The first significant court hearing for The Gap 20, which is MANDATORY for all defendants, will start at 9 AM, Tuesday, June 5. Solidarity is needed and all community supporters are asked to gather at 8 AM in the Fresno County Courthouse basement cafeteria.

The June 5 hearing, which may lap over onto June 6 as well, will (at least in theory) involve live testimony by various police officers, Fashion Fair security officers, etc., etc., who will be questioned by Patience Milrod or one of the other attorneys. They will be questioned about the facts of the demonstration last year, and about the arrests, who directed the arrests, and the coordination of the arrests between FF and the police. The purpose of eliciting their testimony is, among other things, to demonstrate to the court (Judge Hamlin) that the prosecution will never be able to put forth evidence to support its charges against the defendants. In other words, we’ll try to show that, even with their best shot, they cannot prove certain elements of the charges. After the testimony has been heard, either that same day or at a later hearing, we’ll ask the judge to make a determination that, since they lack the necessary evidence, the charges (or at least part of them) will have to be dismissed without a trial. If Judge Hamlin does not dismiss all the charges, then a jury trial will be set to start at a later date.

Did you hear it? A few weeks back, there was that long, ear-splitting creak followed by a thunderous bang! It echoed up and down the length of the San Joaquin Valley — the sound of the world’s largest garage door slamming shut for the summer ozone season.

While the valley’s topography is usually described as a bowl topped with a clear lid (that innocuous-sounding "inversion layer" of cooler air that traps the ground-level vertical mile of atmosphere), it’s more accurately depicted as a garage with an immense overhead door.

More than 3 million of us live and breathe in this 25,000-square-mile garage, sitting in our cars, SUVs, trucks, and tractors with the engines running. The plumes of fumes inject our lungs, hearts and bloodstream with a long list of direct pollutants, several of which recombine in the summer heat to create ozone. Worst of all, we’re not alone in this toxic chamber. We’ve got the whole family in here with us.

The unique structure of our landscape — and our ability to poison it – is illuminated by contrasting it with the country’s dirtiest air basin, that of Los Angeles-Riverside. While we’re 3 million people spread out over 25,000 square miles, they’re 13 million jammed into 6,000 square miles. In other words, our population is one-fourth of theirs and our land mass four times greater. Our density, our population per square mile, is one-sixteenth of theirs, or just six percent. Yet, our valley’s peak ozone levels are now equal to and oftentimes higher than those of L.A.-Riverside, regularly reaching up to 18-20 parts per million (ppm)

In mid-May when the garage door slammed, the Air Quality Index (AQI) for the central San Joaquin Valley soared to 156 with ozone listed as the sole primary source. This translates roughly into an ozone level of 16 ppm. Damage to human health begins at half that level. Damage to plant life begins at 6 ppm.

The same day the AQI hit 156, a 9-year-old friend of ours had afternoon track team practice at her Clovis elementary school. If it had been raining, the adults in charge would have looked outside, seen the water falling and kept the kids in. Instead, they were sent out into the clear, almost odorless gases. They ran and ran for nearly two hours, breathing deeply, rapidly.

Throats and lungs were scarred by ozone. Carbon monoxide bound itself to hemoglobin, impairing oxygen from getting to young brains, hearts and other tissues. Benzene and PAHs (a hydrocarbon) entered their small bodies. PAHs account for half of the air pollution-caused cancer in California. Benzene can lead to leukemia and is linked to chromosomal damage and various other potentially fatal blood diseases.

No doubt this scene was repeated across hundreds of playgrounds throughout the valley. How many thousands upon thousands of children are subjected to this day after day?

Yet they run and run. As will our cars...all summer long. Because we’ve so much to do, so many very important things to do.

