Matilde Polanco (left), of Phoenix, kisses Linda Angeline, of Phoenix, after Judge Susan Bolton's ruling on SB 1070 at the State Capitol on Wednesday July 28, 2010.

PHOENIX – On Wednesday July 28, hundreds of people gathered outside the State Capitol for their 102nd day. They called it the “Gran Vigilia” or “Great Vigil,” and prayed that SB 1070, the controversial law concerning undocumented immigrants, would not go into effect Thursday July 29.

Within a few hours, some of their prayers were answered.

A federal judge issued an injunction blocking the harshest aspects of SB 1070 until the court makes a final decision on a lawsuit brought by the federal government against the State of Arizona. As of now, living as an undocumented immigrant in the state is still not a crime.

At the vigil, the relieved group prayed in a mass to give thanks for the news. But several people admitted the fight is far from over. They pointed out that law enforcement in Arizona has persecuted undocumented immigrants for years.

Despite the judge’s ruling, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has promised a large-scale operation to capture undocumented immigrants through traffic violations and bring them to his “tent city.”

Since SB 1070 was signed by Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, hundreds of families have left the state.

But the majority have stayed put.

“We weren’t willing to jump this ship until we heard from the judge,” said Jaqueline Siensen, 38. “This was wrong all along, we come here to work, we are not criminals. And we feel we are a part of the economy of Arizona.”

Salvador Soza, an undocumented immigrant said he felt relief after hearing about the injunction. “Now I’m going to be able to drive freely,” said the 32-year-old immigrant.

The immigrant community rejoices after Judge Susan Bolton's ruling on SB 1070 at the State Capitol in Phoenix on Wednesday July 28, 2010.

Attorney Stephen Montoya, who represented a police officer in one of the pending lawsuits challenging SB 1070, stopped short of calling it a victory, but rather an opportunity to bring peace over an issue that has created division and tension in the community.

“It’s a significant decision politically, but legally, honestly it ought not to be a significant decision,” said Montoya. “I think the judge simply enforced the law that has existed in the United States decade after decade. The United States Supreme Court has always said that the federal government was in charge of immigration law.”

Other opponents of SB 1070 were skeptical as well.

“It means that we have a temporary breather,” said Salvador Reza, an organizer from the PUENTE Movement.

One of the law’s provisions U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton left in effect allows local police to charge day-laborers (who are often picked up for a day’s work off the street) for impeding traffic.

“It’s just the beginning of the fight, we will continue with our civil disobedience,” said Reza.

The activists argue that immigrants are still in a very vulnerable position in Arizona, a place with several strict laws affecting immigrant communities, and infamous figures like Sheriff Arpaio who will continue to conduct raids.

Andrew Thomas, a co-author of SB 1070 and former Maricopa County Attorney lamented that the judge’s decision “cut the heart of the law.” He promised the ruling would be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court if need be.

But Thomas celebrated that parts of SB 1070 will go into effect–in particular the provisions affecting day-laborers.

“We can sue police departments for not enforcing it,” he said.

(Photo: waynewhuang/flickr)

Fi2W’s Valeria Fernandez was a guest today on PRI’s The World, speaking about the reaction to the injunction on SB 1070 in Arizona.

[Visit post to listen to audio]

Immigrants in Arizona can breathe a little easier–for now.

Less than 24 hours before SB 1070, the controversial new law making it a state crime to be an undocumented immigrant in the state was scheduled to go into effect, U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton largely granted the U.S. government’s request for an injunction, and blocked the harshest provisions of the law.

In Phoenix, undocumented immigrants and their families had been nervously considering fleeing the state in the months since SB 1070 was signed by Governor Jan Brewer.

During three hearings Judge Bolton had directed pointed and difficult questions to lawyers for both the Department of Justice and the State of Arizona.  After considering the arguments, she ruled the federal government was likely to win in enough areas that an injunction was merited. In her decision, the judge concluded that the U.S. was likely to suffer irreparable harm and that stopping the law was in the public interest.

The judge did not enjoin SB 1070 in its entirety–she went through the law section by section and provision by provision, approving some and rejecting others. She didn’t halt the part of SB 1070 that makes it a misdemeanor to harbor or transport undocumented immigrants, for example. But the areas many opponents of the law were most vocal about, notably the requirement for local and state police to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws; for immigrants to carry papers at all times; and making it a crime for undocumented immigrants to apply for work in public places, were put on hold.

As for the part of SB 1070 that would allow officers to arrest a person without a warrant if they had probable cause to believe that the person had entered the U.S. illegally, the judge wrote:

“By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.”

Judge Bolton’s ruling is not the end of the battle. There are currently 7 lawsuits challenging SB 1070 making their way through the legal system. The court is likely to make a final decision on the federal case soon, but either way it is likely to be appealed. Some experts predict the case will crawl all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

We’ll have more reaction to the ruling tomorrow.

Amparo De Paredes (center) with two girls whose mothers were arrested in immigration raids. (Photo: Valeria Fernandez)

Arizona’s new law requiring local and state police to arrest suspected undocumented immigrants is scheduled to go into effect tomorrow, unless federal judge Susan R. Bolton rules otherwise.

Undocumented immigrants and their families in Arizona are living in limbo, and immigrants all over the nation are watching closely. ImpreMedia, one of the largest Spanish language news outlets in the U.S., launched a multimedia package this week focused on SB 1070 in an effort to clarify how the law will impact the Hispanic community. Visit Impre’s new site here.

Fi2W’s Valeria Fernandez has been following the situation in Arizona closely. The following article, written by Fernandez, appeared in the July 25 edition of La Opinión. Translation by Elena Shore of New America Media.

PHOENIX – Amparo De Paredes fills a giant bucket with bottles of water as a bunch of girls run around the house, playing with two adopted puppies.

They aren’t her daughters, but these days it feels like they are her own, especially since their mothers were arrested by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department in two raids on the Sizzler’s restaurant chain on June 12.

“I don’t have kids, but it touches my heart to see what is happening,” says Amparo, a 52-year-old Guatemalan immigrant.

As hundreds of immigrant families leave the state before the implementation of the new law, SB 1070, which makes it a state crime to be undocumented, those who stay are living in uncertainty.

“This is going to happen, whether or not the law goes into effect. There is going to be more crime. I can’t call the police; if I call the police, I’m the one that’s going to lose out, not the robber,” says Omar González, the father of four of the girls, and a native of Retalhuleu, Guatemala.

Blanca, his wife, wanted to stay until the last minute, to wait until July 29, the date the new immigration law goes into effect. Otherwise, the plan was to move to Los Angeles. They were afraid of being arrested in the street, but they never thought she would be arrested in the middle of a workday at the restaurant where she’s worked for 10 years.

Omar Gonzalez with his daughter. Her mother was arrested in a recent immigration raid at the Sizzler's restaurant chain - Photo: Valeria Fernandez

“It’s useless. It’s stupid what they’re doing, because they are not protecting the city by kicking hardworking people out of their jobs,” says Gonzalez, 40. “They would be protecting the country if they caught the people who sell drugs in the streets.”

Gonzalez blames the Obama administration for what is happening in Arizona.

“How many years has this black man been president, and there have been more deportations than under Bush. What is he doing? Nothing. When passing immigration reform was important. No, he threw himself into passing health care reform.”

Amparo’s house has become a neighborhood meeting place, and this afternoon dozens of people are arriving on foot for a meeting of the PUENTE movement, where they will be educated about their civil rights.

“How many people here are illegal?” asks Alma Mendoza, a Mexican immigrant who leads the neighborhood groups in the area.

Some raise their hands shyly.

“How many are immigrants?” she asks. Others respond. Mendoza says to them, “We are not illegal. We are not undocumented. We are human beings.”

Mendoza reminds the guests that on July 29, they are calling for everyone not to go to work or buy anything. The PUENTE movement already has several vigils and acts of civil disobedience planned if the judge allows the law to go into effect.

Meanwhile, Amparo and her husband, José de Jesus, pass around bottles of water for their guests under Arizona’s scorching afternoon sun.

“We want to unite to get rid of the police. A lot of people are afraid,” says Amparo. A few months ago a new Phoenix police station opened near the church and the park. But instead of providing security, it is making people afraid because of the new law.

Omar complains that in the last few months, the same police officer has arrested him three times, and impounded his car each time.

The neighborhood meetings help people not to feel helpless. People from all parts of the country have come to visit them to help.

But for Omar, it is a double-edged sword.

“The more united we are, the better. But at the same time, the more united we are, the more we are making ourselves known to the law,” says the Guatemalan.

Young girls in Arizona whose mothers were arrested in immigration raids. (Photo: Valeria Fernandez)

After the federal government and a coalition of civil rights groups presented arguments to overturn parts of the law, everyone was betting that Judge Susan Bolton would impose a moratorium, at least on some aspects of SB 1070.

But with or without the law, the persecution of undocumented immigrants in Arizona can continue at the hands of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has said he is planning to conduct a raid on July 29. The controversial sheriff, who is under investigation for the use of racial profiling in his operations, also opened a special outdoor section in his so-called “Tent City,” where he will jail the undocumented immigrants he arrests.

“This law hasn’t even gone into effect yet and the community is already devastated,” says Luis Fernández, a member of the Repeal Coalition. For nearly a year and a half, the group has organized immigrant communities at the neighborhood level. It also visits family members in detention, connects them with lawyers, and accompanies them to court.

