-Mo Brooks, Alabama Congressman (R) on illegal immigrants

While debates brew and tempers flare over the anti-immigration law in Arizona, many other states have quietly passed some of the most radical pieces of anti-immigration legislation to date. Most alarming is Alabama’s. More radical than the Arizona law, this law strikes even more deeply at the basic rights of immigrants, and appears to have the underlying goal of bringing the immigration discussion to the national stage in a very loud and reckless way.

Provisions of the law (HB-56) include:

- Similar to the Arizona law, it makes it a crime for “undocumented immigrants to be without the required documents,” and makes it a requirement of law enforcement officers to “attempt to determine an individual’s immigration status during a ‘lawful stop, detention or arrest’ when there is ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the individual is an illegal alien” (from law).

- Parents will have to report their residency status and their child’s residency status when enrolling their child in school. Illegal immigrants will be allowed to attend schools, but schools will report the information collected to the state.

- A ban on illegal immigrants attending any public college or university

- A ban on transporting, harboring, or renting property to undocumented immigrants.

- Employers will have to check all potential employees through Everify before hiring, and will be fined if they do not.

- A ban on businesses taking tax deductions on wages paid to illegal immigrants.

The first provision, which is similar to the Arizona law, is extremely alarming as is. Many have labeled it as a form of racial profiling, and even the Arizona Supreme Court declared in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, “enforcement of immigration laws often involves a relevant consideration of ethnic factors.” This suggests that the Arizona law requires some evaluation of ethnicity in order to be effective, and implies that illegal and legal immigrants will most likely be viewed in the same light, and treated the same. In this way, both the Arizona law and Alabama law allow for some form of discrimination on the part of law enforcement officials, though the Alabama law takes it a few steps further.

The provision in the Alabama law requiring families to verify their residency status to schools has startling implications for children attending schools. If a child were born in the United States (and thus a citizen), but had parents who were illegal aliens, his parents would have reason not to send him to school so as to not expose their immigration status to the state. If the child and his parents decide to risk it anyways and have the child go to school, they face further risks. The child cannot drive his parents anywhere for fear of violating the “ban on transportation” clause in the law, and if the parents drive the child to school, they face the risk of being pulled over under “reasonable suspicion” of being an illegal alien. Because of these risks, many will most likely not go through the trouble. If an illegal immigrant does stay in school though, he faces the problem of being already profiled by the school as an alien, and once graduating, receives the slap in the face of not being able to attend any public college or university. Again, many may not deem it worth it to go through all the trouble and then not even be able to attend college. In these ways, the Alabama law is directly discouraging children from receiving an education.

A lawsuit filed against the state of Alabama regarding a parent adopting illegal immigrant children highlights further implications of this law. The plaintiff in the case adopted two children who were illegal immigrants. He went through the adoption process, which took only a few weeks. Because the waiting process for adopted children to obtain legal status ranges from 1-3 years though, the plaintiff, an American citizen, would be unable to drive his children anywhere when this law is in effect for fear of being seen as “harboring” illegal immigrants. While merely taking care of his children, this man could receive a fine and potentially a blemish on his record. Because of such consequences, this law largely makes the adoption of illegal immigrants illegal.

Supporters continually point to the benefits of job creation, but from a business standpoint, the benefits might not even be that great. Because of the harsh restrictions, companies will now be giving workers much higher salaries to do jobs that illegal immigrants did for much cheaper. Jobs may increase to a degree, but businesses will undoubtedly scale back on the number of workers they hire because of the higher wages they must dole out, and at the same time, prices of products may increase, as the costs of production for businesses increase. With more legal workers but less workers than before, output may drop in many farms or factories, and this paired with rising prices could potentially lead to huge problems in today’s economic climate.

Many throughout the state oppose this bill on the simple base that it would render the idea of being a “good Samaritan” illegal. Giving an alien a ride to work or giving them a place to sleep would now be illegal in Alabama. This will undoubtedly spark racial profiling, as anyone who may be suspected of being an illegal immigrant, or in many cases, anyone who appears to be Hispanic, will be refused rides, a home to rent, or even a home for the night, even at places like churches or temples.

In a state with the lowest population of foreign born citizens (2.9%, with many of them being legal – according to recent census data), why such extreme measures? This bill passed by an overwhelming majority in both the Alabama State House and State Senate, where Republicans hold commanding majorities. Voting largely went along party lines, and maybe in this lies the answer. This issue is quite obviously a political one, and in Alabama, Republicans saw an opportunity to yet again highlight the hypocrisy of their own party. While continually clamoring for small government in fiscal situations, in social situations like immigration, Republicans did not even blink as they used “government” to decide who and who cannot attend school, who and who cannot help who…but I digress.

