

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2281), calling for these laws to be rescinded.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2281), calling for these laws to be rescinded.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)
Environmental and public health advocates on Wednesday ripped the US Environmental Protection Agency's fifth approval of a "forever chemical" pesticide during the current term of President Donald Trump, who campaigned on a promise to "Make America Healthy Again."
Despite that pledge, Trump's second administration—much like his first—has served the pesticide industry in various ways, including by putting out a MAHA report that echoes industry talking points, installing a former industry lobbyist in a key EPA post, backing Bayer-owned Monsanto over cancer patients at the US Supreme Court, and issuing an executive order that mandates the production of glyphosate.
Under Trump, the EPA has also approved or reapproved various controversial pesticides, from atrazine and dicamba to trifludimoxazin, which was approved late Tuesday. Like diflufenican and epyrifenacil, which were authorized by the EPA earlier Tuesday, as well as cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram, which got a green light from the agency last November, trifludimoxazin is what some scientists and campaigners call a forever chemical pesticide.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—which have been used in not only pesticides but also fabrics, firefighting foam, nonstick cookware, and other household products—are widely known as forever chemicals because they don't break down naturally. They're also linked to a range of health issues, including various cancers.
"This is the PFAS presidency brought to you by Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin," Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, declared Wednesday.
As with his Tuesday critique of the Trump EPA approving diflufenican and epyrifenacil, Donley pointed to the Supreme Court's recent ruling in favor of Trump-backed Bayer, rather than the thousands of Americans who argue that Monsanto's glyphosate-based weedkiller Roundup caused their cancer.
"Waiting to open the floodgates on new pesticide approvals until after the Supreme Court granted immunity to pesticide companies takes a special kind of callousness," he said.
Bill Freese, science director at Center for Food Safety (CFS), similarly said Wednesday that "with yesterday's pesticide approvals, the Trump administration's EPA is once again showing its disdain for Americans' health and the natural world."
"The EPA's pesticide division is seemingly no longer able to recognize evidence that a pesticide causes cancer, even when it's the pesticide company's own studies that show it," he continued. "And as per usual, EPA dismisses out of hand incriminating independent studies by scientists not affiliated with the pesticide industry."
In addition to the PFAS pesticides, the EPA is under fire this week for approving new uses for chlormequat, a non-PFAS pesticide tied to reproductive issues, and the fungicide fluoxapiprolin.
CFS co-executive director Sylvia Wu pointed out that the agency dismissed studies showing that fluoxapiprolin and epyrifenacil both produce tumors in laboratory rodents and classified both as "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans."
"The EPA's illegitimate rejection of the evidence that these two pesticides cause cancer is very similar to the tricks it pulled in denying glyphosate could cause cancer," Wu said. "These blatant violations of the agency's own cancer guidelines are unacceptable."
As for chlormequat, Freese said that "EPA should never have approved this endocrine-disrupting pesticide, particularly since its persistence and potential for widespread use on wheat and other widely consumed grains will mean universal exposure."
Already, "chlormequat is found in the urine of 90% of Americans, thought to come mostly from residues on imported foods where the pesticide has been used," the Center for Biological Diversity noted Wednesday. Like Freese, the group warned that "approval of its use on US wheat and oats ensures that exposure to the US population will increase dramatically."
“USPS’ plan was unwise, unlawful, and a threat to the millions of voters who rely on mailed ballots to participate in our democracy," said one case litigant.
In a ruling hailed by democracy defenders, a federal court on Wednesday halted the US Postal Service's implementation of President Donald Trump's March executive order targeting mail-in ballots as part of his administration's broader attack on voting rights.
Judge Emmet Sullivan of the US District Court for the District of Columbia granted a request by the NAACP to enforce a 2021 settlement agreement requiring the USPS to protect mail-in voting and prioritize delivery of mail related to elections through 2028.
The request followed the Postal Service's publication last month of a proposed rule that would block the delivery of mail-in ballots to voters in states where election officials refused to provide certain information to USPS or use a specific envelope design. That proposal came after Trump's March executive order directing federal agencies to create a nationwide list of eligible voters using federal data.
The directive also requires the Postal Service to verify that mail-in ballots are sent and returned only by eligible voters, preserve election-related records for a longer period, and exercise heightened oversight of mailed ballots.
The Public Citizen Litigation Group and Legal Defense Fund (LDF) filed a motion on behalf of the NAACP asserting that the proposed rule "manifests USPS’ intent not to deliver certain mail-in ballots, establishing a process that directly violates its obligations under the agreement."
“The court today correctly recognized that USPS’ plan to create roadblocks to mail-in voting was inconsistent with its commitment to timely deliver election mail,” Public Citizen Litigation Group director Allison Zieve said in a statement following Sullivan's ruling. “USPS’ plan was unwise, unlawful, and a threat to the millions of voters who rely on mailed ballots to participate in our democracy.”
🚨BREAKING: In the latest blow to President Donald Trump’s anti-voting agenda, a federal court on Wednesday granted the NAACP’s request to halt the U.S. Postal Service’s (USPS) implementation of his executive order against mail voting. www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/...
[image or embed]
— Marc Elias (@marcelias.bsky.social) July 1, 2026 at 1:41 PM
LDF associate director-counsel Sam Spital said, “Today’s decision recognizes that USPS cannot disregard its legal obligation to timely deliver mail-in ballots to all voters."
