Participate in a campaign by Brave New Foundation called Who Are The 1 Percent. The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur explains who is involved and how you can join the cause: http:///whoarethe1percent/

by Catherine A. Traywick, Media Consortium blogger

Arizona lawmakers are expected to introduce an “anchor baby” bill today that would deny birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants. Modeled after birthright citizenship legislation unveiled by the nativist coalition State Legislators for Legal Immigration (SLLI) earlier this month, the measure is, unabashedly, part of a larger effort on the part of SLLI to challenge existing citizenship law in the United States.

Lawmakers from Georgia, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and South Carolina have likewise committed to introducing citizenship bills at the state level, while legislators from Nebraska, Indiana, Colorado, Texas and others are determined to implement similarly controversial Arizona-style enforcement measures in their states.

In recent years, communities that implemented harsh anti-immigrant laws have experienced a number of economic and social repercussions which lawmakers continue to overlook in their determination to tighten enforcement. But as nativist policies bleed public coffers and anti-immigrant political speech incites new strains of ethnic violence, the stark consequences of such extremism are becoming harder and harder to ignore.

Devastating local economies

The legal costs of defending constitutionally questionable laws like SB 1070 ought to be obvious. Arizona, which has the rare luxury of drawing from a $3.6 million donor-endowed legal defense fund, spent upwards of $500,000 defending 1070 from legal challenges last year, and could, in the long-term, spend as much $10 million, according to New America Media’s Valeria Fernández.

Yet the think-tank Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)—a major supporter of anti-immigrant laws like SB 1070 and birthright citizenship bills—obstinately underplays the financial fall-out of such measures. Ira Mehlman, a national spokesperson for FAIR, reportedly told New America Media that “the costs of litigations pale in comparison to the cost of communities providing healthcare, education and welfare for undocumented immigrants and their citizen children.”

Considerable evidence suggests otherwise. The Brookings Institution, the Udall Center for Public Policy and former President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors have all concluded that immigrants contribute much more to their local economies (through taxes and spending) than they take out through social services (about $800,000 more).

Now, a new report by Southern Poverty Law Center (which, incidentally, has listed FAIR as a hate group since 2007) argues that anti-immigrant laws—not immigrants—have a greater track record of depressing local economies. Gebe Martinez at Campus Progress sums up what happened to five communities “that threw anti-immigration statutes onto their books without fully considering their impact.” He writes:

• Hazleton, Pennsylvania, the leader of the court fights for local immigration enforcement, is in the tank for at least $2.8 million with some estimates totaling $5 million as it defends its ordinance all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Riverside, New Jersey suffered a local economic downturn before the city rescinded its anti-immigrant ordinance and welcomed the return of immigrants.
• Farmers Branch, Texas, has spent nearly $4 million in legal fees and is expected to spend at least $5 million to defend its anti-immigration statute with no end in sight.
• Prince William County, Virginia dramatically scaled back a tough immigration statute after realizing the original version would cost millions to enforce and defend in court.
• Fremont, Nebraska, increased the city’s property tax to help pay the legal fees for its anti-immigration ordinance which it intends to defend.A

A spate of state-level birthright citizenship bills stands to be similarly costly, as the admitted goal of their sponsors is to force numerous court cases that challenge the conventional applications of the 14th amendment—legislation through litigation. But there are other expenses as well. If such legislation were to pass, government agencies would bear the incredibly costly burden of making citizenship determinations for every child born in the United States—a logistical nightmare that neither federal nor state governments are prepared to undertake.

Fueling ethnic violence

As economically devastating as these divisive measures can be, their social impact on communities is often even greater. Politicians bent on enacting anti-immigrant legislation frequently rely on hateful speech and pejorative language to foment public discontent and, in so doing, build citizen support for their measures—with tragic consequences.

