Columbia University's first Hindu chaplain, Gadadhara Pandit Dasa. (Photo: Ramaa Reddy Raghavan)

Ramaa Reddy Raghavan brings us an audio slideshow portrait of Indian American Gadadhara Pandit Dasa, who tends to the spiritual life of students at Columbia University.

Gadadhara Pandit Dasa begins his day when most people are enjoying their best REM sleep.  A practicing Hindu monk at the East village ISKON temple (International Society of Krishna Consciousness), Gadadhara, 39, also known as Pandit, awakens daily at 4 a.m.  to begin his prayers and to meditate. He says this early hour free of distractions helps one contemplate on the Divine.

At 9 a.m., the 13 monks that live at ISKON, who come from a variety of countries and backgrounds, eat a simple breakfast of milk, fruit, granola and peanut butter. Gadadhara, who is vegan, enjoys his granola with almond milk. After breakfast the monks study scriptures, attend to chores or prepare for their weekly presentations. At 2 p.m., the monks share a communal lunch of Indian cuisine cooked at the temple.  “Usually there will be rice, soup or dal (lentils), shabji (vegetables) and salad. Sometimes there is bread,” said Gadadhara. The monks gather together and preface eating with a religious song. Then they sit on the floor to partake in a delicious vegetarian meal.

“The primary focus of their life is to achieve a spiritual practice that’s beyond material acquisitions. [The monks] don’t want to be part of the rat race, working 14 hour days, making little money and creating more anxiety,” Gadadhara said.

But Gadadhara has not always been a monk with that mindset. Raised in India, he immigrated to this country with his parents when he was eight years old and says he “grew up in an environment charged with materialism.” He worked in a mortgage company for a number of years, but when his parents’ jewelry business took a turn for the worse it prompted him to become introspective and read the Bhagavad Gita, the famous Indian religious and philosophical text. In 1999, Gadadhara’s curiosity let him to India and a spiritual practice. He says he did not plan to become a monk but one month led to two and now he’s been a practicing monk for 12 years.

About a decade ago the Bhakti Club at Columbia University, formed to introduce students to the culture and spirituality of India through food and discussion, invited Gadadhara to teach vegetarian cooking classes on campus. This led to weekly discussions on the Bhagavad Gita. In 2004,  Gadadhara became the first Hindu Chaplain of Columbia University where he provides weekly spiritual guidance and support to students. Originally his talks were to support Hindu students from South Asia, but today his audience is a mixed group of Americans as well as students from other countries like Mexico, Guyana, and Columbia. He also became New York University’s Hindu Chaplain in 2007. His residual time is spent lecturing to colleges and schools on spirituality and hosting interfaith groups that visit the ISKON temple.

The temple is available to the public for meditation and space is rented out to organizations involved in Eastern spirituality. Plans are in motion to open a yoga studio as well as a vegetarian cafe that will serve ‘wholesome karma-free food.’

“We want to live a simple life focused on body, mind and soul that elevates our consciousness through meditation and prayer while simultaneously spending time helping and guiding others,” Gadadhara said.

President Obama giving his 2012 State of the Union Address

President Obama once again called for comprehensive immigration reform during his State of the Union address Tuesday, stressing that his administration has done more on border enforcement than previous administrations.

I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration.  That’s why my administration has put more boots on the border than ever before.  That’s why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office.  The opponents of action are out of excuses.  We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now.

We should, but we’re not.

Obama recognizes, like most Americans, that “nothing will get done in Washington this year, or next year, or maybe even the year after that, because Washington is broken.” He knows that Congress will not pass an expansive bill which tackles all problems afflicting the country’s immigration system, especially one that includes a path to citizenship for millions of unauthorized immigrants. Not in this current Congress or the next.

He therefore proposed smaller steps, alluding to the DREAM Act which passed the House but failed in the Senate a little over a year ago.

But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, defend this country.  Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship.  I will sign it right away.

There is, after all, some sympathy for undocumented youth who were brought to the United States as children without their consent. Gallup reports that Americans generally favor rather than oppose the DREAM Act.