Back to Top

African American Museum
1857 Fulton, Fresno

Arte Americas
1630 Van Ness Ave, Fresno

Borders Books
River Park in Fresno

Carpenter Local 701
1335 N Hulbert St, Fresno

Catholic Charities
149 N. Fulton Ave, Fresno

Centro Bellas Artes
1048 E St, Fresno

Colegio Popular
St. John’s Cathedral, Fresno

Fresno Metro Ministry
1055 N Van Ness, Suite H, Fresno

Irene’s Cafe
747 Olive, Fresno

Java Café
Olive & Echo, Fresno

The Movies
1435 N Van Ness, Fresno

Pan Valley Institute
1440 W. Shaw Ave, Fresno

Radio Bilingüe
Belmont & Willow Ave, Fresno

Rudy’s Pharmacy
Elm & B Street, Fresno

Sal’s Donuts
Fresno and B Street, Fresno

SEIU local 250
3485 W Shaw, Fresno

Starbucks at River Park
7658 N Blackstone Ave, Fresno

UFW office
690 Fresno St, Parlier

Unitarian Church
4144 N Milbrook, Fresno

Back to Top

Implementation of deregulation required the creation of a new market structure, which spawned the following organizations: the Power Exchange (PX), the Independent System Operator (ISO), and the Electricity Oversight Board (EOB).

PX - This exchange is a clearing house, where electricity is bought and sold for the state’s electricity requirements for the following day. All generators are required to sell into the Power Exchange and all utilities are required to buy from the exchange one day in advance of their needs. PX was dismantled in January 2001 and now the state has been purchasing electricity for the utility companies.

ISO - A non-governmental, non-profit organization, which manages the transmission grid. Additionally, if the demand for the day exceeds the supply purchased the day before on the PX, the ISO buys the shortfall on the spot market, where electricity is purchased at significantly higher rates.

EOB - A state agency designed to oversee the PX and ISO with special interest in reliability issues. Besides the creation of these new organizations, deregulation necessitated the unbundling of generation, transmission and distribution functions. Thus, utilities like PG&E were required to sell off their power generation facilities. Also, utilities were not allowed to enter into long-term electric power contracts. The rationale for these moves was that in order to foster competition, which purportedly reduces prices, there has to be an active short-term market. That market will not exist if utilities are engaged in long-term contracts or own their own generation facilities. The utilities sold off some of their generation facilities to corporations such as Reliant, Duke, Dynegy, and Mirant, at a significant profit above their book value. They folded the remaining generation facilities into affiliates as PG&E formed The National Energy Group.

On March 31, 1998, the deregulated market opened. According to the Sacramento Bee (5-6-01), "The system worked beautifully for the first three months. Competition drove prices down to the point where PG&E actually gave away electricity for free between 1 and 2 a.m. on opening day." It took three months, but the stage was finally set and the power generators/power market makers like Enron, who heavily lobbied for deregulation as far back as 1986, were ready to reap the fruits of their labor. "On July 9, 1998, ISO officials watched spot prices ratchet up to $1/MWH. It then shot up to $2,500/MWH and suddenly to $5,000/MWH where it stayed for 3 hours. Abruptly, it dropped back to $1/MWH. Four days later it fluctuated up to $9,999/MWH then down to $.01/MWH" (Sacramento Bee, 5-6-01). These wild fluctuations were indicative of the learning curve power generators/power brokers were going through while assessing how to manipulate the market. Under the rules of privatization, the identities of the participating power players cannot be revealed—a significant argument against the privatization of energy.

The two-stage purchasing scenario involving day-ahead purchase at the PX and emergency purchase by the ISO at spot prices, encouraged "generators to offer less power to the exchange and instead wait till the last minute to sell to the ISO" (Business Week, Feb. 12, 2001). According to the L.A. Times (3-22-01), generators pushed prices up by: 1) bidding at excessive prices which effectively withheld supply, and 2), bidding less frequently or not at all, even though they had power available. These findings were reported by Cal-ISO after reviewing confidential bidding data, which they were able to obtain only through legal action. Generators also exacerbated shortages by frequently bringing plants off-line for unscheduled maintenance at peak demand periods. Since the privatizing of power and the deregulation of prices, electricity has become a trading commodity much like pork bellies, wheat, and corn. In addition to manipulation of the market through choking supply, we are now exposed to an additional dimension in manipulation - commodity trading. Who are the Power brokers? The more notable ones are Enron, Reliant, Dynegy, Duke and Mirant. They engage in both power generation and power brokering. In Houston, according to Michael Liedtke of the Associated Press (Fresno Bee, 3-26-01), "four major power wholesalers run Byzantine trading systems that sway energy prices across the nation with minimal oversight from the government." They are concentrated within city blocks of each other and are simply referred to as "the power corner." Enron is the biggest broker of all. Not to be outdone, "Duke, Reliant and Mirant banded together with Wall Street investment banks Goldman Sachs and Dean Witter Morgan Stanley to launch Intercontinental Exchange.com. San Diego lawyer Michael Aguirre believes the power companies are using the password-protected online exchanges to secretly share information and control the power supply to manipulate prices.