"We are glad that the court blocked a blatant attempt to renege on this commitment through a proposed rule that ran the risk of undermining the fairness of our national elections, creating particular dangers for Black voters," Spital continued. "LDF will continue to defend our democracy and combat unlawful restrictions of the right to vote.”
Anthony P. Ashton, senior associate general counsel at the NAACP, called the decision "a critical step in protecting the rights of voters who rely on the timely delivery of mail-in ballots to participate in our democracy."
Ashton continued:
The proposed USPS changes would have created unnecessary and unlawful barriers, in direct violation of the USPS’ mandate to prioritize election mail. Those barriers could have disproportionately harmed Black voters, who are more likely to rely on mail voting due to long-standing inequities in access. Put simply, the use of mail-in voting helps reduce voter intimidation at the polls and election day dirty tricks. This decision makes clear that access to the ballot cannot be tied to arbitrary requirements. The NAACP will continue to hold this government accountable when it attempts to undermine fair and equal access to the electoral process.
Wednesday's order—from a judge who's been appointed to various positions by Republican and Democratic presidents throughout his career—is the latest in a string of federal court rulings against Trump's attacks on voting rights, crowned by Monday's Watson v. Republican National Committee US Supreme Court decision, in which the justices affirmed that states may count ballots received after Election Day if they were postmarked in time.
Last week, a federal judge in Massachusetts sided with Democratic state attorneys who challenged Trump's March 2025 executive order that requires Americans to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote, while another judge in the same district blocked parts of the president's March 2026 order, which included the USPS directive.
"The $1.1 trillion that governments are pouring into fossil fuel subsidies this year is not a safety net, it is a ransom payment."
With the US and Iranian governments engaged in 60 days of peace talks, the United Nations' latest projections about the illegal war's impact on fossil fuel subsidies this week triggered new demands for taxing the windfall profits of climate-wrecking Big Oil.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) on Monday released "Military Escalation in the Middle East: Cushioning the Global Shock," a report detailing how governments have navigated the "most severe oil supply shock in history," caused by Iran limiting traffic through the Strait of Hormuz in response to the Trump administration and Israel's unlawful assault.
As fossil fuel prices have soared worldwide, the report states, "governments have moved quickly to cushion households and firms from higher energy prices through fuel subsidies, tax cuts, price caps, strategic stock releases, emergency procurement, export restrictions, demand-management measures, and fuel switching."
"While energy subsidies had fallen by roughly half in 2024 as energy markets stabilized, the downward trajectory has sharply reversed," the document notes. "We estimate that global fossil fuel subsidies are currently on track to reach $1.1 trillion in 2026 and could reach as high as $1.43 trillion in a severe scenario where the average oil price reaches $110/barrel... This represents an estimated $410-$740 billion increase from 2025."
UNDP Administrator Alexander De Croo said in a statement that "the global spillover of the Middle East conflict is profound and potentially long-lasting. Developing countries, many already struggling with debt, have temporarily managed to protect people from the worst of the energy shock."
"These countries are doing everything they can, but there is a hidden cost," he stressed. "To deal with today's crisis, governments are postponing tomorrow's investments. Money that should be building schools, hospitals, and clean energy systems is being used simply to keep economies afloat. Without international support, these countries won’t escape the shock. They are absorbing it at the expense of future growth."
"No country should have to sacrifice its future development to manage a crisis it did not create," De Croo argued. "First, we must unlock multilateral liquidity in ways that are easy to access for low- and middle-income countries. Second, we must accelerate investment in renewable energy. Every clean energy investment reduces exposure to future shocks. The crisis has made one thing clear: Energy security and the energy transition are no longer separate agendas. They are one and the same."
In addition to reiterating calls for a just transition to clean energy, the advocacy group 350.org has repeatedly advocated for a windfall profits tax targeting oil and gas giants cashing in on the conflict in the Middle East. Executive director Anne Jellema pushed for such policies again on Wednesday, noting the new UNDP numbers.
"The $1.1 trillion that governments are pouring into fossil fuel subsidies this year is not a safety net, it is a ransom payment," Jellema declared. "Every dollar spent shielding the fossil fuel industry from the consequences of its own price volatility is a dollar not spent on the clean energy systems that can bring costs down for good."
"We need a phaseout to end public subsidies for fossil fuel companies, and a permanent windfall tax on fossil fuel profits," she continued. "Not a one-off levy, but a permanent, legislated mechanism that redirects the extraordinary profits of an industry driving this crisis into the just transition every country needs. That means affordable clean energy, retrofitted homes, and funding to protect people from the extreme weather unleashed by fossil pollution."
In the United States, where President Donald Trump's war has cost Americans tens of billions of dollars at the pump, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) reintroduced the Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act in March, just weeks into the war.
Backing the bill, Food & Water Watch managing director of policy and litigation Mitch Jones said at the time that "historical evidence could not be any clearer: Big Oil will undoubtedly leverage the current crisis in the Middle East to maximize profit margins, pinching American families and enriching their executives and Wall Street speculators."
"This demands a policy response—namely, a windfall profits tax... which would recover much of these egregious, opportunistic gains and return them to everyday Americans," Jones added. "Fossil fuel companies must be held accountable for the profiteering they are orchestrating as we speak."