

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Luis Fernandez, Ph.D., luis.fernandez@nau.edu, 928-523-5673
Randall Amster, J.D.,
Ph.D., ramster@prescott.edu,
928-350-2238
A working group comprised of representatives from over a
dozen leading professional and academic associations has issued
a joint statement condemning Arizona's immigration law (SB 1070) and related
state policies such as the prohibition against Ethnic Studies programs (HB
2281), calling for these laws to be rescinded.
A working group comprised of representatives from over a
dozen leading professional and academic associations has issued
a joint statement condemning Arizona's immigration law (SB 1070) and related
state policies such as the prohibition against Ethnic Studies programs (HB
2281), calling for these laws to be rescinded. We, the Consortium of Professional and Academic Associations, believe that
these laws are inherently unjust, and that their application threatens to inflame
anti-immigrant sentiments and undermine constructive solutions to the
challenges faced by communities in Arizona
and across the nation. We call upon the governor, legislators, and people of Arizona
to work diligently and swiftly to repeal these laws.
Our organizations include members from fields including
sociology, criminology, political science, peace studies, psychology, anthropology,
environmental studies, Chicano/a studies, and a multitude of related areas of
study. Our collective membership numbers more than 10,000 scholars, educators,
and activists, with many residing in Arizona.
The decision to join together in issuing the open letter below represents an
unprecedented and historical moment of collaboration. As academics and
professionals concerned about social and environmental justice, human rights,
and due process, we add our collective voices to those of many others from
across the country calling for the immediate rescission SB 1070 (and, as
amended, HB 2162) and HB 2281 in the name of equity, compassion, integrity, constitutionality,
and sound public policy.
Signatories to the joint statement include representatives
from the following professional organizations and academic associations, all of
which have issued individual statements or
otherwise indicated their opposition to and condemnation of SB 1070 and related
policies (additional signatories may be added to this growing list as organizations
finalize their support):
American Studies Association (ASA)
Chicano/Latino Faculty and Staff Association, ASU (CLFSA)
Justice Studies Association (JSA)
Mujeres Activas en Letras y Cambio Social (MALCS)
National Association for Chicano and Chicana Studies (NACCS)
Native American and Indigenous Studies Association (NAISA)
Peace and Justice Studies Association
(PJSA)
Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR)
Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP)
Sociologists Without Borders (Sociologos Sin Fronteras)
(SSF)
A press conference
featuring delegates from these organizations will be held on Wednesday, May 19,
2010, at 1PM on the Senate Lawn at the Arizona State Capitol. Representatives
will each issue short statements, and then be
available for questions and follow-up discussion. Confirmed participants and
representatives at the press conference include:
Randall Amster, J.D.,
Ph.D., Executive Director, PJSA
Paul Espinosa, Ph.D., President, CLFSA
Luis Fernandez, Ph.D.,
Board Member, SSSP
Zoe Hammer, Ph.D., Program
Committee Member, ASA
Manuel de Jesus Hernandez G., Ph.D., Former National Chair,
NACCS
Marie Keta Miranda, Ph.D., Chair, MALCS
Devon Pena, Ph.D., President, NACCS
Michelle Tellez, Ph.D., Board Member, NACCS
Finally, by way of background and context, the following member
organizations have issued specific statements
condemning SB 1070, which can be found at these online locations:
SSSP: https://www.sssp1.org/file/Brewer%20Final%20Ltr%20-%20Arizona%20SB%201070.pdf
PJSA: https://www.peacejusticestudies.org/resources/blogcomments.php?qwerty=79
NACCS: https://www.naccs.org/images/naccs/ltrs/SB_1070.pdf
MALCS: https://malcs.net/blog/?p=335
and https://malcs.net/blog/?p=349
SSF: https://www.petitiononline.com/ssfbyctt/petition.html
PsySR: https://www.psysr.org/about/programs/wellbeing/immigrationreform.php
NAISA: https://naisa.org/node/189
==================================================
May 17, 2010
To Governor Brewer, the State Legislature, and the People of Arizona:
We wish to express our deep concern with and unequivocal
condemnation of Senate Bill 1070, which you signed into law on April 23, 2010. By making it a state crime to be in Arizona without federal
authorization, and also making it a punishable offense to support someone
without the appropriate documents, SB 1070 criminalizes countless decent human
beings who live, work, pay taxes, and raise their families in Arizona. In addition,
the enforcement of such a constitutionally problematic law threatens everyone's
civil rights in the process, and undermines the potential for fostering an environment
based on peace and social justice. We unanimously denounce this law and strenuously
urge that you rescind it in the name of compassion and human dignity.