We have seen a spate of lawsuits and allegations by Cal-ISO, the California Energy Commission, the CPUC, irate individuals, and even the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Williams Energy has paid California $8M in overcharges. Duke wants to make a deal with Gov. Davis to cut energy charges retroactively and into the future in exchange for suspension of State investigations. The FERC has required several power generators to repay $20M in overcharges and is looking into another $100M. Despite all these revelations, FERC and the Bush administration continue to advance their hollow rationale for not capping electricates by saying:

1. We find no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion.

2. We must let the free market work.

3. We must use this opportunity to encourage creation of more energy (fossil fuel, of course).

These are mere euphemisms for rewarding the administration’s and Republican Party’s major contributor - The Oil & Gas Industry. They contributed $26M dollars to the Republican Party while contributing $6M to the Democratic Party. The Bush family is steeped in oil interests and Enron has been the lifeblood of George W. Bush’s political aspirations. Dick Cheney, former CEO of the Halliburton corporation—a provider of services and equipment to energy customers—has a significant interest in promoting fossil fuel based energy policy.

Debating wrongdoing and collusion in the energy business in the legal system can be protracted ad infinitum. This whole "crisis" can be resolved with one simple action - the FERC must perform the duty entrusted to it by the people by "capping electricity rates." To determine whether the FERC is negligent in the administration of its duties, you have only to consider the following: FERC’s duty according to the Federal Powers Act is to ensure "just and reasonable" electricity rates. Are recent peak rates of $1900/MWH compared to $70/MWH "just and reasonable"?

Both President Bush and the FERC have continually resisted capping rates and will never do so unless subjected to heavy pressure from ratepayers. Let’s turn our outrage into action by:

1. Contact Radanovich - He voted NOT to cap rates. Go to www.house.gov/writerep/

2. Contact Bush, <president@whitehouse.gov>. He is against caps and proposes cutting 40% out of the budget for alternative energy research.

3. Ask your California Assembly representative to back creation of a utility district so we can directly control our power like Sacramento and LA. You can find your assembly representative at www.assembly.ca.gov. Click on the link, Find My District or look in your phone book.

4. Ask your city council members to back utility district formation.

If you want to participate in the energy working group movement, contact: William Heasley at terraV2001@aol.com

What can we do to empower ourselves against the electricity cartel and the Oil and Gas administration in Washington? A movement is afoot to explore Municipal Utility Districts (MUD) modeled after Sacramento’s MUD. Additionally, communities are examining how to implement renewable energy systems and conservation measures in homes and businesses. This will be the topic of the next installment.

Back to Top

OAKLAND, CA (5/6/01) - Even though she was working 40 hours a week at the Valencia St. Travelodge in San Francisco, Matilda (last name withheld), who moved to the US from Mexico a decade ago, couldn't afford to clothe her four children. "First I go to churches where they give clothes and food away," she said. "When school begins, we get pencils and books from the Salvation Army. If it wasn't for this kind of help, we couldn't live in San Francisco."

Her coworker, Patricia, meanwhile, was paying $635 a month for a studio apartment for her children and husband, and considered herself lucky. Rent for a San Francisco studio usually starts at $1000. At the end of each month, after putting out $250 for food, nothing was left from her paycheck. The motel paid roomcleaners $6.25/hour-not enough to send any money home to their families in Mexico and El Salvador.

