renewed effort on the federal level.”
With state budgets in crisis and the economy struggling, candidates are framing the debate in financial terms, not simply as a law-and-order issue.
Illegal immigrants are already ineligible for all major government benefits, but that hasn’t stopped gubernatorial nominees from pledging to go even further in tightening verification requirements for public aid programs to establish an applicant’s legal status.
"This is purely about politics and not substance," said Jon Blazer, a public benefits attorney for the National Immigration Law Center, adding that the law is already restrictive.
Candidates are embracing E-Verify, a federal database that allows employers to check an employee’s Social Security number against government records. Only federal contractors are required to use the system, which has been criticized as unreliable. And governors in 13 states have signed legislation or executive orders mandating some level of participation from employers.
But if anti-illegal-immigration candidates win in November, more states, including Iowa, Georgia and Alabama, appear likely to jump on board or expand the program. Colorado Republican Dan Maes would require all private employers in his state to use E-Verify — the crux of his vision for legislation that “reduces the incentives to live, work and transfer funds from Colorado.”
Other top targets include scholarships, in-state tuition and driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants — flash points in states across the country.
In Massachusetts, Baker would tell state lawmakers to send him a package of hard-hitting immigration measures identical to a package that passed the Democratic-controlled state Senate this year but was eliminated from the final budget bill because of Gov. Patrick’s opposition, Baker spokesman Rick Gorka said.
It was considered an unusually tough measure for a state long represented by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, the architect of the modern-day immigration system. But a confluence of factors contributed to its near passage, spurred on by Arizona, including a poll of Massachusetts voters showing strong support for the crackdown and the case of Obama’s Kenyan aunt, who was living in public housing while she fought a deportation order.
The package expanded efforts to block illegal immigrants from accessing public benefits, established a telephone line for people to anonymously report people they suspect of being illegal and required companies working with the state to confirm the legal status of their hires.
“We would make sure state services are for state residents,” Gorka said. “This is a cost-saving measure; it is a responsible measure.”
Massachusetts had been known as one of the most welcoming to immigrants in the country, Eva Millona, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigration and Refugee Advocacy Coalition said. But lately, she said, “this is the most anti-immigrant climate we have witnessed.”
Even Patrick has turned cautious, doing little to act on a series of pro-immigrant recommendations from a state advisory panel. “Deval hasn’t been as proactive as we would have liked him to be,” said Millona, a co-chairwoman of the panel.
In New Mexico, a border state that has traditionally taken a more lenient approach than adjacent Arizona, Democrat Diane Denish and Republican Susana Martinez would stop issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. But Martinez would go a step further in repealing the 2003 state law and revoking thousands of licenses. Martinez, who won the Republican primary by making her opponent look weak on border security, would also eliminate taxpayer-funded lottery scholarships.
“Not only does this provide further incentive for illegal immigrants to come to New Mexico,” Martinez says on her campaign website, “it is simply wrong to provide free scholarships to illegal immigrants when members of the military stationed in New Mexico are not eligible for the same benefits.”
Taking a position that goes further than other GOP candidates, former Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, who is trying to unseat the Democratic governor, said a long-standing Supreme Court decision that forced states to educate the children of illegal immigrants should be overturned.
And when people are stopped for a criminal or traffic violation, they should be detained and turned over to the federal government if they can’t prove their legal status, Branstad has said.
“Iowans are frustrated,” Branstad spokesman Tim Albrecht said. “Either we are going to enforce the laws or we are not going to enforce the laws, and Gov. Branstad is on the side of wanting to enforce those laws.”
Millona said the November elections will be a test: A strong showing by enforcement-only proponents could make it harder for Democrats and Republicans to come together on a comprehensive overhaul next year.
“If they don’t win, it will be very clear — as it is clear to most of us — that the enforcement-only measures don’t work,” Millona said.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/09 ... z0yOfII2p8
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
WORLD NEWS JULY 23, 2009 Illegal Immigration from Mexico Hits Lowest Level in Decade
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1248306 ... s_redirect
The flow of immigrants from Mexico to the U.S. declined to the lowest level in a decade during the past year, a sign that the recession is deterring economic migrants from heading north in search of jobs.
However, there is no evidence of an increase between March 2008 and March 2009 in the number of Mexicans returning home from the U.S., according to an analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center, an independent research group in Washington.
The slowing of Mexican immigration to the U.S. is part of a broader trend, as migration flows around the world have also ebbed due to the global economic slowdown.
While the downturn has sharply curtailed employment of Latino immigrants, the analysis "finds no support for the hypothesis" that it is compelling Mexicans to return home, the report says.
The number of illegal immigrants residing in the U.S. was at one point estimated to be at least 12 million, and it appears to have shrunk recently. Pew Hispanic estimates that the Mexican immigrant population in the U.S. slipped to 11.5 million from 11.6 million between March 2008 and March 2009.