“Unfortunately, there is a huge need. What we are doing is a drop of water in the ocean,” he says. “The atmosphere is extremely polarized in Arizona and it is already expanding nationwide. I suppose that what we’re experiencing here is going to be felt elsewhere, especially in November [during the elections].”

(Photo: -Kenzie-/flickr)

The second in a two-part series.

NEW YORK – The last few years have seen an increase in Poles entering the U.S. illegally from Canada. This comes at a time when a growing number of undocumented Polish immigrants are leaving the U.S.  The faltering U.S. economy and Poland’s recent membership in the European Union – which allows Poles to works legally in many European countries – has enticed them to try their luck on the other side of the Atlantic.

The rise in illegal entries from Canada can be traced back to March 2008 when Canada lifted visa requirements for travelers from Poland.   Some see it as an opportunity to try to work their way into the U.S. yet one more time.  Many are desperate to return despite the weak economy and strong anti-immigrant sentiment, said people familiar with the issue.

Most of those who decide to cross from Canada have been denied a U.S. visa or were previously deported from the U.S. Many still have family and friends on the American side, others have property and belongings left behind after they were deported.

For Jarek (not his real name) the main reason to risk an illegal crossing was work. “I’m coming from a poor region of Poland where salaries are extremely low. I don’t even know how people survive being paid that little,” he said,.

Jarek previously lived in the U.S. for several years after overstaying his visa. All that time he kept sending money to his wife and children who stayed in Poland. “Back then, even though I was undocumented, I had a very good job in construction. I was able to make really good money and my boss valued my work. But after a few years I couldn’t stand being so far away from my family any longer. I was depressed, so I went back to Poland. It was my own choice to get a one way ticket.”

Jarek lived in Poland for 2 years. During that time he considered immigrating to another European Union country. “But I didn’t have any connections there. While in the U.S, after so many years there, I knew that if I come back I’ll have a job the next day.” Last summer he decided to try to return.

His decision was not unique.  “Poles have been crossing the Canadian border illegally for many years but the “traffic” definitely intensified since Canada lifted visa requirements for Poland, making it easy for its citizens to enter the country,” said Jerzy Sokol, an immigration attorney who serves Poles in the New York area.

“Another factor that makes Poles choose the Canadian border is intensified security over the Mexican border,” Sokol added.  In recent months Sokol has been working with a couple of clients who were caught by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents in upstate New York.

It’s impossible to determine the exact numbers of Poles crossing the border.  But consul Piotr Janicki of the legal section at the Polish Consulate General in New York claims it’s “a seasonal phenomenon.”

“People usually don’t cross in winter. They don’t want to struggle through Canadian forests in the snow. In summer it’s much easier.”  Janicki said he had noticed the problem in the summer of 2008 and since then it has recurred every year.

“In the summer months I start receiving notifications from Border Patrol about the arrests of Polish citizens, usually a few every month. Then in winter it’s quiet.”  In June this year he received 4 such notifications.

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol statistics obtained by Feet In Two Worlds confirmed that the number of Poles apprehended while crossing the northern border has recently increased.  In the first half of this year the Border Patrol stopped 50 Poles along the northern border, most of them in New York, New Hampshire and Vermont. In 2008 there were 63 such cases. For comparison, in 2007, before Canada’s decision to waive visas for Poles, 31 Poles were apprehended, in 2006, the number was 37.

Some Poles, use accurate maps try to cross by themselves. Others enlist the help of organized groups. “It seems to me that some people living along the border turn smuggling into their way of living,” said Jarek who didn’t have any trouble finding people who offered to take him across the border. He claims some groups were run by Poles, others by Russians, Canadians as well as Native Americans.

“Some people cross on foot, others decide to go by boats. Some allegedly look for shallows in the Saint Lawrence River and try to cross there,” he said.  He and his “guide” crossed on foot. A car was waiting for him at a previously arranged location on the American side.

According to people familiar with the issue, smugglers charge anywhere between $2,000 and $5,000, depending on whether they are simply helping people cross the border or delivering them somewhere to be picked up by family members or friends. There is no guarantee of success.  The car Jarek was riding in was soon stopped on the New York State Thruway.

“Once they realized I had no papers, I was immediately taken into custody,” Jarek recalls.

“Border Patrol agents can stop anybody that they see in between the ports of entry. They also monitor areas that have direct egress from the border as well as anything that has a nexus to the border, like transportation hubs, bus and train stations,” said Steven Cribby, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security. “Agents have authority throughout the country so there is no limit on where they can and can’t be.”

Jarek paid the smugglers $4 000. But he claims it cost him much more, and the real price did not come out of his wallet. “It was so much stress and humiliation. The uncertainty of what’s going to happen with me was the worst. Being in jail is an awful experience, too.  I would advise anybody who considers doing it not to.”

According to Jerzy Sokol, getting caught in the Northern District of New York may result in more than deportation proceedings. “It happens that the district attorney there also charges people for illegal entry with criminal charges. This is rarely practiced in other states. As a consequence, they have to pay a fine and are sent to jail where they usually spend at least 20 to 30 days. Only then they are being transferred back to Immigration.”

Jarek was detained for almost 5 months. Eventually his friends managed to post bail. Since then he has been living in New York. “My deportation case is on. I’m just waiting to see what’s going to happen. In the meantime I work in construction trying to send as much money home as possible.”

This article is based on a story Ewa Kern-Jedrychowska originally wrote for Nowy Dziennik/Polish Daily News.

(Photo: waynewhuang/flickr)

The first in a two-part series.

“Light on one and heavy on the other” is more than a bartender passing judgment on two brands of beer.

The statement defines the U.S. government’s border control policy: Sporadic fencing along the Canadian border; a tough set of rules, a high fence and 1,200 National Guard troops (by August 1) along the Mexican border. The double standard is not lost on some Latinos, who are left to wonder whether the policy has become too personal: “Why Mexico and not Canada?”

The answer is fairly easy to discern, but somewhat difficult for some immigrants to digest.

While the U.S., Canada and Mexico belong to the trading triumvirate called NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), immigration is not one of the perks of the treaty. Mexicans fall in line for a visa and wait months to have it approved, just like any foreigner seeking to enter the U.S.  Those with means enter as tourists or students, and those who cannot enter legally try the backdoor.

Meanwhile, an entirely different set of rules applies to Canada, America’s largest trading partner.  As a “low risk” country, it has a cozy, visa-free arrangement with the U.S. The average Canadian citizen can show up at a port of entry with nothing but a valid passport, an ID card (usually a driver’s license), and a border crossing card. The need for a visa is waived for a limited time period, except for Canadian minors, fiancées and traders.

“NAFTA does not include immigration,” Cesar Romero, press attaché of the Mexican Consulate in New York, told FI2W. If the Canadians appear to enjoy preferential treatment, he said it’s not because of NAFTA. “It’s something else,” he said, and stopped there.

The 5,525-mile U.S.-Canadian border was practically non-existent for decades as the two countries enjoyed an “open and trusting relationship,” according to a study by the International Boundary Commission. Many towns shared libraries and opera houses, with neighbors able to walk across each other’s yard to cross the border without having to flash a passport or ID.

The post-9/11 era

But with the specter of 9/11 hanging dark and heavy over the U.S., Washington began a review of the northern border. What they found out were occasional incidents of drug and firearms smuggling, human trafficking, random violence, and unsuccessful terror attempts using the Canadian border.

To be fair, the Mexican border with almost 2,000 miles of concrete walls, mountain ranges, rivers and rickety fences winding from California to Texas, did not initially have an unsavory reputation. The aftermath of the U.S.-Mexican war of 1848 led to the annexation of other border states after Texas. Lots of jobs were available then, and Mexicans found work in American factories and farms, and in construction. By 2007, there were 29.2 million Hispanics of Mexican origin in the U.S., according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. The Pew Hispanic Center said that of the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants, more than half (55 percent) may be Mexican.

Drug and human smuggling along the Mexican border intensified over the years, straining the resources – as well as the friendship – of both countries. The U.S. has been pressuring Mexico to do more to contain narcotics smuggling and prosecute corrupt officials. Mexico insists trafficking wouldn’t flourish if the U.S. wasn’t such a profitable market for drugs. The U.S. estimates the business to be worth anywhere from $13.6 billion to $48.4 billion annually.

Frustrated by the lack of action from Washington, some Americans have taken up the Second Amendment option to arm themselves, fearful that crime would spill into their backyards. In response, Arizona passed a law making immigration – which is traditionally a federal concern — a matter for the local police. Under SB 1070, which takes effect July 29, cops will have the authority to question anyone they suspect is illegally in the country. Polls show many Americans support the law, which immigrant advocates fear may promote racial profiling.

“Yes, the cartel violence we are seeing in Mexico is not taking place in Canada, but there is human and drug smuggling that must be addressed,” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in a 2009 speech before the Border Trade Alliance International Conference.

“We cannot pretend that there are no borders even though we have close, close relationships with Canada and with Mexico.”

She reported more than a million illegal persons have been arrested at the border in 2008, and 2.7 million pounds of narcotics were seized, making the control of illegal immigration “a priority.”