Motel managers never said much about the workers' immigration status until the low wages inspired them to join a union, Hotel Employees Local 2. According to organizer Chito Cuellar, once the union signed its first contract, supervisors began making immigration threats to derail protests over heavy work loads and harassment. Then, in May 1999, John Jake, the general manager, called nine workers into his office, including the two women. He told them Social Security had notified the motel that their numbers didn't match the government's database. Straighten it all out in a week, he warned, or you're out of a job. A week later, when they tried to punch in, security guards told them they'd been fired.

Twenty years ago, most unions would have written off such workers and their problems. As recently as 1986, the AFL-CIO supported the "employer sanctions" provision of the Immigration Reform and Control Act. Sanctions make it possible for employers to use Social Security "no-match" letters as a pretext for firing immigrants who assert their rights, as the Travelodge management did. The law requires employers to keep records of workers' immigration status, and imposes fines (low and rarely collected)

on those who hire the undocumented. The real impact of the law is on the workers, making it illegal for them to hold a job.

Today, unions are rethinking their attitude toward immigrants like Patricia and Matilda. Since 1986, it has become common for companies to use the employer sanctions as a weapon to resist organizing drives. Recognizing this, in February of 2000 the AFL-CIO passed an historic resolution calling for the repeal of sanctions, and for a legalization program that would allow undocumented immigrants to normalize their status.

As a result, the political rules and alliances that limited the possibility for immigration reform have also changed. Amnesty for the country's 9-11 million undocumented immigrants, which was off the radar screen in Washington just a few years ago, is now a realistic goal.

But employers see opportunity as well. With the avid support of key Congressional Republicans and the Bush Administration, they are seeking new "bracero" contract labor programs, which would transform workers like the roomcleaners into an even cheaper and more vulnerable labor force of guestworkers. Activists such as Ernesto Galarza and Cesar Chavez, and writers such as former Nation editor Carey McWilliams, documented extensive abuses of workers under the bracero program in place from 1942 to 1964. While guaranteed labor rights on paper, guestworkers depend on the continuation of a job to remain in the country. Employers therefore not only have the power to fire workers who protest bad conditions, but in effect to deport them as well.

The labor movement's shift on immigration policy has an impact far beyond the corridors of Congress, however. The Travelodge case reverberated through Local 2's master contract negotiations in 2000, covering about 5000 San Francisco hotel employees. "Our members understood we needed stronger protection for immigrants, and were willing to fight for it," says Cuellar. "Not just the Latinos. The Anglos, the Filipinos, and others who weren't directly affected also knew why it was important. If a hotel can use immigration to make some workers work faster, the pressure affects everyone." The union eventually won contract language increasing its ability to represent immigrants and protect their job rights. And the Travelodge case eventually produced an historic decision in arbitration, which said a no-match letter is not a legal reason to fire workers, setting a precedent that could help thousands who lose their jobs because of he letters every year.

After a no-match letter was used to threaten a worker involved in an organizing drive across the bay in Oakland, a campaign by HERE Local 2850 and the Labor Immigrant Organizers Network (LION), a loose coalition of labor and community activists, saved his job. The union eventually won recognition and a contract. The local in turn gave staff time and office space to help LION organize a march of 5000 people through Oakland's Latino Fruitvale neighborhood in January, calling for amnesty and immigrant rights. It was the third labor-backed immigrant rights march in northern California in a year.

"Most unions today are at least trying to organize," explains HERE President John Wilhelm, who spoke at the Oakland march. "And no matter the industry, they run into immigrant workers. Immigrants are everywhere, not just in the service industry, not just in California and the southwest. That's what brought home the failure of the AFL-CIO's old immigration policy."

Over the past year, the AFL-CIO, individual unions and community organizations around the country have organized hearings and marches in support of amnesty. Thousands marched in Chicago, Portland and other cities in the fall, and a hearing in Los Angeles in June drew 20,000 people, who filled the LA Sports Arena and spilled onto the streets outside. Those actions targeted the key element in the Clinton administration's immigration program, which concentrated on enforcing immigration law not at the border but in the workplace.

Workplace enforcement of immigration law became the key element in the Clinton administration's overall immigration policy. In its ultimate expression, Operation Vanguard, the INS conducted checks of immigration documents at every meatpacking plant in Nebraska in 1999. Over 4700 workers were called in by agents, and 3000 left the plants. In Omaha, where a community organization, Omaha Together One Community, had made beginning steps towards organizing non-union plants, Operation Vanguard wiped out its rank-and-file organizing committee.

