|
Immigrants,
other minorities must find unity
By María Blanco, Eva Paterson, Hector Preciado and Van
Jones
San
Francisco Chronicle
Sunday, May 7, 2006
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. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.
Page
E - 1
Original
Story:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/07/INGRFILDO11.DTL
|