Colorlines.com has repeatedly reported on the correlation between bigoted political speech, anti-immigrant legislation, and ethnic violence. Now, Mónica Novoa reports that a new study from the University of Maryland corroborates the connection. Charting the use of anti-immigrant slurs in newspapers and wire services over the last three decades, the study revealed that “a spike in usage of the dehumanizing slurs usually coincided with contentious immigration policy proposals.”

The correlation persists despite the fact that more than 15 years ago, four professional journalism associations—National Association of Hispanic Journalists, Asian American Journalists Association, Native American Journalists Association and National Association of Black Journalists—advised their members to stop using the phrase “illegal alien” on the grounds that is is “pejorative,” “grammatically incorrect and crosses the line by criminalizing the person, not the action they are purported to have committed.”

While incendiary rhetoric may be an effective way of garnering political support for controversial measures, it all too often fuels violence. Going back to New America Media, Fernández notes that this destructive cycle frequently makes for tragic consequences, as in the case of a 9-year-old girl who was allegedly murdered by members the Minuteman Project, an armed, volunteer border patrol organization. The Latino advocacy organization Cuentame, in partnership with Brave New Films, similarly emphasizes the link between hate speech and increasing incidents of hate crimes against Latinos:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2cFuYJwW1s[/youtube]

Anti-birthright citizenship bills would effectively create an underclass of mostly Hispanic non-citizens. It’s an almost certain catalyst for rampant and systemic anti-immigrant discrimination and ethnic violence. As the  anti-immigrant lawmakers from Arizona and elsewhere make good on their promises to push a new, more fervent, onslaught of anti-immigrant legislation in 2011, expect the financial and social costs of such extremism to rise further still.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Diaspora for a complete list of articles on immigration issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, and health care issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Pulse<. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.

I'm posting this diary on behalf of Dan Smith. We got to know Dan while fighting back against the Mortgage Bankers Association opposition to foreclosure assistance. This is what he has to say...

My name is Dan Smith, and I'm an electrician with IBEW Local 952 in Ventura, California.  I lost my home because my mortgage broker lied to me about my interest rate.  I'm working with Progressive Future to take on the Mortgage Bankers Association and urge Congress to save millions of homes.  You can help by clicking here.

My wife and I sold the comfortable condo for which we had saved for years. We had figured out that we could afford to pay $2700 per month to share a bigger home with our one-year old daughter, with plans to have another child.  Our third month, we got a bill for $3600--33% more than we signed up for.  I called my broker and he said "didn't I tell you that you had a `teaser rate' that would go up?" No, he hadn't told me.  I was angry, but stuck--whatever they'd buried in the fine print was threatening everything I'd worked for.

After selling my truck and camper, working 80-hour weeks, and struggling to pay the increased rate for 16 months, I lost my home, I was left with a mountain of debt, and I ended up declaring bankruptcy.  I went in with a great credit score and a shot at the American dream.  I ended up deep in debt, bankrupt, with my credit shot.  You can view my full story here.

But, I'm not just sitting back.  I'm working with Progressive Future to confront the Mortgage Bankers Association and help make sure other families like mine don't end up out on the street.

The House recently passed a bill--at President Obama's request--to allow bankruptcy judges to adjust the terms of troubled mortgages.  Experts estimate this common-sense solution could save nearly 2 million homes--and I know it could have saved mine.

The Senate will vote on the same provision soon, but the Mortgage Bankers--the same people who got us into this mess--are fighting it.  They've spent nearly $20 million lobbying in Washington in the past decade, so they've got plenty of clout.  Progressive Future is collecting petitions telling the Mortgage Bankers to "back off" and I'd like as many people to sign as possible.

Thanks for helping out...and I hope you never have to go through what my family has over this past year.

There's more...

One every 13 seconds.[1]

That's how many families are losing their homes to foreclosure.  More than 8 million families are at risk.[2]

And, this is no accident.  In Brave New Foundation's provocative new film on the housing crisis, a California mortgage broker admits on tape that he was "trained to mislead borrowers" and get them into the most expensive loans.