Obama’s State of the Union was largely a “dream” speech. The chances of comprehensive immigration reform happening is practically nil. Less ambitious bills that favor undocumented youth, high-skilled foreign workers, and agricultural laborers are a little more likely to pass, and the President would sign them.

Everyone agrees that the immigration system is broken but there is and will be no stomach for a major overhaul. Smaller pieces are more palatable and feasible.

The immigration system will change but true to its history and the messy reality of legislation, it will be through patchwork efforts.

You can follow Erwin de Leon on Twitter or read his blog.

Feet in Two Worlds is supported by the New York Community Trust and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation with additional support from the Mertz Gilmore Foundation and the Sirus Fund.

John Liu gets a hug from a longtime supporter at a recent fundraiser. (Photo: Stella Chan)

An F.B.I. investigation into New York City Comptroller John Liu’s fundraising practices has had a chilling effect on Liu’s ability to raise money for a potential 2013 mayoral run. As revealed this week in his campaign filing report, he’s also been forced to spend thousands on legal fees related to the investigation. But John Liu remains a role model for New York’s Asian American community and still embodies the political aspirations of this growing segment of the city’s population. 

In this podcast, Fi2W executive producer John Rudolph interviews Sing Tao Daily reporter Stella Chan about her recent article for Fi2W concerning the conversations taking place about Comptroller Liu among Asian Americans. We also hear from Korea Daily Senior Reporter Danny Shin. Listen:

Subscribe to the Fi2W Podcast using Podbean or iTunes ¦ Download this episode

Reporter’s Notebook: “Scandal” vs. “Issue”

Chinese vs. English Language Media and the Subtlety of Words. By Stella Chan.

When the F.B.I. investigation unleashed a flood of news about City Comptroller John Liu, I saw that the stories in New York’s English-language and Asian-language media were as different as day and night. In contrast to the mainstream English-language press which uses the word “scandal” to refer to Liu’s situation, Chinese newspapers were terming it a “fundraising issue,” while the Korean press used the word “allegation.”

On October 11, 2011, the New York Times ran a front page article titled “Doubts Raised on Donations to Comptroller.” The investigative article uncovered irregularities in Liu’s donor lists, and subsequently, the F.B.I. began a probe into whether Liu’s campaign was illegally bundling donations. Immediately, the Chinese media began to run articles concerning the negative impact of the investigation on Asian American political participation. Several community leaders expressed their concerns about the investigation and some of them wondered if Liu was singled out because of his race. These angles were muted in the English-language press until the recent NY1 report, “Asian-American Community Struggles with Liu Controversy,” on Jan 5, 2012.

Meanwhile, the English media was reporting that Liu may be involved in several irregularities apart from his fundraising scandal, including his appointment of John Dorsa, his decision on a pension fund contract and his own office renovation. The New York Post even called upon Liu to resign, writing that “John Liu was never suited for public office,” in a November 21, 2011 editorial.  An Asian reporter, off the record, told me that some English press were running negative stories in order to damage Liu’s reputation.

The different approaches of English and Chinese media were clearly shown in the reporting on a press conference hosted by Liu’s Chinese supporters on December 22, 2011. The New York Post, Daily News and New York Times joined a number of Chinese media outlets at the Chinatown meeting. The following day, The Post and The Daily News came up with the headlines “Liu in FBI cross hairs” and “Liu insists he’s still running for mayor despite probe,” while the Chinese media wrote articles about supporters calling for a united community to back up Liu.

After the press conference, Lotus Chau, Chief reporter of Sing Tao Daily, (where this reporter is on staff) wrote in a side bar that because Liu is the first Chinese American who holds a city-wide office in New York City, when the New York Post refers to Liu as a “Liu-ser,” it is seen as a personal attack and makes many Chinese supporters uncomfortable.

