By Erin Rosa, Media Consortium blogger

While immigrant rights groups pressure the federal government via high-profile marches and rallies, anti-immigration forces are pushing punitive laws on the state and local levels. Thousands of immigration reform proponents rallied last week to push federal lawmakers to pass reform this year, but the Arizona House of Representatives passed one of the toughest immigration laws in the country, which enables racial profiling of Latinos.

If the Senate fails to propose a reform bill this Spring, immigration reform won’t be on the agenda for 2010. With elections at the end of the year, it’s uncertain if reform will pass after that, as the resulting Congress could be more conservative.

More rallies from the grassroots

As Seth Freed Wessler reports at RaceWire, “Rallies for immigration reform were held in at least seven cities on Saturday, including Las Vegas, Seattle and Chicago, and were meant to maintain momentum from the massive march in Washington last month.” The rallies were part of a sustained effort by reform supporters to pressure the Senate to take up reform this year.

In Las Vegas, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) made an appearance and told supporters that the Senate would start work on reform soon after legislators came back from a brief recess this week.

“Speaking before a crowd of more than 6,000, Reid, a vulnerable incumbent, assured his audience of his commitment,” Steve Benen wrote for the Washington Monthly.

“We’re going to come back, we’re going to have comprehensive immigration reform now,” Reid was quoted as saying. “We need to do this this year. We cannot wait.”

New America Media cites a report from Univision, writing that “Reid, fresh from the fight for health system reform and with a difficult re-election campaign ahead, told demonstrators that there is some urgency to passing legislation to reform the immigration system, including improving border security and creating a guest worker program for seasonal workers.”

New America Media also reports on a surprising conservative-evangelical alliance that supports comprehensive immigration reform that protects children and families. “While not entirely new, the involvement of conservative Latino and evangelical leaders in the immigration debate puts additional pressure on Congress and the president to take up the issue this year.”

In Seattle, AlterNet reports on the large presence of Asian immigrants at the local rally, quoting Diane Narasaki, executive director of the Asian Counseling and Referral Service: “There are about 1 million Asians living in this country who are undocumented, so comprehensive immigration reform is really key to our community,” Narasaki said.

Local laws target immigrants

Meanwhile, the GOP-controlled Arizona House of Representatives voted along party lines this week to pass a state law that would, as RaceWire’s Freed Wessler reports, “make it a criminal offense simply to be an undocumented immigrant on Arizona soil and to require local cops to determine a person’s immigration status if there is any ‘reasonable suspicion’ the person is undocumented.”

“The law would essentially require police to racially profile Latinos and threatens to terrorize immigrant communities already trying to survive in what is arguably the country’s most anti-immigrant state,” writes Freed Wessler.

In Colorado, where a similar state law passed despite wide criticism of civil rights abuses, there are reports on an effort in Denver to push back against a a local city-wide anti-immigrant  law that encourages police to impound vehicles of undocumented immigrants.

“Members of the city council here are considering eliminating a controversial vehicle impound law that has raised financial and constitutional questions,” Joseph Boven reports for the Colorado Independent. “It’s unconstitutional, for example, to require Denver police to judge whether someone driving in Denver without a license might be an illegal alien.”

Linking national concerns with local issues, the National Radio Project reports on a panel called “Race, Immigration and the Fight for an Open Internet,” which focused on how telecommunications corporations’ moves to restrict internet access could affect immigrant communities.

“Right now, telecommunications companies are pursuing a restrictive pay-for-play business model for online access that many say will only further the digital divide, discriminating between those who have Internet access and those who do not,” the news outlet notes.

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.

by Nezua, TMC MediaWire Blogger

The Latino/a community has had ample reason to hope that President Obama would take on immigration reform in a humane manner. While Obama is undeniably centrist in his political approach, and has long been fond of language stressing punitive solutions to the immigration issue, he certainly seems to understand that "America is changing and we can't be threatened by it." Enforcement policies are becoming a threat, not only to immigrants, but the country at large.

There's more...

