This week, it’s the 104th anniversary of Ellis Island’s one-day peak – the day when more immigrants were welcomed than any other in American history. On April 17, 1907, 11,747 immigrants became Americans – and that was just at Ellis Island.

Today, 104 years later, America is stuck in the mud with a broken immigration system. Americans want reform that unites families, promotes fair employment practices, and restores America’s place as a nation that welcomes those seeking freedom from persecution and a better way of life.

This week, Immigrants’ List — a bipartisan political action committee dedicated to electing pro-immigration lawmakers – unveiled the 2011 inductees into the Immigration Hall of Shame. In the Hall of Shame are California’s own, Reps. Ed Royce (#3) and Brian Bilbray (#6), who have earned places alongside the likes of Michele Bachmann and Steve King.

Hall of Shame – April 2011 Inductees

1. Rep. Steve King (R-IA) – A man who cites the Bible in his opposition to immigration reform, King favors an electrified wire border fence, arguing “we do that with livestock all the time.” King believes that undocumented immigrants can be detected from their clothing and “the type of grooming they might have,” and labeled the DREAM Act “amnesty.” Alarmingly, King vice chairs the House Immigration Subcommittee – the first stop for every immigration bill.

2. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) – According to Lamar Smith, the guaranteed 14th Amendment right to birthright citizenship is a “misinterpretation,” which Smith plans to remedy with a ban on that right that can “get five votes” on the Supreme Court. Such a posture would be troubling enough from any member of Congress, but coming from the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, it’s downright dangerous.

3. Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) – After calling for a national version of the Arizona SB 1070, Royce has announced new legislation to give local police Arizona-style powers over immigration. An active leader in the House’s leading anti-reform caucus, Royce supports forcing hospitals to gather information on possible undocumented immigrants, and opposes increasing visas for skilled workers.

4. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) – Always a lightning rod of controversy, Peter King has been in the headlines recently for scapegoating Muslim citizens. But we should remember that King has a long history of scapegoating and marginalizing all immigrants; he fought to ban the use of Spanish by government agencies and authored a bill to ban drivers’ licenses for undocumented workers because they are “potential terrorists.” King chairs the Homeland Security Committee, which has a major role in immigration reform legislation.

5. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) – The potential presidential candidate has a history of inflammatory statements which go along with her outlandish voting record. She’s spread the widely-debunked rumor that Phoenix is “the kidnap[ping] capital of the United States,” using that myth to justify her support for an armed presence on the border. She’s advocates Arizona SB 1070, and told Bill O’Reilly that all local law enforcement should be required to ask for proof of immigration status. Bachmann chairs the House Tea Party Caucus.

6. Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA) – Having built a career spreading fear about our broken border, Bilbray now helms the House’s anti-immigration reform caucus, where he’s leading the fight for an Arizona SB 1070-style bill. Discontent with mere anti-immigrant legislation, Bilbray has spread rumors that President Obama will issue amnesty by decree, and “the human smuggling, prostitution, murder and virtual enslavement of human beings” is happening because immigrants are “drawn to this nation by… taxpayer-funded jobs.”

7. Sen. John Boozman (R-AR) – While campaigning for Senate last year, Boozman wrote that “our schools, our hospitals and our jobs are being compromised by the influx of illegal immigrants.” His solution? Eliminating the Constitutional right to birthright citizenship, reducing overall legal immigration, and spreading rumors that President Obama “may grant amnesty through an Executive Order.”

8. Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC) – In word and deed, Shuler is eager to prove that obstructionism is bipartisan. The top Democrat in Congress’s largest anti-reform caucus, he worked with Tom Tancredo to author the SAVE Act, which would deport 12 million undocumented immigrants, was backed by NumbersUSA, and would’ve taken a large step towards militarizing America’s border.

9. Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI) – One of the leading proponents of the baseless rumor that the Obama administration is behind a “backdoor amnesty” program, Candice Miller chairs the Homeland Security Border Subcommittee. She co-sponsored the deportation-only SAVE Act, and won the support of Lou Dobbs for her fear-mongering that undocumented workers will gain political power due to the 2010 Census counting “persons,” not “citizens.”

10. Rep. Ben Quayle (R-AZ) – Heralded as a “true reformer” by the notoriously anti-immigration NumbersUSA, Ben Quayle exemplified the worst political impulses when it comes to immigration, exploiting fear and misinformation to ride into office. Quayle made election promises to reduce the overall number of immigrants allowed in America, erect a Pacific-to-the-Gulf electrified fence, and send the National Guard to patrol the border. These efforts may have won him the support of Chuck Norris, but here’s a fact for Chuck Norris and Ben Quayle: your scare tactics draw out the status quo – preventing meaningful reform, breaking up families, and putting America at risk.