Queens College Professor of Sociology Andrew Beveridge, who tracks immigration trends, is aware of the double standard, but does not believe there is discrimination.

“I doubt that,” he said, noting that Americans value Mexico’s “hardworking immigrants.” He also said the Mexican population continues to increase.

While the approach to protecting the country’s northern and southern boundaries “will not be the same,” Homeland Security said policy will remain sensitive to the differences between Mexico and Canada – a policy that balances the time-honored tradition of friendship against the emerging threats.

Tomorrow, Ewa Kern-Jedrychowska of Nowy Dziennik/Polish Daily News reports on Polish immigrants who enter the U.S. illegally from Canada.

Gerardo, an undocumented immigrant, earns money by selling used machine parts. (Photo by Valeria Fernandez)

Listen to Valeria Fernandez’s story about Irene and Gerardo this week on NPR’s Latino USA.

[Visit post to listen to audio]

PHOENIX – In these days of continually breaking news from Arizona it’s hard to stop for a minute — take it all in — and listen. But that was my assignment. Listen.

Seems fitting for a radio piece.  Yet, sometimes our expectations of what a story should be tend to get in the way.

Since the passage of SB 1070, a new law that makes it a state crime to be an undocumented immigrant, I find myself pulled in many directions. One day I’m sitting inside a courtroom trying to wrap my mind around legal arguments on the law. The next second, I’m in the street putting my microphone between two people who are yelling at each other.

It’s usually more of a shouting-match than a conversation. When something is so personal I know it can be hard to even want to concede that the other person may have a point. And it gets even worse when language barriers stand in the way.

Arizona is divided on SB 1070.  But viewpoints are not black and white.  If there is agreement on anything it’s that everyone is frustrated.

That’s what I found when I spent some time interviewing Irene Littleton a resident of the town of Casa Grande and Gerardo and undocumented immigrant from Mexico.

There’s another thing that unites people who are divided by their views on the new law.  It is fear. Some fear for their security, their retirement, their homes. They want the police to do more to protect them and they feel the protection will come by giving the authorities immigration powers.

Immigrants are so fearful that they are worried if there’s a police station near the park or the church in their neighborhood because if they get stopped, their trip may end up on the other side of the border. Their entire life in the U.S, the life they built for years, is at stake.

I met Irene outside the Arizona State Capitol. We were both very early for a Tea Party event. She was under a gazebo seeking shelter from the heat and wearing a T-shirt with an American flag on it.

I have a heavy Uruguayan accent.  When I do interviews about immigration issues in English with supporters of SB 1070, my accent sometimes puts people off.  It also inevitably leads to questions about my nationality and whether I entered the country illegally.

I’ve gotten used to it, but at times it has made it difficult to establish trust with people who assume I write only in Spanish and feel they haven’t been portrayed fairly by the Spanish-language press.

Irene didn’t focus on my accent. She was mostly interested in having a conversation.  She told me she lived in Casa Grande, Arizona about 60 miles from Phoenix, and that she was afraid for her safety because the town was a known corridor for human smuggling.

She moved from New Hampshire two years ago, fulfilling a dream to live in Arizona, the Grand Canyon state. But things didn’t turn out as she expected.  She hasn’t been able to find a new job in IT and her home was broken into last August.

She doesn’t know who did it. She can’t blame undocumented immigrants.  But it adds to her concerns as she hears in the news about a deputy being shot by alleged smugglers in her area. On top of that, the federal government is putting signs near her town warning that it’s a dangerous smuggling corridor.

Because of all these things, Irene feels she needs to live her life differently -put in a security system and be watchful, even though media reports say that crime is down in Arizona.

When SB 1070 passed it gave her a new sense of security.  And it’s not because she fears immigrants that work on landscaping or thinks that they are all coming here to commit crimes. She believes the new law, scheduled to take effect on July 29, will send a message to the federal government that it needs to secure the U.S. – Mexico border.

There are other things that concern Irene. She is bothered by the fact that at the grocery story she seems to be surrounded by people speaking Spanish who she can’t understand.

Irene is a first-generation Italian who loves her culture and grew up in a home where Italian was spoken. She’s upset that many immigrants come to the U.S. and don’t seem to learn the language.

Gerardo, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico, would beg to differ with Irene on many points. I met him about two years ago, and I know he has been trying for quite a while to come to terms with whether to stay in Arizona.  SB 1070 seemed to be the tipping point for him.

I learned he had decided to go to Canada and gave him a call. He was packed and ready to go. Two weeks later, when I called him again, Gerardo had changed his mind.

His children convinced him that it was better for the family to stay together rather than risk moving from Arizona and being caught by immigration authorities.

He speaks fairly good English, but for this story I interviewed him in Spanish because he felt that way he could express himself better –from the heart.

He understands why some people like Irene are afraid of illegal immigration. He believes it’s because of the way the media has portrayed people like him, and the way Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has put out a message saying immigrants smuggle drugs across the border, that there are beheadings in the desert.

Of course, he says, they are afraid. But he feels workers like him, who have been here for over a decade, are being shortchanged and thrown into the mix with criminals.

He wonders why all the focus is on smugglers and drug dealers. What about the reality of people that are working day to day at golf courses, hotels, restaurants, landscaping and constructions sites?

It hurts him to see the looks on people’s faces when he takes his family to a store and they speak Spanish among themselves. One part of him believes this is no place to raise a family. He also believes there’s more to Arizona’s SB 1070 than security concerns.  He calls it “racism.”

Gerardo and his family have applied to remain in the U.S. legally. But his greatest frustration is that it may take years for the application to be approved.

The more I spoke with Gerardo and Irene, the more they seemed to be in agreement over one thing: the country needs to change the way it deals with immigration.

They both say that it would be good if people already here could become part of a process in which they are given a document to stay.  Irene goes as far as saying, “until they can become a citizen.”

They both agree good people should be allowed to stay in the U.S. even if they entered illegally.

Irene said she didn’t want people to be uprooted and displaced by SB 1070. Gerardo said that’s what will happen, they may have to “run when the witch hunt begins.”

Gerardo and Irene will probably never meet. If they did, it probably would be while standing on different sides of the street, perhaps holding signs in support of or against the new law.  If they ever struck up a conversation they would surprise each other over how much they have in common.

But that only can happen if they do one thing. Listen.

]]> http://news.feetintwoworlds.org/2010/07/23/listening-to-both-sides-in-arizonas-immigration-debate/feed/ 2 http://news.feetintwoworlds.org/2010/07/22/clash-of-the-newspaper-titans/ http://news.feetintwoworlds.org/2010/07/22/clash-of-the-newspaper-titans/#comments Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:02:39 +0000 John Rudolph http://news.feetintwoworlds.org/?p=15570

Vicky Peláez

If the recent Russian spy case wasn’t enough to take you back in time (to the Cold War, to be precise),  then the war of words that erupted this week between two daily newspapers should do the trick.  In an episode reminiscent of the legendary 19th century newspaper battles that pitted William Randolph Hearst against Joseph Pulitzer, the Wall Street Journal this week attacked El Diario/La Prensa.  The Spanish-language daily responded with a vigorous defense that included a harsh critique of the Journal‘s journalistic methods.

The controversy began with an editorial in the Journal that calls on El Diario to apologize to its readers for its association with Vicky Peláez, a long-time El Diario columnist who, along with her husband, was arrested and deported as part of the Russian spy case.  The Journal characterizes Peláez, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Peru, as someone who “certainly seemed to hate the America that took her in.”

Peláez was known for her extreme leftist views.  But the Journal claims she was more than a reporter with strong opinions:

Peláez published regular anti-U.S. diatribes and routinely praised Castro, and the paper adopted her politics in its news coverage. Sometime in the late 1990s Peláez was made Latin American desk editor. Her work, as well as that of former El Diario editor-in-chief Gerson Borrero, was reprinted in Granma, Cuba’s state newspaper. Justo Sánchez, who was once the paper’s editor for arts and culture, described her articles as “poorly disguised agit-prop.” Mr. Sánchez adds that it was common knowledge around the newsroom that the Cuban government paid for Peláez’s trip to the island in 2006.

El Diario then published an editorial of its own, accusing the Journal of trying “to tarnish” the Spanish-language paper’s “97-year reputation.”  El Diario (a media partner of Feet in Two Worlds),  claims that the Journal “relies on unsubstantiated charges, such as ‘the Cuban government paid for Pelaez’ trip to the island in 2006,’ which is blatantly false.”

The editorial goes on to further question the Journal‘s methods: “We are surprised that so many of the statements in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal ran without the appropriate verification.”

The El Diario editorial acknowledges that the Peláez case poses challenges for the paper, and it lays out a plan to address them: “in the interest of transparency, we are assembling an independent academic commission to review our editorial practices. We know that maintaining trust is at the essence of what we do.”

The exchange between the two papers is notable for many reasons, not the least of which is that it’s unusual for a media giant like the Journal to pay attention to a smaller ethnic media outlet like El Diario.  Spanish-language and English-language media in the U.S. typically operate in separate universes.

The Wall Street Journal is known for its conservative editorial page.  It’s not surprising that they would harshly criticize Peláez. The Journal also recently launched a Greater New York section, designed to make the paper more competitive in the New York market.  Newspaper industry observers have said that the new section is intended to lure New York Times readers, and weaken a major competitor to the Journal.  This week’s editorial may suggest that the Journal also wants to attract disaffected Hispanic newspaper readers.