Last year the United Food and Commercial Workers and OTOC together mounted new organizing drives at the Omaha plants, winning several elections. Despite an internal operating procedure directing INS agents not to initiate immigration enforcement actions during labor disputes, however, the INS responded with new raids. At Nebraska Beef, over 200 workers were arrested. "It divided families and threw fear into the community, right at the moment when workers were risking their jobs to change conditions," charges OTOC organizer Sergio Sosa.

Meanwhile, the administration transformed other government agencies into immigration agents as well. Even Department of Labor inspectors looking for minimum wage and overtime violations were required to check the I-9 forms used by employers to track immigration status, and report workers they suspected lacked documents.

The AFL-CIO's previous position in favor of employer sanctions rested on the idea that if it became illegal for the undocumented to work, fewer immigrants would come to the U.S., while those working here illegally would return home. The position, which reflected the federation's cold war, business union policies, created a color line. It sought to protect wages for native-born workers by excluding immigrants, rather than by organizing everyone, as the CIO and Wobblies had done. Sanctions did not succeed in halting the flow of migrants to the US, though they did undermine their rights once they were here. They provided employers with a pretext for firing workers who tried to organize unions. And by making the undocumented more vulnerable, sanctions helped lower their wages and increase their exploitation.

Since 1986, the organizing efforts of immigrant workers have become more important to unions. Last year, the percentage of U.S. workers belonging to unions dropped from 13.5 percent to 13.3 percent, and fell to 9 percent in the private sector. For the overall percentage to stay constant, unions have to organize 400,000 workers a year; to increase by 1 percent, they have to organize twice that number. The AFL-CIO recently proposed a goal of organizing 1,000,000 workers yearly, a rate not achieved since the 1940s.

Over the last decade, immigrant workers have proven key to the labor movement's growth. In Los Angeles, the resurgence of union activism has largely rested on strikes and organizing drives among immigrant janitors and hotel workers. Immigrant carpenters, harbor truckers, garment workers, factory hands, and tortilla drivers have staged pivotal strikes and organizing drives. Immigrant day laborers, domestics and gardeners have built independent organizations, even without labor law protection and support from local unions. And LA is not an isolated case. As union activity among immigrant workers became a national phenomenon, the federation began to see that defending their right to organize was in its own self-interest. "Every period of significant growth in the labor movement was fueled by organizing activity among immigrant workers," Wilhelm says. "We're a labor movement of immigrants and we always have been."

In 1999, LION activists in Oakland wrote a resolution calling for the AFL-CIO to change its old pro-sanctions position. It was circulated and adopted in labor councils across the country, generating a wave of support that crested at the national convention in Los Angeles in the fall. There a succession of union presidents spoke in its favor. Wilhelm declared that his own union's support for sanctions in 1986 was a big mistake: "Those who came before us, who built this labor movement in the great depression, in strikes in rubber and steel and hotels, didn't say, 'Let me see your papers' to the workers in those industries. They said, 'Which side are you on?' And immigrant workers today have the right to ask of us the same question: Which side are we on?" Following the convention, the AFL-CIO executive council adopted its own resolution last February embodying its new position.

Many immigrants rights activists assumed that the change would usher in a major national campaign for amnesty and to repeal sanctions. Yet no bill was introduced into Congress last year calling for such basic reforms. Instead, last April, Henry Cisneros, former secretary of housing and urban development, proposed that unions and immigrant communities support expansion of the H1-B program, which supplies contract labor to high-tech industry. In return, he suggested, Congress could be convinced to pass proposals to end discrimination against Central American and Haitian refugees, for fair treatment for late applicants to the last immigration amnesty, and other reforms.

Cisneros' prediction was wrong. The Republican majority in Congress was ultimately able to pass H1-B without those amendments. The AFL-CIO lobbied against the program, but there was little union campaigning against it outside of Washington. Even immigrant rights groups were divided over it.