Check out the video:

Click here to tell the Mortgage Brokers Association to back off and get out of the way of solutions to our housing crisis.

President Obama knows that we need to tackle this crisis head on -- that putting hardworking families out on the street doesn't just hurt them, but drags down housing prices across the board and keeps our entire economy in a rut.

In February, President Obama announced a plan of action, and asked Congress to send him legislation allowing bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of troubled mortgages.  The House of Representatives is answering Obama's call, and will vote on the proposal tomorrow.

Judges already have this power for boats, cars, and investments -- just not for people's primary homes.  Experts estimate that this common-sense solution could save nearly 2 million homes.[3]

But, the very people who got us into this mess are fighting President Obama's efforts to get us out.  Even though Citigroup and other big lenders who once opposed allowing bankruptcy judges to help have come around,[4] the Mortgage Bankers Association won't budge.

Click here to tell the Mortgage Bankers Association to back off.

Telling the bankers what we think will also send a strong message to our elected leaders: we want action to save our homes now.  This is critical because while we expect the measure to pass the House tomorrow, Republicans are likely to try to block Obama's proposal in the Senate.

To find out more about this campaign, you can visit Brave New Foundation's website here: http://www.FightingForOurHomes.com

[1] http://www.responsiblelending.org/
[2] http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/09/news/com panies/citigroup_legislation/
[3] http://www.responsiblelending.org/issues mortgage/solutions/solutions-to-the-for eclosure-crisis.html
[4] http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/09/news/com panies/citigroup_legislation

There's more...

On Tuesday, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, a bill sponsored by Jon Conyers in the House that would empower judges to write down the principal and interest payments on some mortgages (aka "cram-down legislation"), will finally come up for a vote. The bill had been delayed thanks to effective pressure from the financial services industry on Blue Dog and New Democrats. President Obama and progressive Democrats in Congress support the legislation and in fact it would be central to Obama's plan to help keep more Americans in their homes (watch Brave New Foundation's interview with Conyers for a more complete picture of the bill.)

So, what level of pressure will the Obama administration apply to get this cram-down bill passed in its current form? As Chris Bowers notes, Shaun Donovan will be going directly to the House caucus on Monday.

On Monday, Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan will speak to House Democrats, and make a direct appeal for not narrowing or otherwise watering down the cram-down legislation. The administration does hold a lot of sway with congressional Democrats right now, and is riding high in the polls, so this appeal might just work. Let's hope so.

But the pressure is going to have to come from us as well. To that end, over at FightingForOurHomes, Brave New Foundation is asking that we call our representatives to urge them to support this legislation and that we sign their petition that reads:

Judicial modifications of home mortgages is a modest fix that will prevent hundreds of thousands of families from facing the devastation of foreclosure. This sensible legislation will help working and middle class families stay afloat in challenging times. We urge our elected representatives to stand up for homeowners by supporting H.R. 1106 and its counterpart in the Senate.

The banks have received their bailouts; it's time for working homeowners to be put first.

In addition, tomorrow, MoveOn members in certain districts (with representatives on the fence) should expect an e-mail blast urging them to do the same.

The fact is, as Chris Bowers points out:

In advance of the vote, The Center for Responsible Lending has a useful chart up showing that 800,000 homeowners, or 10% of all American homeowners facing foreclosure, could be saved from foreclosure by "cramdown" legislation. Among the 86 congressional districts represented by either a New Democrat or a Blue Dog, 143,672 homeowners are projected to be saved from foreclosure by cramdown legislation.

Sadly, the pressure on the centrist Dems to, at best, water down this legislation and at worst, kill it, is considerable; it's our job to let those House members know that we're watching and we'll hold them accountable if they side with banks over homeowners.

Check out BNF's brand new video that exposes the corrupt mortgage business and profiles one former homeowner who represents exactly the sort of situation that cram-down legislation was designed to prevent:

There's more...