If that’s the case, El Diario‘s response shows that the Spanish-language paper won’t let its readers go without a fight.

Belly dancer. (Photo: tanakawho/flickrcc)

If you want to make a living as a belly dancer, Detroit is the place to be.  Martina Guzman,  a reporter with FI2W and WDET in Detroit,  explains why in a piece that airs this week on PRI’s Studio 360.

Listen here.

This week’s Latino USA from NPR features Kidnap Radio a documentary by Annie Correal, a reporter for FI2W and El Diario.  Click here to listen to this moving story about an episode from Annie’s childhood.

A still from Arigona Zogaj's video, in which she pleads for asylum. (Photo: Alex Barth)

VIENNA -– After eight years struggling for asylum, 18-year-old Arigona Zogaj has been ordered by Austria’s highest court to leave her adoptive home in Austria and return to Kosovo, the country she barely knows.

The Zogaj family has been the focus of international media attention since 2007 when, facing deportation, then- 15-year-old Arigona ran away from home and sent numerous letters and a video broadcast threatening to commit suicide if her family was not allowed to stay in Austria.

The young girl’s plight has since been part of a public debate and has garnered the sympathy of many Austrians, some of whom came together at Vienna’s Ballhausplatz square on July 1 under the slogan “Enough is Enough” to protest the country’s increasingly restrictive asylum laws and the last in a series of court decisions that call for the Zogaj family’s deportation.

The thousands of protesters were joined by several prominent public figures, including the Nobel Prize in Literature recipient Elfriede Jelinek who sent an audio message of support.

Anna Babka, a member of Austria’s Green Party who has campaigned for the Zogajes to stay in the country, called the Constitutional Court of Austria’s decision “inhumane.”

“They have nothing there (in Kosovo), and here they are very well integrated,” she said.

In her first emotional appeal to the public in 2007, Arigona spoke in perfect German, an indication of her successful integration in a country where command of the language is often promoted by the government as a measure of both the willingness and the ability of migrants to become a part of the society.

Advocates for the Zogaj family have emphasized their integration into the social fabric of the Austrian town in which they live. Arigona successfully finished her mandatory education and has been going to a school to prepare her for university studies.  Many of Arigona’s supporters feared that the court’s ruling of “immediate departure” would mean that she and two of her siblings would not be able to stay in Austria to finish their school year, but the family was allowed several weeks to settle its affairs.

Sign that translates as "No Human is Illegal" at a protest in solidarity with the Zogaj family. (Photo: Jelena Kopanja)

Arigona’s father brought his wife Nurie and their five children to Austria from Kosovo in 2002 even though his original application for asylum had been denied.  The family was ordered to leave in 2007, and Arigona’s father and siblings returned to Kosovo.  Arigona evaded the expulsion and went into hiding, soon after sending out her desperate plea that mobilized the support of the public and much of the media.  Her mother was allowed to stay in the country and look for Arigona who, it turned out, was being harbored by a local priest. Mother and daughter were granted a permission to stay in Austria until Arigona’s school year was over.

In 2008, Arigona’s father abandoned the family in Kosovo. In an act of desperation upon hearing the news, Arigona’s mother tried to commit suicide.  Both Nurie and Arigona were diagnosed as suffering from emotional distress, a condition that prolonged their stay in Austria where they could receive adequate health assistance.  In 2009, the four Zogaj children attempted to reenter Austria through Hungary, succeeding on their second attempt. Since then, the two eldest brothers have voluntarily gone back to Kosovo, while Arigona, her mom and her two younger siblings remain in Austria.

Austria’s asylum laws, considered to be among the toughest in Europe, have become even more restrictive and convoluted in the past few years, “bordering arbitrary,” as the major newspaper Der Standard reported. The latest changes that took effect in January 2010 add five new grounds for the detention of asylum seekers facing deportation. Earlier this year, the Interior Minister Maria Fekter suggested an additional mandatory detention of all asylum-seekers– for up to 28 days while their applications are reviewed.

Fekter has often linked migrants and asylum seekers to security concerns, reinforcing a criminal image that both local NGOs and international human rights bodies like UNHCR have criticized.

Woman wearing a "We are Arigona" shirt in solidarity with the Zogaj family's quest for asylum. (Photo: Jelena Kopanja)

Some say that Arigona’s case is an opportunity for the conservative People’s Party (OEVP) Minister Fekter to prove herself as a hardliner when it comes to immigration, one of the most prominent and contentious issues on the country’s political agenda. The right wing has been unwavering in their opposition to the family’s stay and has welcomed the court’s decision, saying the Zogajes should have left a long time ago. Even the left-leaning Social Democratic Party’s (SPOE) response has been weak, according to Stefan Etzelstorfer, a member of Socialist Youth Austria.

The Green Party, on the other hand, has been consistent in its support for the Zogajes and has turned in 10,000 signatures to Austria’s president Heinz Fischer , who, while hoping for a humanitarian solution, said that the court’s decision must be respected.

Minister Fekter urged the family to leave voluntarily, warning that a forced deportation would mean that they could not return to Austria for the next 18 months.

The Zogajes are getting ready to go, and are spending their last days in the country saying goodbye to friends and suppoters.  Arigona’s school said that they would gladly accept her, should she return in the fall.

Once in Kosovo, some of the family members could apply for one of the limited number of seasonal worker visas that would allow them employment in several specific sectors such as agriculture or construction.  Arigona could also seek a student permit, a visa that had been denied to her siblings in the past.  While the Interior Minister Fekter suggested at one point that she could marry an Austrian citizen, this is not an option for the 18-year-old Arigona as she would need to be 21 in order to do that.

The family could also take their case to the European Court of Human Rights in what is likely to be a lengthy procedure that must be initiated outside of the country.

Etzelstorfer, who knows Arigona personally, says he will not give up.

“We will try to force the discussion in public and to support Arigona if she wants to come back,” he said.

Redesign of Arizona Flag by Andrew Huff/Flickr

With the country’s harshest immigration law scheduled to take effect in just two weeks and a lawsuit filed by the Obama administration that attempts to block the law–Arizona is at the epicenter of America’s battle over immigration.

90DAYSTOPHOENIX.com is a new independent media project sifting through the truth and lies clouding the immigration debate. Journalists, photographers, filmmakers and citizens contribute on-the-ground accounts of SB 1070 developments, and provide an inside look at this unfolding historic moment in Arizona. Fi2W’s Valeria Fernandez is one of the creators of the project.

On April 23, 2010 Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into law which gives Arizona authority over the federal government in the enforcement of immigration laws.  The Arizona measure requires each police officer who stops, detains, or arrests people for violating even the most minor city ordinance to ask for immigration papers if they have “reasonable suspicions” that the people are unauthorized immigrants.

In the heightened atmosphere of an election year, proponents argue that SB 1070 will keep Arizona safe while critics argue that SB 1070 will encourage racial profiling of American citizens, and funnel police resources away from fighting real crime. Multiple lawsuits have been filed on constitutional grounds that seek to stop SB 1070 from going into effect on July 29, 2010 — 90 days after the Arizona legislature session ended.

Read more at 90DAYSTOPHOENIX.com

March for Immigration Reform. (Photo: Fibonacci Blue/Flickr)

In the weekend after the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona for pre-empting federal immigration policy, political leaders were all over the national media talking about the issue. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Caucus Immigration Task Force and chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Immigration Task Force, sparred on ABC’s “This Week.” with Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.), chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus,   Pushing his own immigration reform proposal, Rep. Gutierrez said the country needs to think beyond just enforcing the border. He made the point that 40% of undocumented immigrants didn’t smuggle themselves across the U.S,-Mexico border–they came here on legal visas and overstayed them. But Rep. Bilbray countered with, “why can’t we give enforcement a chance?”

ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper brought up the fact that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer told a lie when she said that the majority of border-crossers are drug smugglers. Rep. Bilbray admitted that statement was incorrect, but was sympathetic to Brewer’s “perception” of immigrants as criminals, saying it was true of many residents of the southwest. (OK…so he’s saying that “perception” is an excuse for public officials to misconstrue reality?)

Over at CNN, White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod said the president was fully committed to immigration reform, despite being an issue that “lends itself to demagoguery” and it being a tough election year. He said the American people are looking to the federal government to take action, but that requires the buy-in of the Republican party.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder riled up people all over again by telling the public on CBS’s Face The Nation that it’s possible Arizona will see a second lawsuit concerning SB 1070, if it turns out police are using racial profiling in its enforcement. The current lawsuit is over the issue of “pre-emption” of federal jurisdiction over immigration.

The lawsuit is making many politicians on both sides of the aisle uncomfortable. In an important election year, Democrats are worried that the thorny issue will hurt their chances of being reelected. The New York Times reports that at the annual National Governors Association meeting, Democratic governors were bemoaning the fact that immigration has taken precedence over the economy. (Of course, as the President said in his speech, the two go hand in hand.)

“I might have chosen both a different tack and a different time,” said Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, a Democrat who was facing a tough fight for re-election and pulled out of the race earlier this year. “This is an issue that divides us politically, and I’m hopeful that their strategy doesn’t do that in a way that makes it more difficult for candidates to get elected, particularly in the West.”