In general, this law seems to be attacking the immigration problem at the completely wrong angle. Laws like these discourage immigrants from phoning in crimes to the police in fear of being deported, discourage them from attending schools, and discourage others from helping them. With other states like Georgia, Florida, and of course, Arizona, passing similarly extreme anti-immigration laws though, it appears that this trend may continue. All one can do is hope that measures such as Delaware’s proposed version of the DREAM Act can help turn the conversation in a different direction, and wait for President Obama to realize what type of injustice is occurring throughout this country.

Elections for the 2011-2012 Columbia University College Democrats Board will be on Wednesday, April 27th at 9pm in Satow on the 5th floor of Lerner. V&T dinner will be provided and we will have both vegetarian and vegan options. We’d love to have high participation in the elections, so please consider attending or voting absentee!

If you have any questions, please email the Columbia Democrats Council of Elders at demselders@gmail.com.

Aging Out: Before healthcare reform, citizens could no longer be covered by their parents’ plans after a certain age (usually around 23).  This “aging out” time has been bumped to age 26, regardless of dependent and even marital status.  (Yes, this means that married citizens can still be on their parents’ health care plans as long as they’re under 26.  But sorry, spouses! No mama and papa health care for you!)

State Run Exchanges: Basically, under the new law, the government has set up a system in which you can shop for more affordable or better health care plans in an exchange setup (exchange as in a commodity market, not exchange as in something that involves a trade in of one insurance for another, or hipster gear).  These exchanges will require that each state set up a website and telephone hotline to help individuals and small business purchase qualified health plans.  There is also now a better standard for what these plans have to offer as a minimum.

Things That Affect Us Lady Folk:  While sadly birth control is still not mandated for free coverage because it’s not considered “preventive” (read: things that make me do this), there are advancements for women in the healthcare bill.  First, being a women is no longer considered a pre-existing condition; that is, gender rating is now illegal.  (Yay!)  Maternity coverage is mandated.  (Yay!) Birthing centers are covered by insurance.  (Yay!) And “some preventive services” will be covered for women. (Uh…what?)  Bad things: abortions still can’t be federally funded or subsidized, many birth control options are not covered or covered enough, and abortion coverage is separated from overall health coverage (meaning you have to send two separate checks for each service for each billing period, an unnecessary obstacle), and community health centers that provide abortion services cannot receive federal funding.  So boo, boo, and double boo to those.

As Janine blogged earlier in the year, there is still a fight against reproductive choice for women being waged furiously by the right in many states.  Health care reform is far from perfect (and hopefully far from over), but it’s important to know what our new rights are, limited though they may be.

Sign the petition (http://www.raisingwomensvoices.net/contracpt-is-preventn-petition/) to get involved!

While I myself am disappointed, I think many overlook his successes and the environment in which he has been working. President Obama entered office in the midst of one of the worst recessions our country has ever faced, inheriting a huge debt from George Bush Jr., two (or one and a half) major wars abroad, and a growing reliance on oil. Despite this, President Obama passed a stimulus bill (which is already being paid back by many car (i.e. GMC) and financial companies (i.e. AIG) with interest, the Affordable Health Care Act (providing healthcare to millions of Americans), and other progressive policies like the repeal on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” He brought the employment rate down to the lowest it has been since 2007, he saved the economy from the brink of depression, and created more private sector jobs in 2010 then were created during the entire Bush administration (http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/10/08/its-official-more-private-sector-jobs-created-in-2010-than-during-entire-bush-years/). Besides other civil rights accomplishments including hate crimes on sexual orientation now prosecutable through the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act and significantly increasing the funding for the Violence Against Woman Act, Obama has repealed the Bush restrictions on stem cell research, established the Consumer Protection Bureau (to protect Americans against credit card companies), appointed the first Latin American to the Supreme Court, and even has issued tax cuts for up to 3.5 million small businesses to help pay for employee health care coverage (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/obama-signs-bill-on-student-loans-health-care/).

Obama has not been great, and has let down many; but he has done a lot more than people think. Maybe he is to blame for trying to be bi-partisan and not slandering the right (although they are really asking for it), maybe he hasn’t been singing his praises as much as he should, and maybe if he stayed in line with the mud-slinging politics of the time he wouldn’t be faced with the prospect of losing his bid for reelection. Should we really hate someone though who is trying to unite two polar opposites, who refuses to stoop to the level of his critics, who has done so much in such a volatile and impossible environment? He has his faults, but I think the least we can do is give him a second chance. I’m not giving up hope yet.