The decline in the number of illegal immigrants comes as the Obama administration prepares to push for a legislative overhaul of U.S. immigration policy. Opponents of retooling immigration laws believe undocumented residents are a drain on the nation's financial resources and compete with Americans for jobs.
The influx of Mexicans plunged to 175,000 in the 12-month period ending in March from a peak of 653,000 in 2005, based on analysis of Census data by Pew Hispanic. The number of entries has been decreasing steadily since mid-decade, according to the report.
This finding is supported by data from the U.S. Border Patrol showing the number of Mexicans caught trying to sneak into the U.S. has decreased. In 2008, border patrol agents apprehended 662,000 Mexicans, down from a 2004 peak of 1.1 million.
At the same time, stepped up border enforcement, coupled with the high cost charged by guides to ferry migrants through the desert into the U.S. Southwest, encourage illegal immigrants already here to remain even it gets tougher to earn a living.
Many of those here illegally "have spent a lot of money and taken a lot of risks to get into the U.S.," said Jeffrey Passel, a senior demographer at Pew Hispanic who conducted the analysis.
What's more, the Mexican economy is faring worse than that of the U.S. "It appears those people are staying here and just waiting for times to get better," Mr. Passel said.
About two-thirds of all Latin American immigrants to the U.S. are of Mexican origin. About one in 10 Mexicans currently lives in the U.S., according to the report.
Annual immigration to the U.S. from its neighbor has risen and fallen several times during the past decade. For example, immigration dropped by one-third following the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. For the three-year period from March 2003 to March 2006, the annual influx of Mexicans averaged 550,000. It then fell nearly 40% to an annual average of 350,000 for March 2006-March 2008 before the even steeper decline recorded for the most recent year.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Anyone wearing flannel and eating maple syrup can be legally pulled over and detained...
Oh and OP your title is misleading. It is anti-illegal immigration. Typical.
Thank everything it is not just Arizona. I wish Illinois would get on board.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
By Bill Van Auken
14 August 2010
President Barack Obama signed into law Friday legislation that will further militarize the US-Mexico border. It includes the deployment of Predator pilotless drones, like those used in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to conduct surveillance against immigrants crossing the border.
Obama signed the $600 million bill without making any comment. Previously, the administration and its supporters had claimed that a crackdown on the border was a necessary precursor to comprehensive immigration reform, to include a path to legal status for undocumented workers.
The president’s silence on any path to legalization only underscores that the border legislation is part of a turn to the right in the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections. The Democratic Party is preparing to compete with the Republicans in the scapegoating of immigrants by boasting of its record of police-state persecution of one of the most exploited sections of the American working class.
A statement issued by the White House said that the legislation, the Southwest Border Security Bill, would allocate the $600 million “to enhance technology at the border, share information and support with state, local and tribal law enforcement, and increase (federal) presence and law enforcement activities at the border.”
It added that the law would provide “increased agents, investigators and prosecutors, as part of a multilayered effort to target illicit networks trafficking in people, drugs, illegal weapons and money.”
The bill will pay for the hiring of 1,000 more Border Patrol agents to be deployed along the Southwest border. With 20,000 such agents, the Border Patrol has already doubled in size since 2005. The government will also hire 250 new Customs and Border Protection officers and 250 Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel.
The legislation allocates $32 million for the deployment of more Predator drone aircraft to conduct spy flights over the border. Additional money will go to set up military style bases in the border area and to assist local police agencies.
The Obama administration had already ordered 1,500 National Guard troops to the US-Mexico border. These units should all be in place within the next weeks.
A written statement issued in Obama's name on Thursday, after the Senate's passage of the legislation in an extraordinary session, emphasized the border crackdown, while making no mention of normalizing the status of some 12 million undocumented immigrant workers who are facing conditions of super-exploitation and repression within the US.
Earlier this week, the administration's Immigration and Customs Enforcement director John Morton vehemently denied reports of plans for a wide-ranging amnesty for the undocumented. Right-wing groups denounced the administration after the leaking of an internal memo supposedly contemplating the possible granting of delays in deportation to limited categories of immigrants.
“The President doesn't support amnesty, the [Homeland Security secretary] doesn't support amnesty and I don't support amnesty,” said Morton, speaking to Fox News. He vowed that his agency would redouble its effort to increase deportations. "There is no administration in the history of this country that has removed more people from the United States,” he said.
In his statement, Obama boasted of having made “securing our Southwest border a top priority since I came to office.” He claimed that the new law would “build upon our successful efforts to protect communities along the Southwest border and across the country.”
While vowing to “work with Congress toward bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform,” the statement said that the purpose of such legislation would be “to secure our borders, and restore responsibility and accountability to our broken immigration system.”
Gone is any reference to even the punitive measures included in a proposed pathway to legal residency for undocumented immigrants floated earlier this year. This bipartisan proposal would require these immigrants to confess to immigration crimes, pay fines and “get to the back of the line” of those applying for legal status.