The state leaders would prefer to gloss over the issue of immigration until they are firmly in their seats. But many local urban leaders, who tend to both reap the benefits and bear the cost of immigrants, say the nation can’t wait. Last month the U.S. Conference of Mayors issued a resolution supporting comprehensive federal reform that “preempts any state actions to assert authority over federal immigration law” and calls for federal money to be channeled to states and localities that “disproportionately [shoulder] the costs of the current broken immigration system.”

It might be making politicians squirm in their seats, but immigration seems to be edging towards a breaking point.

Dream Act Protesters Mohamed, Lizbeth, Tania and Yahaira in Tucson, Ariz. (Photo: Valeria Fernandez)

Prying open the door of citizenship for young, undocumented students in the country through no fault of their own is the goal of the Congressional proposal known as the DREAM Act.  But it seems the youth will have to jump through many hoops to get past the threshold.

A study released July 8, by the Migration Policy Institute, a think tank in Washington DC, estimates that though there are currently more than 2.1 million potential beneficiaries of the legislation, only 38%, or 825,000 people, would actually obtain permanent legal status through the DREAM Act’s education and military routes.

“Many potential DREAM Act beneficiaries would face difficulties in meeting the legislation’s higher education or military service requirements because of hardship paying for college tuition, competing work and family time demands and low educational attainment and English proficiency,” said Margie McHugh, who is co-director of MPI’s National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy.

According to the study, entitled “DREAM vs. Reality: An Analysis of Potential DREAM Act Beneficiaries,” only about 726,000 undocumented immigrant youths would be “immediately eligible” for conditional legal status, and could apply for permanent status after a six year wait. Of that number (assuming they have maintained “good moral character”) roughly 114,000 are shoe-ins because they already hold an associate’s degree. The act would also allow an estimated 934,000 children under 18 to age into conditional status eligibility in the future.

But the remaining 489,000 young undocumented adults between 18 and 34 years old who currently have neither a high school diploma nor a GED will face tough challenges.  To get conditional status, they’ll have to meet those educational requirements, plus go to college or enter the military for two years. About 19 percent of this group would need English language instruction in order to do it.

“They are not eligible at this time, but they can try under the provisions of the new law,” said McHugh in a conference call with reporters.

Study co-author Jeanne Batalova said this group faces the “most arduous path” to legal status.

Poverty is another hurdle. Half of potential beneficiaries eligible for conditional status come from families with lower than a $40,000 median annual family income. The others are from families with even lower financial resources. The average cost of two years of post-secondary college will be beyond the means of many, and the study reminds readers that the DREAM Act “explicitly bars beneficiaries from accessing Pell Grants, the main federal grant program for higher education that provides support to low-income students.”

Authors say that in addition to financial barriers, poverty negatively impacts a student’s “ability to concentrate, learn academic content and perform in and graduate from school.”

The study also released the following findings:

56 percent of potential DREAM Act beneficiaries are male;

62 percent of potential beneficiaries are from Mexico;

Among young adults, more women (52 percent) than men have at least an associate’s degree;

1.6 million (75 percent) of potential beneficiaries live in 10 states, led by California (26 percent), Texas (12 percent), Florida(9 percent), New York (7 percent) and Arizona (5 percent). The others are Illinois, New Jersey, Georgia, North Carolina and Colorado.

To qualify under DREAM Act legislation, the youngsters must satisfy some basic requirements – to have been under 16 when they arrived in the U.S.; to have been living in the U.S. for at least five years; to have obtained a high school diploma or equivalent; and to be under 35 when the law is enacted. With continuous good behavior over a period of six years, they can apply to elevate their conditional status into a permanent status. The study makes clear that “all must satisfy the good moral character requirement.”

The DREAM Act – formerly known as the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act – has a good chance for passing Congress if filed as a “standalone bill in a piecemeal legislation,” Muzaffar Chishti, director of the MPI office at the NYU School of Law, told the conference call. He said the DREAM Act has a legislative history dating back to 2001 and has consistently passed both the Senate and the House. The latest version is a bill filed in 2009 by Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.). It enjoys “huge support” from Congress and major universities and colleges, he said.

MPI said the DREAM Act may be up for discussion by the Senate later this month.

Vicky Pelaez is still behind bars. (Photo: moonflowerdragon/flickr)

This story is based on a translation of  an article written by FI2W’s Annie Correal that appeared in El Diario on July 6.

YONKERS, NY–While most people celebrated a summer weekend at the beach and watched fireworks, the family of Vicky Peláez, a journalist accused of working as a secret agent for the Russian government, prepared for her possible return home. They were under the impression that Peláez could go free on bail and house arrest on Tuesday.

Peláez was arrested by the FBI, along with her husband Juan Lázaro, on Sunday June 27, as part of an operation that revealed the alleged existence of a network of Russian agents living under false identities across the country. All in all, eleven people were arrested by the authorities.

Peláez and Lázaro are charged with failing to register as agents of a foreign government and for money laundering. Last Thursday, prosecutors said that upon his arrest, Lázaro admitted that his name was false and declared his loyalty to Russia.

The same day, U.S. District Judge Ronald Ellis set Peláez’s bail at $250,000, with a $10,000 cash bond.

But on Tuesday, federal prosecutors announced their intention to appeal Ellis’ decision, and on Wednesday, instead of a bail hearing, Judge Kimba Wood signed the U.S. Attorney’s request for a stay, leaving Peláez in custody at least until her next hearing, scheduled for Friday.

On Sunday July 4, the couple’s oldest son, Waldo Mariscal, 38, said the family would probably have enough to pay the $10,000 cash bond, but will need to raise funds from the public in order to pay lawyers’ fees. “Anyone who wants to contribute to the fund … We are not rich people, we are middle class people,” Marshall told reporters stationed outside the family home.

Mariscal went shopping and returned to the house at 17 Clifton Avenue at 5:30 pm loaded with grocery bags. While he seemed angry with reporters, he said he was doing all right.  Mariscal criticized the coverage of the case in El Diario. He maintains the innocence of his mother and stepfather and has said that his stepfather’s statements were made under pressure.

The couple’s younger son, Juan Lázaro Jr., 17, was staying with a family friend.

On a quiet Sunday in Yonkers, Peláez’s home presented a relatively normal suburban scene: a two story brick house surrounded by trees with the curtains drawn. The couple’s two cars were parked outside, and their dogs, two Schnauzers, barked in the yard.

In Peláez’s car, a black VW Bug, there was an artificial red rose and a card with a prayer. In Lázaro’s car, a 1991 Mitsubishi Montero, the same prayer card hung from the mirror. A piece of cake had been left on a plate between the seats. In the trunk there was an umbrella and a map of Westchester.

Despite appearances, a neighbor who was walking her dog said that normalcy had vanished from her suburb, which is predominantly Jewish. “It’s been crazy around here,” said the woman, who declined to give her name. “This was unexpected. It’s been difficult for this neighborhood in every sense,” she said. She would not say if she knew Peláez.

“This is a peaceful area, nobody knows anybody. I feel like a regular American,” noted another neighbor, Vitali Alaverdian, a retired doctor originally from Russia. Asked about the allegations, he said, “I can’t even think about it. It may be true, maybe not. If true, it is a shock,” he said, and then left to work in his garden.

Rumors are afoot that American and Russian authorities are considering a “spy swap,” in which the 10 defendants in the case would return to Russia. But the New York Times reports that according to Peláez’s lawyer she doesn’t want to go.

Ms. Pelaez’s lawyer, John M. Rodriguez, said the Russian official who called him asked “whether my client was interested in going to Russia.” Ms. Pelaez, a veteran columnist for El Diario La Prensa, a newspaper in New York, was the only one of the 11 suspects who was not a trained agent. Mr. Rodriguez recalled telling the official that he did not “think she would be interested.”

This afternoon, Thursday July 8, all the defendants are scheduled to appear at an indictment hearing at 2:45 PM.

Immigrants detained by sheriff deputies in Maricopa County, Arizona. (Photo: José Muñoz)

“S.B. 1070 is invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and must be struck down.”

The U.S. Justice Department wrote it plainly, dismissing any ambiguity or confusion of how the Obama Administration views Arizona’s new law making it a state crime to be an undocumented immigrant.

Less than a week after the president gave a speech to the nation on the subject of immigration in which he revealed nothing about a court challenge, the federal government is now officially calling SB 1070 unconstitutional, and joining five other lawsuits, including one by the ACLU, in an attempt to block the law. With only a few weeks before SB 1070 is scheduled to go into effect, the nation will be watching closely to see if the judge assigned to the case grants a temporary injunction.

Valeria Fernandez reported in New America Media that Alfredo Gutiérrez, a former Democratic Arizona state senator and editor of La Frontera Times, described his response to the lawsuit as “a real sense of relief.”

U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was the first administration official to let it slip that a federal lawsuit was coming. Immigrant rights advocates have been putting the pressure on the administration to take a stand and block the law.

In its brief, the Justice Department listed what it sees as the dangers and negative outcomes of SB 1070, saying that it would disrupt federal enforcement, and place an unfair burden on federal agencies, “diverting resources and attention from the dangerous aliens who the federal government targets as its top enforcement priority.” Though Arizona is partnered with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the 287(g) program to prevent undocumented immigrants from entering the state, the Justice Department says SB 1070 crosses the line and is a preemption of federal authority.