In this great post on the Movement Vision Lab blog, grassroots activist Dan Horowitz Garcia argues that if there is a peace movement (and he doubts it...) it needs to change its tactics.  According to Dan, marches don't end wars --- and never have.

Dan Horowitz Garcia says that history repeats itself, and so do movements.

Contrary to many beliefs, the peace movement didn't end the war in Vietnam. Three things ended the war in Vietnam. They were, in order of importance, the Vietnamese, the tanking economy, and the resistance of U.S. soldiers. If I extended this list by 100 more items, I still wouldn't include marches on the U.S. capitol or attempts to raise the Pentagon. It is beyond doubt that popular resistance in the U.S. had success in restricting the scope of the war, but it didn't end it. If public opinion alone could stop a war, then the Iraq occupation would have ended back in November 2004 when public support dropped under 50%. Majority opinion may hold sway in a democracy, but not in the U.S.

Dan also details how marches against WWII in the United States didn't really stop that war, either.  So what makes us think they'll stop this one?

Instead, Dan says the anti-war movement has to stop being merely anti-war --- and offer a clear alternative instead.  Here, Dan argues for a peace movement that is challenging hegemony and violence much more broadly:

I believe we also have to expand the conversation from Iraq to the so-called war on terror. This is the elites' latest framework for empire, and we have to challenge it. The "peace movement" (it still doesn't feel right to say that) can learn a lot from organizers fighting the criminal justice system. The parallels between the rhetoric justifying the war on terror and the war on crime are plain to see, if you look at them. In the war on crime, bad people are coming into your neighborhood or even your house to do you harm. (These people just happen to have dark skin.) To keep you safe, we need to be tough on these criminals. We need more cops with more equipment (i.e. guns), and we need places where we can put the bad people far away from the good people. In the war on terror, bad people are coming to your country to do you harm. (These people also happen to have dark skin. Coincidence?) To keep you safe, we need to be tough on these terrorists. We need more troops with more equipment (i.e. big guns), and we need to kill the bad people in places far away from the good people.

In a comment on the blog, another community organizer Gabe Gonzalez talks about how his daughter is convinced there are monsters under the bed.  So he has to spend his energy convincing her otherwise.  In other words, even if progressives were to take up the agenda  that the "war on terror" and its ever-present threats are false, why should we have to convince the public?  Shoudn't we be forcing the Right wing hawk fear mongerers to prove their point?  

Otherwise, we're in the position of proving that the invisible threat doesn't exist.  Which is sort of like disproving monsters under the bed.  

We should be fighting the "war on terror" by making THEM defend it!

What do you think?

Sally Kohn is the Director of the Movement Vision Lab.

There's more...

George Will, quoting Adams acknowledges that "facts are stubborn things;" then he proceeds to explain why an increase of immigration control along the border is necessary. He engages in a 4-pt analysis: 1- and 2 are sovereignity and law breakdown=basically the same thing- my view is that the border ought be controlled but not by the use of fences and landmines-since border crossings represents 40% of the new immigrants, the the best way to achieve control is in-country.  Also-if you squeezed immigrants along the southern border-more will come from different ways. 3- His march analysis is surprisingly bereft of intellecual insight. Will states that the march indicates that the marchers believe in the welfare state, pretty remarkable, isn't? To be clear, the march was a reaction to a perceived aggravation (rightly or wrongly) against individuals advocating some of the laws presented- fundamentally-it was a freedom expression march-very American indeed-Will claims that the marches seek "exceptions to the law"-well yes, like many protest marches, the advocates were seeking redress to listed grievances,- I wonder if Will would have written this concerning MLK who also sought "exemption to the law." 4- On giving Americans a sense of calm-his column belies this advice as he acknowledges that illegal immigration is here to stay. This last point leads to his "security" first conclusion at the end of the column.  Advocates of the immigrants know that if you pass a bill enforcing border patrols and nothing else, no new laws will be passed in the future; witness the last twenty years- this is a sausage factory-one with the other or none at all-if you forced one without the other then let's no be surprised by the consequences. My suspicion is that George Will is coaching a political strategy hidden in a philosophical tract.  

There's more...