“Innocent until proven guilty,” said Danny Shin, senior reporter for The Korea Daily who wrote an exclusive report about the FBI investigation of Korean donors. According to Shin, Korean supporters had donated $100,000 to Liu as of July 2011 and Korean supporters hosted a big fundraising event this month.  Shin says while the mainstream English-language media has their own take on the scandal, “We are neither reporting it negative nor positive.”

Listen to Stella Chan speaking about John Liu on our partner WNYC Radio.

Stella Chan is a reporter for Sing Tao Daily and a Feet in Two Worlds reporting fellow. Her work, and that of the other Feet in Two Worlds fellows, is supported by the New York Community Trust and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation with additional support from the Mertz Gilmore Foundation. Fi2W podcasts are also supported in part by WNYC Radio and the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism.

John Liu with South Asian immigrants at an anti-crime event. (Photo: Stella Chan)

Is John Liu politically dead?

Ever since an ongoing FBI investigation into the embattled New York City Comptroller’s campaign finances began last year, bird-like murmurs have fluttered through the air in New York’s Asian American community .

A group of young Korean, Chinese and South Asian professionals gathered at a cozy Manhattan restaurant recently, gossiping about the scandal.

“Did Liu come under increased scrutiny because of perceptions of foreign money? Will there be heightened suspicion of untoward behavior by other Asian American candidates or of Asian money in American politics? These topics are on the mind of every Asian American,” said Bright Limm, President of Korean Americans for Political Advancement.  “A lot of questions need to be answered but they have not appeared in the media yet.”

Limm’s group aims to maximize the political influence of the Korean American community. Last year, they mobilized a large turnout of Korean voters in State Senate District 11, contributing to the victory of State Senator Tony Avella.

John Liu is in hot water. The scandal began in October with a New York Times investigation which found a number of people Liu listed as donors denying they gave him money. Shortly thereafter, Liu’s fundraiser Xing Wu “Oliver” Pan was arrested and charged with conspiring to arrange a $16,000 political contribution to Liu under the cover of straw donors. Now the FBI and Manhattan federal prosecutors are investigating whether foreign money flowed into Mr. Liu’s 2009 campaign. The Foreign Agents Registration Act prohibits campaign contributions by foreign nationals.

Behind the curtain, Liu’s damaged reputation has led to lengthy discussions in New York’s Chinese and Korean communities. Progressive groups, journalists and people in political circles are constantly exchanging emails and opinions. The most pressing question is, “Can John Liu still run for mayor?”

Some believe the scandal has damaged Liu’s ability to raise campaign funds, others think his supporters will remain steadfast, even if they become less vocal in their support.

Liu, the first Asian American to be elected to city-wide office was widely seen as poised to make history again by being elected the city’s first Asian mayor.  Liu has not formally announced his candidacy, just calling it “2013 fundraising.”  But one person close to Liu who preferred to remain anonymous, said if Liu stops right now, there is no other plausible Asian American candidate for mayor, at least in 2013.

John Liu gets a hug from a longtime supporter and friend at a recent fundraiser. (Photo: Stella Chan)

The past decade saw a dramatic increase New York’s Asian population. Asians now make up about 13 percent of the city’s population, with over one million Asians counted in the 2010 Census.  The community’s fundraising ability has also grown. Chinese Americans and Koreans account for a large part of John Liu’s Asian donors.

A new group, the Asian American Civic Alliance was announced last Friday to promote Asian American political participation and empowerment during the election season. The group will focus on voter registration and voter education. While the coalition will not directly express its opinion on the investigation, it is planning to set up a legal referral hotline for Asian Americans who have been contacted by the F.B.I. regarding their donations to Liu.

A person familiar with Liu and his relationship with the Chinese community, who also preferred to remain anonymous, told this reporter that John Liu’s campaign team is still confident it can attract donations from the Chinese community, and is eager to continue fundraising after the FBI completes its investigation. “Their strategy is get money from Chinese, votes from African Americans, votes from Latinos.”