We are all non-partisan professional organizations of scholars,
educators, and practitioners, with thousands of members from across the country
and abroad, committed to and knowledgeable about a wide range of social justice
and environmental issues. We count among our members numerous scholars and other
professionals who are among the most knowledgeable in the country on the
subjects of immigration, including undocumented immigration, and our legal and
political systems. While immigration reform in the United States may be overdue, we also know that using this to justify state
laws that usurp federal authority over immigration will create many more legal
and social problems than it resolves.
Moreover, we note that the combined effect of SB 1070 with the
prohibition on Ethnic Studies contained in HB 2281 creates an atmosphere of legislated
intolerance and racialized politicking that is simply untenable, unwise, and
unjust. Indeed, the simple fact that SB 1070 had to be amended, under pressure
following its passage, by HB 2162 (which sought to qualify the conditions for
officer contact) demonstrates quite clearly the inherently flawed and
potentially racist implications of this piece of legislation. We note here as
well that the purported "remedy" of requiring a "stop" before officers can
inquire further about legal status based a "reasonable suspicion" is equally
expansive in its application, and thus equally problematic. These alterations,
again adopted in haste following public pressure, will not provide sufficient
protection against racial profiling.
Police officers are not immigration officers. Putting them in the
position of enforcing federal immigration law will destroy the trust between
police officers and communities so essential for effective law enforcement. It
will also lead to unwarranted and prolonged detention of citizens and legal
residents, increasing the likelihood of civil rights litigation against police
departments, cities, and towns, and potentially damaging family units across
the state. Despite language ostensibly prohibiting racial profiling, this will
be the de facto reality of the law's
implementation. Physical appearance, particularly being of Hispanic background,
will unavoidably remain the primary factor determining whether someone is or is
not asked to prove her or his citizenship or residency status. For all these
reasons, many law enforcement leaders across the country, as well as in Arizona, oppose this
law. It would be wise to heed the objections of the law enforcement officers
who are now faced with enforcing this unjust law.
For some, the stated intent of SB 1070 unequivocally is to cleanse
Arizona of its undocumented immigrants and their families, among them children
and other relatives born in the United States, as evidenced by the fact that
legislative supporters of this law have repeatedly and proudly described this
as part of a strategy to make life so unbearable for undocumented residents and
their families that they will leave the state. Any law whose goal and effect is
to drive an ethnic population to leave its place of residence is a crime
against humanity under current international law. The law will also have the
effect of separating cohesive family units, leading to increased
marginalization and immiseration among communities already facing grave
challenges. In this manner, SB 1070 risks making Arizona a pariah state
on the national and international stages.
Furthermore, whatever the intent, at minimum this law will create
a climate of fear so intense as to make low-wage workers even more vulnerable
and therefore much easier to exploit by unscrupulous employers. Denying
immigrant workers protections or otherwise making them more vulnerable does not
stop them from coming. Rather, it simply drives them further underground and
makes them more exploitable. Finally, the climate of fear and hostility that
this law will create is antithetical to the aims of promoting a more just and
peaceful world. By institutionalizing chauvinism and magnifying differences of
race and ethnicity, SB 1070 promises to enlarge the gulf between diverse
communities and pit groups against one another, rather than encouraging people
to work together to find mutually-beneficial solutions to challenging issues. Ironically, and sadly, the
net effect of SB 1070 will be precisely what is sought to be prohibited under
HB 2281, namely that it will in practice and principle serve to "promote
resentment toward a certain ethnic group."