Immigration is a fundamental part of America’s heritage and is essential to the growth and prosperity of our nation. That’s a fact. It’s central to our American character.

And it’s something these ten have forgotten.

View the Hall of Shame, share with friends, and sign-up for more information at our website.

The 1994 election was a turning point for California. Pete Wilson cruised to reelection and Republicans won 40 seats in the Assembly in a year friendly for Republicans around the country. But that election sowed the seeds of the Republicans’ downfall in California, turning the state deep blue and sending the Republican Party into a death spiral.

The reason was Proposition 187. Scapegoating immigrants for economic problems is one of the most common political phenomena in California history, as the Chinese, the Japanese, the Filipinos, the Okies, and Latinos can tell you. The 1990s saw an upswing in immigrant-bashing and in 1994 a group of Orange County Republicans put on the ballot this attack on the rights of the undocumented. Prop 187 would have denied schooling, medical care and other social services to undocumented immigrants and their families.

It passed by a large margin in November 1994, but was never implemented. Courts granted injunctions against its enforcement, and in early 1999 when Gray Davis became governor, the state’s appeals to uphold the initiative were dropped.

It was a pyrrhic victory for Republicans. The anti-Latino attitudes voiced by many Prop 187 supporters drove California Latinos into the arms of the Democratic Party. Voter registration soared, and many Latino immigrants became citizens to protect their rights at the ballot box. Since the 1996 election Republican fortunes have been in terminal decline in California, a party that has become a Zombie Death Cult more interested in purity fights than addressing California’s needs.

Of course, anti-immigrant sentiment never really went away after 1994. By 2003 it had returned and played a role in Davis’ recall, as the recession led to renewed immigrant-bashing and Arnold Schwarzenegger ran on the “driver’s licenses” issue. Still, Arnold had little appetite for actually pushing anti-immigrant legislation while governor, and somewhat surprisingly, the anti-immigrant movement never tried to go to the ballot to revive Prop 187 or otherwise target the undocumented.

Until now.

Right-wingers have in circulation an initiative to raise Prop 187 from the dead:

Requires applicants for state, local, and state-administered federal aid to verify lawful presence in United States. Requires applications for public benefits submitted by undocumented parents on behalf of their lawful-resident children to be given to federal authorities. Denies birth certificates to children born to undocumented parents unless mother provides fingerprint and other information to be given to federal authorities. Limits benefits for children in child-only CalWORKS cases to federal minimum. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: If upheld in the courts, unknown potential one-time and ongoing costs to state and local governments due to changes in the application process for public benefits as well as changes in the way birth certificates are issued. These costs would be partly offset by additional new fees for certain birth certificates. Unknown, but probably minor, state and local law enforcement costs due to provisions in the measure creating new crimes, such as for the filing of false affidavits to obtain public benefits. If upheld in the courts, state savings of over $1 billion annually from prohibiting child-only CalWORKs cases, partially offset by state and county costs for children who shifted to Foster Care or county general assistance programs. Further unknown savings from the provisions changing the application processes for public benefits. (09-0004.)

This is not just a revival of Prop 187, of course – it goes after CalWORKS as well, an effort to scale back the safety net couched in an attack on the children of the undocumented. This is an especially sick and unconscionable attack on Californians in a time of crisis, especially the deliberate targeting of children in order to cause them pain and suffering.

Obviously this is part of the Republicans’ 2010 election strategy. Despite the fact that earlier efforts in 2006 to ride anti-immigrant sentiment to victory failed spectacularly for Republicans, and despite the massive political price they paid after 1994 for backing Prop 187, they are at it again.

And although we’d like to think that Californians would reject this kind of horrific attack on our neighbors and community members, the wide margin of victory for Prop 187 in 1994, the passage of Prop 8 last fall, and the long history of immigrant scapegoating in California suggests to me that these have a very high chance of passage.

Progressives and Democrats will have to start organizing NOW to fight this, starting with a “do not sign” campaign.

And in a related move, George Runner has an initiative in circulation to mandate voters bring a photo ID to the polls. This maneuver has been used by Republicans to suppress the vote in several other states, including Georgia, and is of dubious constitutionality. I include it here because Runner is almost certainly going to sell this as a crackdown on the undocumented, who don’t have that kind of photo ID.

Republicans nationally and here in California appear determined to treat 2010 like 1994. Progressives and Democrats need to be ready to fight back.