Holding onto the hope of sending an Asian American candidate into higher office, supporters of John Liu are trying to fight the scandal and continue to solicit funds.  A press conference in Liu’s support was hosted by several Chinese American leaders last month, and a Korean group, “Supporters for John Liu” recently held a fundraising event in Flushing. It was the first Korean fundraising event since the FBI started going after Korean donors to the comptroller, according to Danny Shin, senior reporter of The Korea Daily.

Liu’s recent birthday celebration was well attended by the mainstream political establishment.  It was the first fundraiser since he decided to accept donations of the maximum amount allowed, $4,950, in the wake of his fundraising scandal. Previously, Liu had refused to accept more than $800 from donors, which he said reflected the lucky number 8 in Chinese culture, and also gave him bragging rights about his vast number of supporters.

But a Liu campaign event on December 19 was called off.  The event’s sponsor was the Lin Sing Association, a 111-year-old Chinatown advocacy group. The group’s senior adviser Eddie Chiu said, “The FBI investigation shocked the Chinese community, the Chinese are very sensitive to it.”

Chiu maintains the scandal has had a chilling effect on donations—which may be reflected in Liu’s decision to raise his money cap. After the FBI visited the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, which was the first fraternal group in Chinatown, Chiu received calls from many of Liu’s supporters. They were nervous about dealing with the FBI and said they wouldn’t attend the fundraiser.

Supporters in the Korean American community threw Liu a fundraiser on Tuesday. (Photo: Stella Chan)

Some young Asian American professionals suspect that the new immigrant political force is sparking a conflict with the political establishment, and this is why Liu was targeted. A few have asked if  Liu was singled out due to racism.

John Park, a member of KAPA’s Steering Committee, suggested that if John Liu was not a person of color, his legal difficultires might not have aroused the same attention. “Obama is still being questioned on his identity–if he is foreign born or is a Muslim. However, not one question about Mitt Romney. Does a foreign face equal foreign money?” he asked rhetorically.

There’s also concern that if Asian Americans become nervous about making political contributions, it could affect other Asians who want to run for higher office such as Assemblywoman Grace Meng, and City Councilors Peter Koo and Margaret Chin. Corky Lee, a well-known Chinese American photographer, said the investigation will slow down the money flow in general, and without money, candidates cannot move ahead.

Asian Americans have traditionally lagged in voter registration. But many more voted in 2009, and they were expected to turn out for John Liu. Whatever the future of Liu’s political career, there’s no question that his presence on the New York scene invigorated a new generation of Asian American political activists and civic leaders. Back at that Manhattan restaurant, in spite of worries about Liu, there was a note of optimism at the table. “We should conserve our energy for political advancement,” said Limm.

John Liu himself emphasized the importance of the Asian American community’s support at his recent fundraising dinner, where he said there will be tremendous opportunities for the community and for him as a candidate in 2013. When asked if the FBI investigation has changed his relationship with Asian voters and campaign contributors, he simply replied, “at the end of the day, nothing is going to stop or slow us down.”

Stella Chan is a reporter for Sing Tao Daily and a Feet in Two Worlds reporting fellow.

Feet in Two Worlds, a project of the Center for New York City Affairs at The New School, is supported by the New York Community Trust and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

Arizona State Sen. Russell Pearce. (Photo: www.JoseMunozPhotos.com)

PHOENIX, AZ—2011 will be recorded as a turning point in the battle between conservative politicians in Arizona who supported laws like  SB 1070 – a law that made it a state crime for a person to be an undocumented immigrant in Arizona – and the pro-immigrant rights groups that stood in opposition.

For close to a decade, Arizona has been the nation’s primary battleground over immigration. The state has passed some of the nation’s most stringent anti-immigrant laws, including SB 1070. That law faced numerous court challenges, and its fate will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, probably in June.

While states including Alabama set into motion even harsher laws targeting the undocumented, creating a climate of fear and panic in immigrant communities, in Arizona, politicians who pushed those policies suffered a brutal backlash.

The Campaign Against State Senator Russell Pearce

The year began with a grassroots, bi-partisan group of citizens and business leaders developing a plan to recall SB 1070’s architect, State Senator Russell Pearce. The movement grew without much media attention initially, but steadily gained momentum.