Vote for a new board! Run for a new board!

Hello dearest Dems!

It’s that time of year again. The weather is (slowly) getting warmer, people are heading outside again, and elections are happening!

The Columbia University College Democrats will be holding elections for the 2011-2012 Executive Board on April 27th at 9pm in the Satow room in Lerner. Dinner will be provided too! We will be posting a list of eligible voters along with voter registration and absentee voter forms in the next week or so. Please keep an eye out for that!

If you’re interested in running for the board, please see the applications below. Each has the description of the position and the application in a Google Doc. To download the application, click on the position, click on “File” on the toolbar, go to “Download As” and pick your document format. To run, you must submit your completed application by 11:59pm on April 24th by emailing it to demselders@gmail.com.

If you have any questions about the positions, voting, or elections, please feel free to email the Dems elders at demselders@gmail.com.

Board Positions

- President

- Vice President

- Secretary

- Treasurer

- Membership Director

- Media Director

- Events Coordinator

Furthermore, the Republicans frequently went to the “I care about rights” justification.  Isn’t the purpose of gun control to protect the rights of American Citizens?  Isn’t is possible that the security of our children is in jeopardy when it is proven that there are more injuries in houses that have guns? Isn’t security a right?  Remember: we only want gun control not their elimination.  But I guess some rights are holier in the Republican mind than others, because Women’s Rights, Gay Rights–those can be denied.  Republicans: protecting the rights of crotchety, armed white men since 1776.

Unfortunately, laws on the federal level have been just as bad.  Among other horrifying ideas, the Republican-controlled House has tried to completely defund Planned Parenthood in their budget proposal, despite the fact that no federal money is used for abortion services.  This would mean taking away reproductive healthcare, birth control, and cancer screenings from thousands of women, many low-income, who rely on Planned Parenthood’s “pay what you can” policy for their sexual health.  This is not just about abortion, it’s about a wholesale attack on women’s health.

The Columbia Democrats are mad as hell about this (and so is Anthony Weiner).  A few weeks ago, we went to a rally downtown to support Planned Parenthood.  This week, students at Wesleyan University, who were also pissed off, took action by making a video to show who, exactly, our elected officials hurt when they attack Planned Parenthood.  And the answer is: all of us.  Enjoy.

The Dems is taking on the administration this month on the current swipe access policy. Here are our plans:
1.) Gathering petition signatures: https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dHhfSTdKWjZqdjREM21JTmNRdlZnN1E6MQ
2.) Staging a sit-in swipe-in on March 24 where we’ll be attempting to sign masses of Columbia students into one Barnard dorm (more info to come)
3.) Working with the administration to push for a new policy

Here’s what you can do:
SIGN THE PETITION: https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dHhfSTdKWjZqdjREM21JTmNRdlZnN1E6MQ
CHECK OUT OUR TUMBLR: swipeaccess.tumblr.com
COME TO OUR MEETING THIS WEDNESDAY in Satow at 9pm
VOLUNTEER AT THE SWIPE-IN SIT-IN

Email dems@columbia.edu with your questions

Opinions after the debate:

Democrat: Felicia Bishop CC’12- “Republicans need to take a sociology class”-(Regarding comments about fragmented families on the Republican side)

Republican: Tim Reuter – “I felt, I didn’t find it terribly productive. It also wasn’t long enough.”

CHC (Columbia Harlem Business Connection)

Interested in Community Organizing? Economic Development? Student Activism? CHC is a partnership between small business owners in Harlem who need assistance with business development projects (social media, translation, business plan designs etc.) and Columbia students who are interested in volunteering on an ad hoc basis to contribute their specialized skills. CHC works with the Columbia-Harlem Small Business Development Center to connect small business owners with Columbia volunteers.

Right now, we are working on…

* Outreach to Harlem community organizations to attract interested business owners

* Outreach to Columbia students and student groups, to increase the number of student volunteers who are involved with the project

*Work on specific projects for Harlem business owners (email columbiaharlemconnection@gmail.com) for more information, and to get involved.

Our larger goal is to create a centralized way for Columbia students who are interested in economic development to volunteer on local projects, and for small business owners in Harlem to have more ownership of the resources at Columbia University.

Meetings: Wednesdays at 8pm in Hogan 3D (114^th street and Broadway). Call (323) 877-2325 if you need to be signed in. For more information, email: columbiaharlemconnection@gmail.com