“Although states may exercise their police power in a manner that has an incidental or indirect effect on aliens, a state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws. The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.”

This is an issue guaranteed to fan partisan flames–as it’s really a question of federalism vs. states’ rights. Predictably, Republicans in Congress were up in arms about the lawsuit. 20 members of the House criticized it in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder. John McCain and Jon Kyl, the U.S. Senators from Arizona – both Republicans, put out a joint statement saying that “the American people must wonder whether the Obama Administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law.”

Even though President Obama dedicated a lot of his speech to better enforcement, and was sure to mention that there are “more boots on the ground on the southwest border than at any other time in our history,” Arizona Governor Jan Brewer says the lawsuit will weaken security in the state.

“As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels. Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice,” Brewer said. “Today’s filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds.”

Many immigrant rights groups applauded the administration’s move, and asked for more. “The federal government is taking an important step to reassert its authority over immigration policy in the United States,” said Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council, in a statement. “While a legal challenge by the Department of Justice won’t resolve the public’s frustration with our broken immigration system, it will seek to define and protect the federal government’s constitutional authority to manage immigration.”

But others worried that the lawsuit would hurt the chances for comprehensive immigration reform. “I worry about the political consequences,” said Tamar Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorksUSA, a non-profit group that organizes the business sector around immigration reform. “I’d like the administration to make its views heard in another way.”

A recent Gallup poll shows that Americans are about equally divided — 50% to 45% — over whether the government’s main focus should be on border enforcement to stop the flow of immigrants coming into the U.S., or on developing a plan to deal with those already here.

On the streets of Phoenix, the immigrant population is reacting positively. Marcelo Quiñonez, a 26-year-old high school English teacher, described the move as “a monumental step” by the federal government to show other states that are trying to pass anti-immigrant legislation that they’re going down the wrong path.

“It’s also telling the nation as a whole that racism won’t be tolerated,” he said. “It’s a great victory for the immigrant community in Arizona.”

A Protest Against Sex Trafficking. (Photo: Ari Bronstein)

It’s not enough that Jin Hua Cui took all of their earnings. The eight Korean women, who said they were promised jobs in nail salons but forced to work as prostitutes, would constantly be threatened with harm and blackmail, according to the Suffolk County DA’s office.

The eight said Cui – whom they called ‘Big Mama’ — would have them picked up from Queens and delivered to massage parlors across Long Island. Their fees for turning tricks – anywhere from $60 to $80 — all went to Cui, who owns a brick mansion in Flushing. The women were left to share the tips.

Under New York State’s anti-trafficking law, Cui could face up to 25 years if convicted of sex trafficking. But the women might also have been charged with the crime of prostitution and sent to jail, making it difficult for them to get a visa, or worse, making them likely candidates for deportation.

Now a new bill, recently passed by the New York State legislature and awaiting the signature of Gov. David Paterson, could nullify the prostitution charges, and give the victims a chance to start over. A07670, authored by Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, proposes to “vacate” prostitution convictions for victims of sex trafficking. It passed the State Assembly March 8 on a unanimous vote of 139-0, and the State Senate June 15 on a vote of 41-20.  The bill applies also to immigrant women who are sold into prostitution or forced to work in massage parlors or escort services to pay back their debts.

Sienna Baskin of the Urban Justice Coalition’s Sex Workers Project campaign said the bill would allow sex trafficking victims to “rewind the clock” and start anew. “Trafficked women have no control over their environment or who they choose to work with,” she said.

“It will provide them with a better opportunity to recover and move forward with their lives by removing potential obstacles, such as adjusting their immigration status, gaining legal employment, and obtaining housing,” explained lawyer Ivy Suriyopas of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF).

Sex trafficking, according to the recently released Trafficking in Persons 2010 report, is a “smaller but still significant portion” of the overall scourge of human trafficking, which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called the modern “slave trade.” Perpetrators are typically people with means, power and influence; their victims people who, out of sheer poverty, become vulnerable to coercion or the beguiling ways of recruiters.

“Too often the victims of this crime are perceived to be society’s throwaways – prostitutes, runaways, the poor, racial or ethnic minorities, members of a low caste, or recent immigrants,” according to the report issued by the State Department.

Cui’s Korean victims, according to Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota, “did not speak a word of English, and most importantly didn’t even know where they were.”

POWER GAME

Trafficking is the classic power game. The use of physical violence or threats make the victims compliant. For recent immigrants, the threats may involve surrendering travel documents to their recruiters, or exposing their families to harassment in their countries of origin where the traffickers are well connected.

“It’s a lot easier to have that kind of power and control by using threats,” said Suriyopas.

A comprehensive anti-trafficking law is just what New York needs, said Taina Bien-Aime, executive director of Equality Now. “A large percentage of the estimated 14,000 to 17,000 women trafficked into the U.S. every year end up in New York. New York is a huge hub.”

Some of the victims come from the Philippines, said activist and novelist Ninotchka Rosca, a fact also noted in the State Department report.

“The traffic of women, largely Filipinas, into prostitution is an organized and large scale operation,” said Rosca, spokesperson of the Association of Filipinas, Feminists Fighting Imperialism, Re-feudalization and Marginalization (AF3IRM). What makes sex trafficking exceptionally exploitative, she said, is how traffickers treat the human body as “goods” in their highly profitable trade.

“We do not use the phrase ‘sex worker’ as it hides the exploitative essence of prostitution, which we view as capital’s assault upon the human body,” she said.

Rey Koslowski, Associate Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at the University of Albany’s (SUNY) Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, said the Gottfried bill further strengthens the state’s already tough anti-trafficking law.

“I don’t know of any state, or maybe there are not that many states that have separate laws against trafficking. New York State is definitely ahead,” said Koslowski, who is also a fellow at the Migration Policy Institute. “It makes it easier for the victims to cooperate with law enforcement.”

THE T VISA

One option available to immigrant victims of human trafficking is the T visa. The Department of Homeland Security website states that “the purpose of the T non-immigrant visa is to allow eligible victims of trafficking to legally remain in the U.S. and provide assistance with the investigation and prosecution of traffickers.”  By issuing the T visa, the U.S. government provides the victims and their families protection against possible retaliation after the victims cooperate with law enforcement. The T visa “puts them on a path to obtaining U.S. citizenship,” according to the State Department report.

But getting a T visa comes with a price. The victim has to testify against her trafficker all the way to the point of prosecution. In some cases, the victim may not have the emotional, financial or psychological stamina to go all the way.

“It is not a process that victims engage in lightly,” said Suriyopas. “A lot of the victims have concerns about coming forward against the perpetrators, regardless if they have papers or not.”

Bien-Aime observed that in some cases, the victim who has been “brutalized and traumatized” is not willing to testify against her trafficker.

“Eligibility for T visa requires cooperation from the women, but often it is difficult,” she said. “Many times, she knows her trafficker from her community here or back home.”

Only about 500 T visas were issued to victims and their families in 2009.

While many are hopeful the Gottfried bill and the T visa will offer sex trafficking victims an opportunity to start over, immigrant women like the Korean victims of Jin Hua Cui, with limited job prospects and shaky immigration status, remain vulnerable. The law in New York may soon be on their side, but the reality on the ground could keep them chained to a life where they are constantly at risk for exploitation.

President Obama. (Photo: The White House)

President Obama’s speech on immigration on Thursday morning was eloquent, heartfelt and rational. He strove to reach all concerned parties: secure border advocates; immigration reform activists; undocumented immigrant youth who desire to attend college; the agricultural community; the business community and members of Congress.

Did he satisfy everyone? Of course not.

The major criticism of the speech was that while the president reiterated his commitment to reform, he did not lay out a road map. No specifics, no time-line, no concrete promises. Basically, nothing new here.

Univision’s Jorge Ramos, an outspoken supporter of reform, told National Public Radio that he thought the speech was great, “but even a great speech at this moment was not enough. We want action.”

Obama began by saying that his administration would not shy away from tackling immigration because it’s a contentious issue. He listed the many accomplishments immigrants have contributed to building this country, and the importance of diversity to global competition and the new economy.

The president also acknowledged that immigration has been a painful and divisive issue throughout the nation’s history. “The politics of who is and who is not allowed to enter this country, and on what terms, has always been contentious, and that remains true today,” Obama said. He swallowed the blame on behalf of Washington, for failing to fix a broken system.

Overall, his portrayal of immigrants was very positive, as hard working people seeking a better life. He listed the grave risks of not fixing the system: the difficulties it poses to local law enforcement; billions of lost taxes; exploitation. He also listed the negative consequences of the current legal immigration system. “The presence of so many illegal immigrants makes a mockery of those who are going through the process legally.”

Speaking to the pro-immigrant rights front, the president said flatly he did not agree with amnesty for undocumented immigrants. Yet he was clear that doesn’t mean the government will just deport all the undocumented.

“Such an effort would be logistically impossible and wildly expensive. Moreover it would tear at the very fabric of our nation, because immigrants who are here illegal are now intricately woven into that fabric,” he said. “So even if it were possible a program of deportation would upset our economy and communities in ways that most Americans would find intolerable.”

Arizona’s move to take immigration policy into its own hands was understandable because of frustration with the lack of federal reform, Obama said, but it was ill-conceived. A patchwork of immigration laws will not solve anything, when a national policy is needed. He said nothing about a potential Justice Department lawsuit against the state, but didn’t deny it either.