Buoyed by his success with SB 1070, Pearce decided in 2011 to spearhead an effort to deny birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants born in the U.S. by passing a state law that would force a legal challenge to the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Pearce also wanted to pass four other anti-immigrant bills. The legislation would have required schools to check on the immigration status of students, and hospitals to ask about the immigration status of people they provide services to.

But Pearce’s tough immigration bills failed to pass, even though his hardline immigration reputation led to his election as president of the Arizona Senate. Opposition from business leaders and immigrant advocates, and the votes of 12 Republican senators meant Pearce didn’t have enough support to pass his bills.

Many of Republican senators who had voted for SB 1070 said “enough is enough” when it came to immigration after receiving a letter from 60 CEOs that urged Pearce to stop the bills.

“Arizona’s lawmakers and citizens are right to be concerned about illegal immigration. But we must acknowledge that when Arizona goes it alone on this issue, unintended consequences inevitably occur,” the letter read. “Last year, boycotts were called against our state’s business community, adversely impacting our already-struggling economy and costing us jobs. Arizona-based businesses saw contracts canceled or were turned away from bidding. Sales outside of the state declined.”

Pearce’s Collapse

In a clever campaign that appealed to a broad swath of voters, the anti-Pearce forces, calling themselves Citizens for a Better Arizona (CBA), focused not on Senator Pearce’s role on immigration issues but rather his style of leadership, which they defined as “extreme.” They underscored his involvement in cutting state funding of education and health.

At first, Pearce didn’t seem to take the threat of a recall seriously. But as the months went by and CBA filed over 10,000 valid signatures needed to force a special recall election, he started to get nervous.

In a desperate attempt to divide the Latino vote against Pearce, members of the Tea Party supported a Latina Republican candidate in the  Senate election, Olivia Cortes, but she was ultimately forced out of the race by the threat of lawsuits alleging she was a sham candidate.

In the end, Pearce lost to political newcomer Jerry Lewis, who got 53 percent of the vote in one of the most conservative districts in the state. Like Pearce Lewis is a Republican and a Mormon.  It was a stunning reversal, considering that Pearce had represented his district for over a decade.

CBA’s victory represented the birth of a new form of organizing in Arizona that is bi-partisan and includes a broad group of people at the grassroots level.

The Attack on “America’s Toughest Sherrif”

The pro-immigrant allies were invigorated. Before the applause subsided over Pearce’s defeat, there were renewed calls for Maricopa County Sheriff’s Joe Arpaio’s resignation, and CBA announced a campaign to remove him from office.

With a federal Department of Justice lawsuit looming over Arpaio’s agency (MCSO) for racial profiling against Latinos,  one of the most influential proponents of SB 1070 was under attack.  On the heels of criticism from the DOJ, Arpaio’s jailers lost some of their immigration law enforcement powers this fall, which had allowed them to inquire about the immigration status of people entering county jails and match their fingerprints to those in a federal database.

The revocation of MCSO’s powers to enforce the federal 287g and Secure Communities programs was frosting on the cake for many opponents of the sheriff and the state’s anti-immigrant policies.

Their cries for his removal grew louder just a few weeks ago when the AP reported that Arpaio’s agency failed to properly investigate hundreds of sex crimes. Many of the victims had Latino surnames.

The final blow for Arpaio this year was the report from a three-year DOJ probe which described his agency’s abuses towards Latinos as the most “egregious” in the nation.

Former County Attorney General, Andrew Thomas Also on Shaky Ground   

Arpaio and Pearce are not the only politicians who felt the heat this year. Former County Attorney General, Andrew Thomas, known for his unique interpretation of state immigration laws, faces the possibility of loosing his attorney’s license due to an investigation by the Arizona State Bar.

Thomas assumed office after a campaign in which he promised to end illegal immigration. He immediately teamed up with Sheriff Arpaio to use a set of state laws against undocumented immigrants that would result in prosecutions and felonies to keep people from migrating legally to the U.S. in the future. He also used a state law created to fight human smuggling to prosecute immigrants who pay for the services of border-crossing coyotes.  A state civil-employer sanctions law was used by Thomas to bring charges of ID theft against undocumented workers who use false papers to obtain employment.