Opposition to this law has been rapid and strong, and is likely to
become even stronger, as more and more groups and individuals boycott the state
of Arizona and businesses based in Arizona. We are aware as well of the ostensible
support in the state for the law, and therefore recognize the political
pressures that have led you to pass this law. But widespread support for a law
does not make it just; not long ago the majority of southerners supported
segregation laws. As Martin
Luther King, Jr. wrote in his landmark essay Letter from a Birmingham Jail, following the teachings of St. Augustine: "'An unjust law is no law at all.'... Any
law that degrades human personality is unjust." It is especially in instances such as these
that strong moral leadership is needed, and we are appealing to the governor,
state legislators, and all concerned Arizonans to provide it. Please choose to
be on the right side of history and work to overturn this patently unjust law.
We thank you for your time and attention in this important matter.
Sincerely,
The Consortium of Professional and Academic Associations,
including the following:
American Studies
Association (ASA)
Chicano/Latino
Faculty and Staff Association, ASU (CLFSA)
Justice Studies
Association (JSA)
Mujeres Activas en
Letras y Cambio Social (MALCS)
National
Association for Chicano and Chicana Studies (NACCS)
Native American and
Indigenous Studies Association (NAISA)
Peace
and Justice Studies Association (PJSA)
Psychologists for
Social Responsibility (PsySR)
Society for the
Study of Social Problems (SSSP)
Sociologists
Without Borders (Sociologos Sin Fronteras) (SSF)
“I have lost my faith in the integrity of how we do our work and our commitment to principled reporting on the facts and application of the law,” said resigning staffer Omar Shakir.
Two Human Rights Watch employees—the group's entire Israel-Palestine team—resigned after senior staffers blocked a report calling Israel's denial of Palestinian refugees' right of return to their homeland a crime against humanity.
Jewish Currents' Alex Kane reported Tuesday that HRW Israel-Palestine team lead Omar Shakir and assistant researcher Milena Ansari are stepping down over leadership's decision to nix the report, which was scheduled for release on December 4. Shakir wrote in his resignation email that one senior HRW leader informed him that calling Israel's denial of Palestinian right of return would be seen as a call to “demographically extinguish the Jewishness of the Israeli state.”
“I have lost my faith in the integrity of how we do our work and our commitment to principled reporting on the facts and application of the law,” Shakir—who is also member of Jewish Currents' advisory board—wrote in his resignation letter. “As such, I am no longer able to represent or work for Human Rights Watch.”
In an interview published Tuesday by Drop Site News, Shakir—who was deported from Israel in 2019 over his advocacy of Palestinian rights—said: “I’ve given every bit of myself to the work for a decade. I’ve defended the work in very, very difficult circumstances... The refugees I interviewed deserve to know why their stories aren’t being told."
Ansari said that "whatever justification" HRW leadership "had for pausing the report is not based on the law or facts."
The resignations underscored tensions among HRW staffers over how to navigate a potential political minefield while conducting legal analysis and reporting of Israeli policies and practices in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories.
As Kane reported:
The resignations have roiled one of the most prominent human rights groups in the world just as HRW’s new executive director, Philippe Bolopion, begins his tenure. In a statement, HRW said that the report “raised complex and consequential issues. In our review process, we concluded that aspects of the research and the factual basis for our legal conclusions needed to be strengthened to meet Human Rights Watch’s high standards.” They said that “the publication of the report was paused pending further analysis and research,” and that the process was “ongoing.”
Kenneth Roth, a longtime former HRW executive director, defended the group's decision to block the report, asserting on social media that Bolopion "was right to suspend a report using a novel and unsupported legal theory to contend that denying the right to return to a locale is a crime against humanity."