After stating he was ready for reform, Obama then squarely placed the issue at the feet of the Republican Party. Marc Rosenblum, a senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute commented that one of the goals of the speech was “to make it more difficult for Republicans to keep saying no.”

Four years ago, there were 11 Republicans who supported reform, including Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).  Now none of these members of Congress support an immigration reform bill. “Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes,” said Obama. “That is the political and mathematical reality.”

In an nod to Republicans who say they won’t support reform until the borders are secure, the president was crystal clear that he will not stand for porous borders, nor will he wait until comprehensive reform is passed to improve enforcement. “Today we have more boots on the ground on the southwest border than at any other time in our history,” and there’s been a reduction in crime and people crossing. “The southern border is more secure today than at any time in the past 20 years,” and as his recent announcement to send more troops to the border demonstrates, he’s committed to keeping it that way.

But the reality is, the border is too vast to be secured simply by fences and patrols, “it won’t work,” he said.

He essentially said that his view of immigration reform includes a path to citizenship for those here already, but that those who came illegally should be held accountable–pay taxes, fines, admit they broke the law, and learn English. But in perhaps the most remarkable moment in the speech, Obama said their children should not be punished and openly gave his support to the DREAM Act. Rosenblum took that to mean that the President would support that bill on its own this year, as a down payment on comprehensive immigration reform (CIR).

But what would that CIR look like? The president did give a shout-out to Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) for introducing their blueprint for reform–but after some initial fanfare, that framework hasn’t moved much–and Sen. Graham has now backed away. Leaving the ball in the Republican court was a politically calculated move–since it’s unlikely to budge, it buys Obama some time.

Less than a month before Arizona’s law is scheduled to take effect, the climate around immigration is so heated that Obama had to address the issue. Yet it’s still a tremendous long shot that we’ll see an immigration bill go through Congress this year. The president can try to shame Republicans into debate, but ultimately, if they decide it’s not in their political interest it will not happen. When they are, the president says he is ready.

“The president had some other things that were higher priority like health care reform, financial reform, energy reform, and as he said in his speech, we’ve sort of crossed those off the list, and it’s time to get down to immigration now, that’s next on his to-do list,” said Rosenblum.

President Barack Obama meets with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus in the State Dining Room of the White House, June 29, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

*This post has been updated to include a video of the President’s speech.*

Citizens and non-citizens across the nation were holding their breath in anticipation of President Obama’s speech on the iron-hot subject of immigration. Fi2W’s Valeria Fernandez was a guest on PRI’s The Takeaway hours before Obama took the stage. Listen to her speak about the immigrant community’s expectations for Obama and immigration reform:

The President spoke at American University in Washington, D.C. “on the need to fix our broken immigration system through comprehensive immigration reform.”  The speech came in a week in which Obama reentered the fray of immigration. On Monday, he spoke with immigration reform advocates, and on Tuesday, he met with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to talk about immigration reform, after which the White House released a readout.

Watch the speech below, courtesy of The Uptake:

The event was attended by a number of high profile players in the immigration debate, including newcomer Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City, who recently announced the creation of a Partnership for a New American Economy that he hopes will lead to immigration reform.

Some reform advocates are hopeful that Obama’s words will signal a true commitment by the White House to move forward on policy that does more than secure the border. Congressman Luis Guttierez (D-Ill.) was reported on abc.com to be optimistic:

“For months we have been demanding that this administration take action and be the lead on comprehensive immigration reform. And then, from the White House, we hear a president that’s committed and assertive and in command and in charge,” he said following the meeting. “So I think this Thursday we’re going to hear the president speak to the nation to have comprehensive immigration reform and why it’s important for him as a president.”

Others were skeptical, and anticipate more empty promises by the President in a tough election year for Congress. The Washington Post interviewed a number of advocates who met last weekend in San Diego to discuss prospects for reform:

“At this point, we’re looking at George W. Bush longingly,” joked Louie Gilot of the Border Network for Human Rights, based in El Paso. “We were promised change by the administration. But we’re not only getting the same enforcement-only policy, we’re getting even more of it.”

A big question is how the president will address SB 1070, and whether or not he’ll announce a lawsuit against the state of Arizona. Many reform advocates desire a court challenge, but not all.

We’ll be posting analysis of the speech tomorrow.

Vicky Peláez

This story is based on reporting for El Diario/La Prensa by Annie Correal.

NEW YORK - Among the 10 people in the U.S. arrested and accused of being part of a Russian espionage ring Sunday night were a long-time columnist for El Diario/La Prensa and her husband. They were charged with conspiracy and money laundering, and are described in media reports as “Russian intelligence officers.”

Vicky Peláez is originally from Peru and has been on staff at El Diario, New York’s oldest Spanish-language daily, for more than 20 years. Since 2000 she has written a weekly column in which she has often been sharply critical of the U.S. government and its international policies. Her husband, Juan José Lazaro, is a retired political scientist. The two live in Yonkers, NY where they were detained after returning from a party Sunday night.

While more than two dozen people searched their home – removing boxes and electronic equipment – two FBI agents questioned their youngest son, Juan José Lázaro Jr. who is 17. They asked him about his parents’ politics and their trips abroad. “They asked me I had ever seen my parents with a large sum of money, if there were secret compartments in our house, if there was a computer they never let me use.” He added, “There were around 30 people searching the house. They didn’t even let me go get my school books.”

Authorities are still looking for an 11th suspect.

This article was written by Annie Correal a reporter for El Diario and Feet in Two Worlds.

A portrait of Frederic Chopin by Delacroix

Ewa Kern-Jedrychowska produced this radio piece on the Chopin Bicentenary celebrations among the Polish community in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, for WNYC.

[Visit post to listen to audio]

This year, fans of classical music are celebrating the 200th anniversary of Frédéric Chopin’s birth. Thousands of events honoring the composer are planned around the world, many of them in renowned New York venues, from the Metropolitan Museum of Art to Carnegie Hall.

One immigrant community is especially touched by the anniversary. Polish immigrants see this year as an opportunity to remind the world that–despite having a French father and spending two decades in France before his death–Chopin was in fact a Polish composer. As part of the tribute, almost all Polish community centers and institutions in the city are holding Chopin concerts, lectures and exhibits. They may be on a smaller scale and less formal than other New York events, but they gather Poles of all backgrounds. For them Chopin’s music can be very personal.

At the Polish and Slavic Center in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, Polish immigrants gathered to honor their greatest composer. Candles were lit and the mood was solemn. As the music plays some in the audience have tears in their eyes, others can’t help swaying their bodies. Sitting close to the stage is Andrzej Jeziorski, an elevator mechanic. When he arrived in the U.S. 20 years ago he managed to fit records of Chopin’s music in his suitcase.

“One image that I always see when I listen to Chopin are weeping willows, because I used to live in the Swietokrzyskie mountains area, and this music brings images of the place I come from. When I listen to his music, right away I see willow alley in my mind. I go back to my childhood, to Poland, to the place I came from, to my youth,” Jeziorski says, speaking in Polish.

“One time Arthur Rubinstein said Chopin is the soul of the piano. All moods and all human emotion are his… he is heroic, poetic, demonic, everything that the human being can feel is in Chopin’s music,” said David Dubal, American pianist and broadcaster. “Who would even want to live without Chopin?”

Some of Chopin’s pieces like the Funeral March have become so widely known that people all over the world consider them their own. “People don’t even have to know Chopin was Polish,” says Dubal.

But Poles say they have a special connection to the composer’s music. They say he captured Poland’s soul and when they listen to his music they feel emotional and nostalgic for their country.

A Celebration of Chopin at the Polish and Slavic Center in New York. (Photo: Marcin Zurawicz)

Born in ŻelazowaWola, a tiny village west of Warsaw, he returned to the Polish countryside throughout his childhood. There, he encountered peasants playing folk music and dancing traditional Polish dances–mazurkas and polonaises. These memories inspired many of his later pieces. “He put Poland in his music,” says Janusz Sporek, a musician and the Chopin event organizer.

“Chopin’s music may be universal, but I feel very lucky to have had access to those places where Chopin used to go to, like Zelazowa Wola where he was born and various places in Warsaw where his music was created,” said Rafal Blechacz, one of the most famous Polish contemporary pianists who played at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York earlier this year. “Definitely various dancing rhythms which are present in mazurkas and polonaises, we Poles can understand easier.”

Bozena Konkiel, a music teacher from Greenpoint, even uses dancing techniques in her classroom. “Because I am Polish and I know all these dances I can explain to my students what Chopin thought when he wrote this or that accent or he finished a phrase this way or another.  And I dance for them.”

Polish immigrants also relate to the composer’s life of exile. In Chopin’s time Poland did not exist as a state. It was a territory partitioned by three powerful neighbors: Russia, Prussia and Austria. In 1830–while the composer was touring Europe–an uprising broke out in Warsaw. It was brutally suppressed by the Russian Empire, which forced many Polish artists into exile. The composer settled in Paris.

“Unfortunately, he never got a chance to go back to his country, seeing his family, his friends,” Sporek says. “So he was being convicted to stay out of his loving country with no chance of coming back. This is probably why we hear the music–so dramatic sometimes–that he composed.”