Now, Thomas, who is one of Arpaio’s strongest allies, is under scrutiny for possible ethics violations that involve using his powers to retaliate against political enemies by initiating investigations without probable cause. The sheriff is also implicated in this issue and is under investigation by a federal grand jury.

Looking forward to 2012

With the architect of SB 1070 out of office and two major anti-immigration crusaders on shaky ground, the politics of immigrations appear to be shifting in Arizona.

CBA now has Arpaio in its crosshairs. Members of the PUENTE movement, a human rights group, are planning to keep protesting against Sheriff Arpaio and raise the bar by turning the heat on those who support him.  Others are planning to focus on Latino voter registration to keep up the momentum after Pearce’s recall.

Yet it’s unclear how much traction pro-immigrant forces will have in 2012, a presidential election year.  Some observers say it’s unlikely that the Obama administration will take action on the criminal investigation of Arpaio.

GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry has dismissed the DOJ’s investigation into Arpaio’s office as politically motivated. And Republican candidates continue to chastise the Obama administration for being weak on illegal immigration.

Probably the most important variable in the immigration debate next year will be the U.S. Supreme Court decision on the legality of SB 1070. Arizonans on all sides are anxiously awaiting the court’s ruling. They want an authoritative answer to the question of how individual states and the nation at large should handle the presence of millions of undocumented immigrants.

Feet in Two Worlds is supported by the New York Community Trust and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation with additional support from the Mertz Gilmore Foundation and the Sirus Fund.  

A paycheck for zero dollars. (Photo: Jima/flickr)

Stalled in Congress is a bill which extends the payroll tax cut for two months, thanks to the intransigence of a handful of House GOP freshmen.  If the measure is not passed by the end of the year, 160 million of us will see our paychecks cut by an average of $40. Those among us who access Medicare and unemployment benefits will also suffer greatly.

Among the millions who will have less money to survive on are Latinos and other immigrants who are here legally or are naturalized citizens.  Many will be voting come November and rest assured, they will have immigration and bread and butter issues on their minds.

Latinos are the poorest according to the Census’ Supplemental Poverty Measure. Over six million Latino children, more than any other group, are living in poverty.  The net worth of Latino families shrank the most during the Great Recession. The payroll tax cut, which may seem paltry to wealthy lawmakers, makes a huge difference to struggling families.

Rational conservatives are lambasting their mulish comrades. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board warns that if this impasse is not breached, Republicans might as well gird themselves for a second Obama term. Even some GOP senators who fear losing their seats next November have spoken out against their counterparts in the lower chamber.

If they’d like a chance of winning any Latino votes in 2012, House Republicans should heed these warnings.

More than 6.6 million Latinos – about seven percent of all voters – voted in last year’s midterm elections. Many more are expected to turn out for next year’s presidential and general elections. Who do you think they will vote for?

You can follow Erwin de Leon on Twitter or read his blog.

Feet in Two Worlds is supported by the New York Community Trust and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation with additional support from the Mertz Gilmore Foundation and the Sirus Fund.  Feet in Two Worlds podcasts are supported in part by WNYC, New York Public Radio.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney speaking in 2010. (Photo: World Affairs Council Philadelphia/flickr)

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has been accused of flip-flopping on issues, chief among them immigration. But has his stance on immigration really shifted that much?

Finger-pointers wonder how Romney has the chutzpah to accuse Newt Gingrich of being soft on immigration, claiming the former Speaker was opening “a new doorway to amnesty,” when he once shared Gingrich’s position that long-time residents without papers should be granted a path to citizenship.

In 2005, then-Massachusetts Governor Romney told the Boston Globe that it was not “practical or economic for the country’’ to deport all undocumented immigrants. “These people contribute in many cases to our economy and to our society,’’ he said.