However, Shakir countered that HRW "found in 2023 denial of a return to amount to a crime against humanity in Chagos."
"This is based on [International Criminal Court] precedent," he added. "Other reports echoed the analysis. Are you calling on HRW to retract a report for its first time ever, or it just different rules for Palestine?"
Polis Project founder Suchitra Vijayan said on X Tuesday that "the decision by Human Rights Watch’s leadership to pull a report on the right of return for Palestinian refugees, after it had cleared internal review, legal sign-off, and publication preparation, demands public reckoning."
"This was not a draft in dispute and the explanation offered so far evades the central issue of 'institutional independence' in the face of political pressure," added Vijayan, who is also a professor at Columbia and New York universities. "Why was the report stopped, and what does this decision signals for the future of its work and credibility on Palestine?"
Offering "solidarity to Omar and Milena" on social media, Medical Aid for Palestinians director of advocacy and campaigns Rohan Talbot said that "Palestinian rights are yet again exceptionalized, their suffering trivialized, and their pursuit of justice forestalled by people who care more about reputation and expediency than law and justice."
Sarah Leah Whitson, HRW's former Middle East and North Africa director and currently executive director at Democracy for the Arab World Now, told Drop Site News on Tuesday that “We have once again run into Human Rights Watch’s systemic ‘Israel Exception,’ with work critical of Israel subjected to exceptional review and arbitrary processes that no other country work faces."
The modern state of Israel was established in 1948 largely through a more than decadelong campaign of terrorism against both the British occupiers of Palestine and Palestinian Arabs and the ethnic cleansing of the latter. More than 750,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homeland, sometimes via massacres or the threat thereof, in what Arabs call the Nakba, or catastrophe.
More than 400 Palestinian villages were destroyed or abandoned, and their denizens—some of whom still hold the keys to their stolen homes—have yet to return. Today, they and their descendants number more than 7 million, all of whom have been denied the right of return affirmed in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194.
Many Palestinians and experts around the world argue that the Nakba never ended—a position that has gained attention over the past 28 months, as Israel has faced mounting allegations of genocide for a war that's left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing in the coastal strip and around 2 million people forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened.
Bolopion told Kane Tuesday that the controversy over the blocked report is “a genuine and good-faith disagreement among colleagues on complex legal and advocacy questions."
“HRW remains committed to the right of return for all Palestinians, as has been our policy for many years," he added.
As some Democrats suggest compromising in order to reform the agency, Rep. Rashida Tlaib said that “ICE was built on violence and is terrorizing neighborhoods. It will not change.”
President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed a bill to end a brief government shutdown after the US House of Representatives narrowly passed the $1.2 trillion funding package.
While the bill keeps most of the federal government funded until the end of September, lawmakers sidestepped the question of funding for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which Democrats have vowed to block absent reforms to rein in its lawless behavior after the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis and a rash of other attacks on civil rights.
The bill, which passed on Tuesday by a vote of 217-214, extends funding for ICE's parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for just two weeks, setting up a battle in the coming weeks on which the party remains split.
While most Democrats voted against Tuesday's measure, 21 joined the bulk of Republicans to drag it just over the line, despite calls from progressive activists and groups, such as MoveOn, which Axios said peppered lawmakers with letters urging them to use every bit of "leverage" they can to force drastic changes at the agency.
House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who voted for the bill, acknowledged that it was "a leverage tool that people are giving up," but said funding for the rest of the government took precedence.
The real fight is expected to take place over the next 10 days, with DHS funding set to run out on February 14.
ICE will be funded regardless of whether a new round of DHS funding passes, since Republicans already passed $170 billion in DHS funding in last year's One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Democrats in both the House and Senate have laid out lists of reforms they say Republicans must acquiesce to if they want any additional funding for ICE, including requirements that agents nationwide wear body cameras, get judicial warrants for arrests, and adhere to a code of conduct similar to those for state and local law enforcement.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair emerita of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who voted against Tuesday's bill reiterated that in order to pass longterm DHS funding, "there must be due process, a requirement for judicial warrants and bond hearings; every agent must not only have a bodycam but also be required to use it, take off their masks, and, in cases of misconduct, undergo immediate, independent investigations."