After moving to France in 1830, Chopin remained there until his death in 1849. Some French claim that the composer became part of their culture. But Poles like to say that Chopin may have lived in France for a while but his heart stayed in Poland forever. And, in fact, after his death his heart was actually removed from his body and brought to Warsaw, where it has been preserved in Holy Cross Church.

Irena Naglowska, a home attendant, has been living in New York for two years. With no family around she gets homesick. In Chopin’s music she finds company.

“His compositions are filled with nostalgia, longing for his country, at least that’s how I feel it. I miss my country a lot, and that makes us very close, connects us,” Naglowska says in Polish. “I think that this Polish-Slavic soul is there, we are able to grasp it, understand the depths of it. I feel that I was born with it. Every Slavic soul is so plaintive and tearful, that’s why I said I may start crying.”

The emotions that his compositions evoke in Poles have always been powerful. When the country struggled for its independence in the 19th and 20th centuries, Chopin’s music was almost considered a weapon. The composer Robert Schumann said it was like “cannons buried in flowers.” Years later, the Nazis must have heard those metaphorical gunshots, because they banned Chopin’s music during their World War II occupation.

Today Chopin remains a national icon in Poland.

“Each child in Poland knows who Chopin was and they might not even know kings, Polish kings, and the other politicians, but they know, 100 percent, who Frédéric Chopin was,” says Bozena Konkiel. A piano teacher back in Poland, Konkiel now teaches music at a Catholic school in Greenpoint, several blocks away from the Polish and Slavic Center. For her, introducing Chopin to children comes with a mission.

“I think we’re very proud of him and we all in the United States try to be his ambassadors,” Konkiel says. “I’m working in American school, and in this school I already have introduced Chopin’s 200th anniversary. We had a concert, we had a PowerPoint presentation about Chopin, and children in this school, American, Irish, whoever they are, they know who Chopin was.”

All year long Poles in New York have been organizing events commemorating Chopin’s anniversary – at their community centers and various Polish institutions. They also dream about organizing a grand finale of celebrations in the Big Apple. “We are working on bringing the Szczecin University Academia Chamber Orchestra here in December,” said Jerzy Stryjniak, founder and president of The Chopin Society of New York.

When Chopin died at 39 he was remembered around the world as one of the great geniuses of classical music.  Today, many Poles still carry his music and his memory in their hearts.

Elena De La Cruz (center) on the cleanup site in Hopedale, LA. She belongs to a crew employed by Tamara's Group, the name written on her hat. (Photo: Annie Correal)

Listen to Annie Correal’s most recent story on PRI’s The World:
[Visit post to listen to audio]
This story aired 6/23/10.

Reporter’s Notebook

My first day in Louisiana was a Sunday, which was a stroke of good luck. I needed to find people who could talk to me about the oil spill disaster, and on Sundays, people go to church—even, and perhaps especially, when there’s been a disaster.

I drove to an evangelical church in Metairie, on the outskirts of New Orleans. The church, Verbo, was a converted warehouse. The pastor stood in front of a Powerpoint presentation giving an animated sermon in Spanish about the challenges of marriage to an audience of around 150 people—mainly families.

I told a man in a blue suit hanging around the potted plants near the door that I was looking for people who had been affected by the oil spill, or perhaps who were working on the cleanup. He said he’d find Martha for me, after church.

Martha Mosquera is a Colombian woman whose company, Tamara’s Group, has hired several hundred Latino workers from around the area, and even from other states, to help protect and clean up the coasts of Louisiana—and now, Mississippi. She became the cornerstone of my reporting during my two weeks on the gulf coast.

Sitting in the church kitchen, she told me she got into this line of work eleven years ago, after she met a contractor specializing in oil spills through her husband, who worked in oil refineries and on spills. She worked alongside this subcontractor for six years before starting her own company, right after Hurricane Katrina. “I had 250 people sleeping in a gym,” she recalled, of her first contract.

Since then, she has worked for large oil cleanup contractors like Oil Mop, hiring thousands of people to work on spills around the country and essentially establishing a small network of what I call ‘disaster migrants’ – 90 percent of whom are Hispanic.

We went to her apartment, with her family, and she sat at the head of the table and said grace over a box of Domino’s pizza. After lunch, she asked if I wanted to drive to a Best Western hotel, twenty minutes away, where one of her work crews was staying. “Do you want to go out and meet las chicas?” – the girls?

Cleanup workers in Hopedale, LA. (Photo: Annie Correal)

The girls were in the pool when we arrived. They’d been sent home from work early on account of a thunderstorm, and they were laughing and hollering, visibly happy. Most were black, from the Dominican Republic. For the last month, these forty women had been stationed at the Hopedale site, unloading protective barriers from trucks and loading them onto boats, for twelve hours a day.  They had tan lines from their safety goggles.

Over the next two weeks, I interviewed them at work, at their hotel and at home. I watched them unravel cords of the bright yellow plastic boom that would be sent out to block the oil. I sat beneath the tent as they rested and drank Gatorade and joked around. I took note of the little drawings they had made on their life vests with sharpie markers — one drew the map of the Dominican Republic, another drew miniature portraits of the girls in the crew. They called themselves, “Las Aceitosas,” – roughly translated, “The Oilettes.”

On weekend nights, they’d go see their kids, in Bridge City, just outside New Orleans, where most of them live in an isolated housing development just off the freeway. Elena De La Cruz and her husband moved to Bridge City after Hurricane Katrina. They’d been living in Puerto Rico, where they earned their U.S. residency, and had come to Louisiana lured by the hurricane’s promise of work. Elena found a job right away, clearing debris at a navy base. She later worked as a day laborer and in oil refineries, and gradually migrated toward spill work.

She helped clean after spills in Port Allen, Louisiana, Port Arthur, Texas, and Belle Chasse, Louisiana, where two barges collided on the Mississippi in 2006. Elena told me that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) frequently visited cleanup sites, because they knew immigrants found work there. She’d never witnessed a raid, but once, at Belle Chasse, a rumor circulated that ICE was coming. She remembered with sadness how the undocumented workers in her crew had panicked, saying they were going to jump in the river or run into the marsh. All the women on the BP oil spill cleanup were, by contrast, legal workers.

When ICE visited the Hopedale Site in early May, these were the women they met. For two hours a day, three days in a row, Elena told me they lined up so that an agent could check their IDs against federal records. (One man had brought a computer).

The workers made light of the visit. They said the men were very polite, and that they were discreet, arriving in unmarked cars wearing street clothes. Two of the younger women, Etanisla and Josefina, looked at each other and laughed when I asked about the agents. “Those men were fine!,” Josefina said. “You from Immigration? Take me with you!” said Etanisla, throwing up her arms.

Etanisla Hernandez is a flag girl on the Hopedale, LA cleanup site; she guides trucks and forklifts unloading protective barriers. (Photo: Annie Correal)

But in private, Elena confided that a current of fear had passed through the group at certain points during the visits: when one woman couldn’t find her I.D. and had to run out to the van to search for it; when another woman discovered her U.S. passport had expired. She was a citizen, but she was worried. They were all worried. “Even when you know you’re okay, you never know if someone else has been using your Social Security number, or what could go wrong,” Elena told me. “When they tell you your papers are okay, your soul goes back into your body.”

Martha Mosquera, the subcontractor at the church, told me she was not on the site when ICE agents visited, and ICE never contacted her office.

Martha and her crew thought it was a routine visit. But after my article confirming that ICE had visited the Hopedale and Venice sites was published in El Diario and on this blog, the St. Bernard Parish Sheriff, who oversees the Hopedale site, admitted in a statement that he’d called in the federal authorities, hoping to keep “criminal elements” out of the parish.

The ICE spokesmen in Washington D.C., Richard Rocha, confirmed in an email that the visits were conducted “at the request of the private sector and local law enforcement,” though he maintained that the visits were training sessions, meant to remind subcontractors of their obligation to uphold federal immigration laws. Meanwhile, the ICE spokesman for Louisiana, Temple Black, told me, “We visited just to ensure that people who are legally here can compete for those jobs—those people who are having so many problems.”

Cleanup workers in Hopedale, LA. (Photo: Annie Correal)

Elena was angry to learn the visits to the site hadn’t been protocol and vehemently defended the crew’s right to work; they were citizens and residents who paid taxes. She said it hurt her that local police had called in the federal authorities, “just because we’re Latinos,” because she felt that until now Louisiana had been good to immigrants. It had given them so many opportunities.

The oil spill cleanup, by all accounts, will take years. From my reporting, I believe it will have the unintended effect of revealing anti-immigrant feeling that lies beneath the surface all across the state, not just in Hopedale. Many people fear the oil spill, like Katrina, will bring an influx of immigrants, and now that jobs are scarce, that prospect is frightening.

But I believe the spill may also reveal the importance of the immigrant workforce that has settled in the region. “It’s the Latinos who are going to clean up this spill!” Elena declared. It’s not just Latinos cleaning up the oil, but they will play a major role in the recovery of the coast, and in their fluorescent green safety vests, they’re no longer invisible – they’re unavoidable.

Annie Correal is a reporter for El Diario/La Prensa and Feet in Two Worlds. She spent two weeks in the Gulf region, and with the help of FI2W produced radio reports for NPR’s Latino USA and PRI’s The World.