A year later, Romney told Bloomberg News that immigrants who are in the country unlawfully “are not going to be rounded up and box-carried out.”

He added that “we should have those individuals who are here illegally begin a process either of returning to their homes — particularly those that are unable to be here without government support or those who are involved in crime –or beginning a process of registering for a citizenship, applying for citizenship and then carrying out the process necessary to get there.”

But even in 2005, Romney was far from being an advocate for immigrants. Westy Egmont, a Boston College professor who served as Co-Chair of Governor Romney’s Advisory Committee on Immigrants and Refugees, recalled his interaction with Romney during this period.

“He started as a person without much opinion or a position on immigration,” Egmont said. “He didn’t want to meet with the advisory committee on immigrants and refugees which was odd since we were his appointees, there to serve him at his behest.”

Eva Millona, Executive Director of Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition who served as Co-Chair with Egmont shares the impression.

“He was disengaged as a governor, not just only on immigration but on other issues as well,” Millona said. “He wasn’t very much present in the state.

Romney’s detachment did not mean that he had a soft spot for unauthorized immigrants.

Egmont remembers that Romney “was increasingly moving to the right” and “was increasingly looking for ways to demonstrate a hardline stance towards undocumented immigrants and as he left office, he signed up Massachusetts to the 287g program.”

Millona believes that Romney, though disengaged, has always been a hardliner on immigration issues even while Governor of Massachusetts. “He has been consistent and not friendly to immigration policy and to immigrants and refugees,” she said.

Indeed, while governor, Romney vetoed legislation that would have afforded in-state tuition for undocumented students; opposed driver’s licenses for unauthorized immigrants; requested a federal investigation of companies that allegedly hired workers without documents; and fought against bilingual education in public schools.

Although Romney may have once thought it impractical to deport millions of unauthorized immigrants, he has consistently said that they should fall back in line behind those who play by the rules. Lanhee Chen, Romney’s policy director, said that he “absolutely opposes” allowing unauthorized immigrants “to cut in line.”

“Those people who had come here illegally and are in this country, the 12 million or so that are here illegally, should be able to sign up for permanent residency or citizenship,” Romney said during a 2007 “Meet the Press” interview, “but they should not be given a special pathway, a special guarantee that all of them get to stay here for the rest of their lives merely by virtue of having come here illegally.”

It’s less of a flip-flop than an evolution of Romney’s soft lines becoming hard. Or, as Millona argues, it’s simply a lack of clarity on Romney’s part.  He doesn’t know enough about the issues to say clearly if all immigrants without papers should be sent back en masse to their native countries or only certain individuals.

“[Romney] lacks understanding of U.S. immigration policy, that it’s an outdated policy, that it needs to be repaired,” Millona said. She believes the presidential hopeful does not know “what needs to be reformed in terms of national immigration policy and national integration policy.”

Maybe so. What’s clear is that Romney is more intent on proving to the GOP base that he is the most conservative on immigration, rather than demonstrating his understanding of the issue.

You can follow Erwin de Leon on Twitter or read his blog.

Feet in Two Worlds is supported by the New York Community Trust and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation with additional support from the Mertz Gilmore Foundation and the Sirus Fund.  Feet in Two Worlds podcasts are supported in part by WNYC, New York Public Radio.

A coalition of interfaith organizations rallied against the Congressional hearings on the radicalization of American Muslims. (Photo: Mohsin Zaheer)

Muslim Community Report is a brand-new print newspaper and website covering the diverse set of Muslim and African communities in the New York metropolitan area. In this podcast episode, Fi2W’s John Rudolph speaks with the paper’s primary reporter and editor, Arao Ameny, and publisher Sheikh Moussa Drammeh about the mission and target audience of the new venture.

Editor’s note: After this podcast was published Feet in Two Worlds learned that Arao Ameny resigned as editor of Muslim Community Report citing editorial differences with the publisher.

Listen:

The project is an expansion of Youth Community Report, a newspaper primarily written by youth who attend Drammeh’s school in the Bronx, the Islamic Leadership School.