Obama's secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, appeared at the White House Friday to praise the new border legislation for providing “permanent resources” for enforcement and calling the effort “a matter of national security.”
While Napolitano made a brief reference to “immigration reform,” she indicated no timetable for enactment of such legislation, asserting that the issue was “in the hands of Congress.” In other words, having reneged on an election promise to press for immigration reform during his first year in office, the Obama White House is making it clear that it will do nothing to push for normalizing the status of the undocumented. Instead, it is joining with the Republican right in an attempt to whip up anti-immigrant chauvinism with a campaign to convince the public that immigrants are responsible for rising crime, disappearing jobs and threats to “national security.”
The bill was passed under extraordinary conditions, with both the House and Senate called into special sessions. For the Senate, it marked only the second time that such a session had been held during the August recess since the vacation period was formalized in 1970. The only other time was in response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Having secured unanimous consent from both Democrats and Republicans, the formality of the vote was carried out by just two senators.
The portrayal of immigration enforcement as some kind of national crisis is based entirely on right-wing anti-immigrant propaganda fomented by the Republican Party and abetted by the Democrats.
The recent passage of anti-immigrant legislation in Arizona—ruled unconstitutional last month by a federal court—has been followed by a proposal floated this week in Florida for an even more reactionary state law. Like its Arizona counterpart, the Florida law would order state law enforcement personnel to investigate the immigration status of state residents where there existed a “reasonable suspicion” that they are undocumented.
The legislation, proposed by Florida State Attorney General Bill McCollum, in an attempt to outdo an even more right-wing rival for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, would impose 20-day jail sentences for even legal resident aliens if they are caught not carrying their documents. It also would allow judges to impose stiffer criminal sentences on immigrants than they would on citizens.
The claims that such measures are justified by an immigration-driven crime wave, the stock-in-trade of Republican politicians like Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, have no factual basis whatsoever. Arizona itself has seen its crime rate drop 12 percent over the last year; between 2004 and 2008 it fell by 23 percent, even as its undocumented immigrant population rose.
And, according to FBI figures, the four US cities with populations over 500,000 that recorded the lowest rates of violent crime—San Diego, California, Phoenix, Arizona and the Texas cities of El Paso and Austin—are all in the border states that are now being treated by Washington as the scene of a national emergency.
There is a deliberate attempt by both parties, aided by the media, to associate immigrants with crime, drug-trafficking and the ongoing war between the Mexican military and the drug cartels. They deny the essential reality: that millions of people worldwide are driven to leave their homelands by intolerable economic and social conditions created by transnational banks and corporations that subordinate everything to profit.
Obama is outdoing the Bush administration in the brutality of the crackdown by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) against undocumented immigrants. According to recently released ICE figures, during the first nine months of the present fiscal year, the US government deported 279,035 people. This represents a 10 percent jump compared to the same period for Fiscal Year 2008—the last full fiscal year of the Bush administration. The number of people deported today is roughly double what it was five years ago.
While the Obama administration had claimed that its deportation campaign was targeted at so-called “criminal aliens,” the ICE figures reveal that only 17 percent of those deported were accused of serious crimes. More than half—51 percent—had no criminal record, while the rest had been charged with minor offenses.
Leading Republicans dismissed the new repressive legislation backed by Obama and the Congressional Democrats as insufficient, insisting on the deployment of far more personnel and resources along the border, combined with an even more draconian crackdown on the millions of undocumented immigrants living and working in the US. The official debate on immigration moves inexorably further to the right.
Many immigrant workers are torn from their families, which often include spouses or children who are US citizens. Undocumented immigrants also hesitate to travel back to their native countries to visit relatives, for fear of arrest at a US airport and subsequent deportation. These human tragedies are a matter of indifference to both big business parties.
Rather, the entire political establishment seeks to foment and exploit anti-immigrant chauvinism as a means of diverting rising popular anger over record unemployment and falling living standards away from their source, the profit system.
At the same time, the police state and militarized measures being employed against immigrants pose a grave threat to the democratic rights of all sections of the working class. There is no reason to believe that the Predator drones flying the border areas of the Southwestern US will be limited to spying on immigrants. They could well be used for the Afghanistan-style “targeted killings.” That is well within the realm of possible policy decisions by a White House that has already claimed the right to assassinate US citizens abroad.
The fight to defend democratic rights, jobs, wages and social conditions of working people in the US can only be waged successfully by unifying all sections of the working class – native-born and immigrant alike – against the reactionary, pro-capitalist policies of both the Democrats and the Republicans. This struggle must include the defense of immigrant workers against raids, deportations and sweat-shop exploitation by the employers. Working people must oppose the militarization of the US borders and uphold the right of workers from every country to live and work in the land that they choose.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/aug20 ... -a14.shtml
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say