Some critics have pointed out that ICE agents already routinely violate court orders and constitutional requirements, raising questions about whether new laws would even be enforceable.
A memo issued last week, telling agents they do not need to obtain judicial warrants to enter homes, has been described as a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. Despite this, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said on Tuesday that Republicans will not even consider negotiating the warrant requirement, calling it "unworkable."
"We cannot trust this DHS, which has already received an unprecedented funding spike for ICE, to operate within the bounds of our Constitution or our laws," Jayapal said. "And for that reason, we cannot continue to fund them without significant and enforceable guardrails."
According to recent polls, the vast majority of Democratic voters want to go beyond reforms and push to abolish ICE outright. In the wake of ICE's reign of terror in Minneapolis, it's a position that nearly half the country now holds, with more people saying they want the agency to be done away with than saying they want it preserved.
"The American people are begging us to stop sending their tax dollars to execute people in the streets, abduct 5-year-olds, and separate families," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who gathered with other progressive lawmakers in the cold outside DHS headquarters on Tuesday. "ICE was built on violence and is terrorizing neighborhoods. It will not change... No one should vote to send another cent to DHS."
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who comes from the Minnesota Somali community targeted by Trump's operation there, agreed: "This rogue agency should not receive a single penny. It should be abolished and prosecuted."
"Feel like this isn't gonna work out well," one legal expert said in response to the leaked DOJ plan.
The US Department of Justice is reportedly setting up a new program that would create a team of prosecutors who can parachute into different areas throughout the country to bring charges against protesters who have allegedly assaulted or obstructed law enforcement officers.
As reported by Bloomberg on Tuesday, a Department of Justice (DOJ) memo mandates that US attorney's offices designate some of their staff members to serve on "emergency jump teams" that can surge into areas on short notice to prosecute cases.
"A senior official instructed leaders of the nation's 93 US attorney’s offices... that they have until February 6 to designate one or two assistant US attorneys," reported Bloomberg, "who’d be available for short-term surges in unspecified areas needing 'urgent assistance due to emergent or critical situations.'"
The effort to create "jump teams" of lawyers comes as the US Attorney's Office in Minnesota has been hit with a wave of resignations in the wake of the federal government's surge of federal immigration enforcement agents into the state.
According to a Monday report from the Minnesota Star Tribune, 14 lawyers at the Minnesota US Attorney's Office have either already resigned or announced their intention to resign in just the last month, an unprecedented number of departures in such a short period of time.
Bloomberg writes that the "jump team" plan "signals the Trump administration’s attempt to offset career prosecutor attrition... with a nationwide pool of reinforcements on standby."
The plan was potentially telegraphed by White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on Saturday, when he put out a call on social media for more attorneys to come work for the Trump administration.
"If you want to combat fraud, crime and illegal immigration, reach out," Miller wrote. "Patriots needed."
Attorney Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, speculated on Sunday that Miller's call reflected "real internal problems" at the DOJ, and he predicted that one solution the administration could try would be to create a mobile legal strike force much like the one outlined in the leaked DOJ memo.
However, White argued that this approach would be far from a magic bullet to solve the administration's staffing woes.
"The impediments will be these: They will get dregs who will do a bad job," White wrote. "Federal prosecution is not rocket science but federal judges do have notably higher standards than state judges and if you MAGA your way around federal court you will get your ass handed to you."
Jonathan Booth, a law professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, also predicted that the administration's strike force plan would run into some major speed bumps.
"Imagine, you're a federal prosecutor in San Diego," he wrote in a social media post. "It's sunny, warm, you have a whole set of important cases. Then suddenly 'we need you to go to Buffalo and prosecute extremely weak misdemeanor cases.' Feel like this isn't gonna work out well."