Drammeh wants MCR to be considered a mainstream newspaper, but at the same time, it has the stated goal of challenging stereotypes about Muslim communities that emerged after 9/11.

Subscribe to the Fi2W podcast using iTunes or Podbean ¦ Download this episode

Feet in Two Worlds is supported by the New York Community Trust and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation with additional support from the Mertz Gilmore Foundation and the Sirus Fund.  Feet in Two Worlds podcasts are supported in part by WNYC, New York Public Radio.

State Sen. Russell Pearce at a rally last year. (Photo: Valeria Fernández)

Pearce, now the former president of the Arizona Senate, lost in the most conservative district in the state where the majority of the voters are Republican and Mormon like him.

His removal from the state legislature could alter the balance of power in a body that has passed dozens of bills to fight illegal immigration throughout the years.

Republican Rep. John Kavanagh expects that politicians that were “uncomfortable” with illegal immigration related bills last year, including one to deny birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants, will be more careful.

“I think they’ll certainly be more cautious in what they support,” he said. “No one is going to come in as a result of Senator Pearce losing and try to undo any of his legislation. But additional legislation may be halted or slowed.”

Others have vowed to continue with Pearce’s legacy. Republican Senator Steve Pierce was elected on Thursday to the Senate President post and promised to follow in Pearce’s footsteps.

Pearce rose slowly through the ranks of the Arizona Legislature, first as a representative, then as the head of the appropriations committee and finally as Senate president. Fighting illegal immigration was always his main focus. Rep. Kavanagh argued that, thanks to Pearce, Arizona already has among the strictest anti-immigrant legislation in the country, and his leadership inspired similar legislation in places like Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina.

For the rest of the article go to It’s A Free Country.

Mexican-American. (Photo: Narith5/flickr)

A group of Mexican senators, aware of the immigration reform impasse at the federal level of the U.S., has decided to go local. The legislators are visiting their U.S. counterparts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina and Utah to try to influence the immigration debate. These states have passed restrictive immigration laws that are currently being challenged in the court system by the U.S. government and civil rights groups.

“We have high hopes that these laws will not take effect,” Sen. Carlos Jimenez Macias said through an interpreter. Macias and the other Mexican senators spoke last Tuesday at a workshop on international immigration in Washington, D.C. sponsored by the Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy (SUNY), the Transatlantic Academy and the German Marshall Fund.

The senators maintained they pin their hope on “very important allies in this country that are against these pieces of legislation.”

“We don’t want the problem of anti-immigrant laws to Mexicanize itself,” Sen. Ruben Velasquez Lopez added. “This is something that affects all the illegals in the United States and they are from many nations. Our fellow countrymen are just part of the total.”

Macias said that they want state and federal legislators to understand that migration is a constitutive part of globalization and is greatly influenced by market forces, that is, by supply and demand. If there were no demand for migrant labor in the U.S., then people would not cross the border.

“If there were no jobs in the United States, Mexicans would not leave their country,” Macias quipped. “Nobody goes to suffer in another country; you’d rather stay home and suffer.”

The senators also touted recent reform of Mexico’s immigration system, which they enacted through the Migratory Act of 2011. The law’s objective is to regulate the flow of Mexican and Central American migrants within a framework of “respect, protection, and safety in regard to human rights, the contribution to national development, and the preservation of national security and sovereignty.”

“Definitely, the highest motivation to reform the law in Mexico had to do with the grave violations of human rights of Central American immigrants in our country,” Macias admitted.  The senator explained that they had to address this issue if they were to ask the United States to treat their own countrymen with respect. He said they wanted to have the “moral quality to demand just treatment from the American government.”

They also want to show that immigration reform is possible and that migration can benefit both sending and receiving nations. Buena suerte, Senadores. I trust that no one will ask for your papers.

You can follow Erwin de Leon on Twitter or read his blog. Feet in Two Worlds is supported by the New York Community Trust and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, with additional support from the Mertz Gilmore Foundation and the Sirus Fund