Friends, there are some things that cannot go unchallenged. They are affronts to human dignity and to what it means to live in America.

Yesterday one of those things happened in Maricopa County, Arizona, the mega-county that contains Phoenix. In a move that smacks of the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo Bay and that harks back to the days of the chain gang in the South, the Sheriff of Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio, is clustering 200 undocumented inmates of the County Jail in their own special tent city. The tent city is surrounded by an electric fence, further bringing home the treatment of human being as chattel. The Phoenix New Times has a compelling story detailing yesterdays outrage.

We cannot let this stand. We are circulating a petition that asks Congressman John Conyers, the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, to hold hearings into this latest outrage and the long history of abuse carried out by Sheriff Arpaio.

What makes this move especially troubling is the Sheriff’s determination to expand his tent city to accommodate up to 2500 prisoners, an indication of the scope of his determination to continue his devastating policies of racial profiling, retaliatory arrests aimed at silencing critics, and forced family separation.

These actions are an affront to anyone who cares about human rights and are the logical outcome of a police state mentality that sees the only solution to our immigration challenge coming at the end of a gun.

Therefore, we at ACORN, through our Arizona ACORN members, are taking a stand against this action and the on-going immigration enforcement policies of the Sheriff that have resulted not just in this indefensible move, but in widespread human rights abuses of American citizens and our immigrant cousins.

We are following the lead of community leaders like AZ ACORN Board Member Alicia Russell who said, “This march is an extremely callous and inhumane move, aimed directly at degrading undocumented immigrants. In claiming to justify this action as a way to improve”budget savings”, Arpaio is degrading these immigrants, violating their civil rights, and overreaching his jurisdiction”, the entire Maricopa County town of Guadalupe, and Maricopa Citizens for Safety and Accountability (MCSA) who recently staged a “Death of Democracy” funeral procession protesting the Sheriff’s actions.

We are answering the call of local leaders like Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon who has demanded a federal probe into Arpaio’s recent crime sweeps in Hispanic neighborhoods using tactics that are tantamount to racial-profiling and reflect poorly on all Arizonans, regardless of their ethnic heritage. We are answering the call of Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, who said, “We treat people equally in America. I think it’s wrong.”

Even the conservative Goldwater Institute calls Apraio’s policies “ineffective” in a report released in December. “[He] has diverted resources away from basic law-enforcement functions to highly publicized immigration sweeps, which are ineffective in policing illegal immigration and in reducing crime generally[.]”

Help us take a stand by asking Rep. Conyers to lead an investigation into these tactics. America needs to stand for justice under the law, not the law of “just us”.

What would you do if your American dream had to be deferred? And how would you respond when you find out that your dream must be deferred because of nine digits? Yep, nine digits would be separating you from your plans, your hopes, your wishes, your future. Doesn’t that seem unfair?

Well, it is. It’s quite unfair for all the young people to work so hard to go to college, yet can’t access any financial aid because they are undocumented immigrants. And even if they can somehow make it through college, they can’t get a job because they don’t have those nine little digits. Even though they came here as children, and even though they only remember living here, they are punished for something they had no control over.

So what can be done about this injustice? Follow me after the flip for more…

A couple of days ago, I met this guy named Ricardo. He seemed like a nice guy, and like a typical young professional in Orange County who did everything he was supposed to do to succeed. Yet for some reason, he can’t.

Ricardo did everything he was supposed to do in high school. He excelled in his classes, and he went on to college. He now has a bachelor’s degree in molecular biology. He has a master’s in health policy. He wants to serve people in the medical profession. However, he can’t.

So why can’t Ricardo get a job? He doesn’t have those nine digits. His parents brought him here with them some nineteen years ago, and they all came here undocumented. He was only eight years old. He hardly even remembers Mexico. He’s spent the vast majority of his life in the US, and this nation is the nation he calls home.

Ricardo never sought to break the law. He doesn’t gang-bang. He doesn’t deal drugs. He’s not some “criminal alien”. He’s just a smart guy who did everything right and went to school and planned to do something good with his life. So why must he be “punished” for something that he had no control over.

Unfortunately, Ricardo had no opportunity to receive any financial aid. He started school before AB 540 became the law of the land in California in 2003. And since he didn’t have those nine digits, he had to struggle just to afford his college tuition.

But even now that he’s finished school, Ricardo still has to struggle. He can’t get a job. He still doesn’t have those nine digits. He’s at his wit’s end. Without the nine digits, all his dreams must be put on hold indefinitely.

So what can be done? Ricardo’s just one person who’s been unfairly “punished” because of his immigration status. These young people didn’t make a “choice to come here illegally”. They didn’t just decide to “break the law”. They came here as kids, yet they’re being punished like adult criminals. What can be done to fix this?

Obviously, AB 540 isn’t enough. This only helps immigrant students in California, and it only helps these students go to school. However, it doesn’t help them get jobs after school. That’s why we need the DREAM Act.

So what would the DREAM Act do? Basically, it would give a path to legalization for people who brought to the US undocumented as children by their parents. In order to qualify, they need proof of having arrived in the United States before reaching 16 years of age ,as well as proof of residence in the US for a least five consecutive years since their date of arrival. Oh yes, and they must have graduated from an American High School, or obtained a GED.  Oh, and they must also demonstrate “good moral character,” which is defined as the absence of a significant criminal record (or any drug charges whatsoever).

So what exactly would be done? Here’s a quick rundown from the Wiki entry:

Immigrants who meet the above requirements would be eligible to apply for a temporary six (6) year “conditional” residence permit which would allow them to live legally in the United States, obtain driver’s licenses, attend college as in-state residents, work legally (including obtaining a social security number), and apply for special travel documents which would allow for travel outside of the country for limited amounts of time.

During the six years of conditional status, the eligible immmigrant would be required to either (1) graduate from a two-year community college, (2) complete at least two years towards a 4-year degree, or (3) serve two years in the U.S. military. After the six year period, an immigrant who meets at least one of these three conditions would be eligible to apply for legal permanent resident (green card) status. During their temporary time, immigrants would not be eligible for federal higher education grants such as Pell grants, though they would be able to apply for student loans and work study.

There, now doesn’t that sound fair? Doesn’t this do justice for people like Ricardo who never sought to “break the law”, but just want a chance to do something good with their lives? Don’t they have a right to pursue their dreams? Oh yes, and shouldn’t they finally just have a chance to get those darn nine digits so that they can move on with their lives? Isn’t it only in the best interest of the greater society that they can be productive forces in our society?

So would you like to find out more about the stories of these immigrant students, the story behind the DREAM Act, and why we shouldn’t stereotype immigrants? If you’re in Orange County, you can watch a special play, “9ine Digits Away from My Dream”. You can hear more about Ricardo’s story, as well as stories from other immigrant students in Orange County who are struggling because of an unfair system. And yes, you can gain some more understanding, and find out what you can do to change this.

And no matter where you live, you can urge House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) to get the DREAM Act passed in the House. Isn’t it time that we stop deferring these young people’s dreams? Should we allow nine digits to get in the way of these people’s dreams of better lives?

(Nice to have the Senator here. Now go do as he says! – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Recently the Los Angeles Times ran an editorial, “For Citizens Only,” on the California Dream Act (SB 160) which misrepresented facts and promoted a policy position out of step with reality and mainstream opinion in California. 

Just one week after the LA Times declared their objection to increasing access to higher education for all Californians, the California Public Policy Institute (PPIC) issued a definitive analysis citing a critical gap in the number of college grads the state will produce.  PPIC warned that California will not meet the economic demand for highly skilled workers with current immigration and graduation rates; they recommended swift action on the state’s behalf to intervene. Additionally, a Field Poll in April 2007 noted that 83% of Californians support creating programs to legalize the status of undocumented immigrants indicating a far more open attitude toward immigrants than the LA Times expressed in their editorial.

The California Dream Act is an appropriate step to address our state’s workforce needs and is in alignment with voter sentiments toward immigrants. As the paper of note in California’s largest immigrant city, we expect more from the Los Angeles Times. 

Please help us express our dissatisfaction with the paper’s position and presentation of facts. It is critical that we set the record straight on SB 160 and make the paper aware of our concerns.

We are asking you to take three simple steps: 

–  Read our response to The Times editorial here:  “Let All Students Dream”  We are trying to earn a spot in the “Most Viewed” stories on the website, so be sure to use the link provided to view the response. 

–  Write a letter to the editor at The Times, expressing your concerns with their position or support for the bill 

–  Forward this to your network of friends, and ask them to do the same. 

As the focus on the topic of immigration intensifies in the coming weeks – both at the federal level and in our own state as the Legislature takes up our three immigrant related bills – we must not let misrepresentations or narrow perspectives cloud common consensus.

If you need additional information on SB 160 contact Eric Guerra (SAC) or Marvin Pineda (LA).  If you would like to help respond to the LA Times editorial or get the word out in support of SB 160 contact Christy Wolfe. 

Please take action today, and thank you for your support.