"I don't think the H1-B strategy was the right one," says Eliseo Medina, vice-president of the Service Employees and a leading immigration strategist. "High tech was only interested in its own issue, and had no desire to link it to any broader program. We also tried to pass a more limited set of reforms, and in the end, we got a minor amnesty which may affect 6-800,000 people." The Clinton administration pledged support for these more limited goals. For presidential candidate Al Gore, the absence in Congress of a broad amnesty bill repealing sanctions was good news. He didn't have to open himself up to a Republican attack by supporting such a proposal, or alienate the Latino vote in states like California by opposing it.

With the Bush administration in office, the political terrain is changing quickly. In January, Texas Senator Phil Gramm, the most rabid anti-immigrant voice in Congress, flew to Mexico City to meet new Mexican President Vicente Fox, a former Coca-Cola executive with close links to major Mexican and U.S. corporations. On his return, Gramm announced that he and Fox had discussed a vast expansion of bracero contract labor programs.

"It is delusional," Gramm told reporters, "not to recognize that illegal aliens already hold millions of jobs in the United States with the implicit permission of governments at every level, as well as companies and communities." While Gramm called for transforming Mexican migrants into braceros, he also proposed increased enforcement of employer sanctions, to force them into his contract labor scheme.

His analysis echoes Mark Reed, former INS director in Dallas, who at the height of Operation Vanguard, made a similar call. "That's where we're going," he predicted. "We depend on foreign labor, and we have to face the question -- are we prepared to bring in workers lawfully? How can we get unauthorized workers back into the workforce in a legal way? If we don't have illegal immigration anymore, we'll have the political support for guestworker."

Nebraska's governor Mike Johanns was a strong critic of Operation Vanguard, for causing production bottlenecks in meatpacking plants. Last year he publicly endorsed a guestworker program for the industry.

Gramm's visit to Fox was followed by that of Bush himself, who carefully cultivated a pro-Latino, pro-immigrant image during his election campaign, fearing the kind of punishment that California's Latino voters, enraged over Governor Pete Wilson's anti-immigrant policies, imposed on the state's Republican Party. Bush nonetheless opposes amnesty, fearing to cross the right wing of his own party, to whom immigration is still anathema. His solution: supporting contract labor, touting it to Latinos as a chance to work legally in the U.S., while telling his conservative base that it affords no one the opportunity to stay. Bush's position also aligns him with industries that want guestworkers, such as agriculture and meatpacking. "I look south, and see opportunities and potential," he explained after the summit.

For his part, Fox needs to protect the huge economic role migrant labor plays in the Mexican economy. The remittances of Mexicans working in the U.S.-estimated to be between $6 and $8 billion a year-rank as the third largest source of foreign income after oil and tourism. Politically, Fox has to speak to the needs of millions of Mexicans who seek a way to cross the border without the harrowing journey through the desert, which for hundreds every year is a walk to their deaths. He supports a general amnesty but he also supports contract labor, seeing like Bush that it can be portrayed as a means of providing the sought-after opportunity to work in the north.

Indeed, behind all the backslapping between the two weekend cowboys on Fox's Guanajuato ranch, expanding guestworker programs was the only area of immigration reform under discussion in which agreement might eventually be possible. Mexico's foreign minister Jorge Castañeda revealed at the time that talks are already under way on expanding contract labor in agriculture; he is critical of some contract labor programs, but insists that others are good. "There is no better way for Mexicans to defend themselves than to be legal," he declared. Of course, the nature of that legal status-whether it grants people all the rights of citizenship or, like contract labor, makes residency contingent on employment-is the question.

The AFL-CIO officially opposes contract labor programs, and calls for labor protections within those that already exist. But Wilhelm, who heads the federation's immigration committee, says, "I don't think it's possible to have labor protections for contract workers. To think the law will protect people whose right to stay in the country ends with their job is not living in the real world."

The agriculture industry has pushed hard for expansion of its existing H2-A guestworker program. At the end of the last Congressional session, liberal Democrat Howard Berman and Oregon Republican Gordon Smith, a traditional bracero supporter, proposed a legalization program for undocumented farm laborers. In exchange, wage and housing requirements for using guestworkers would be relaxed, and growers wouldn't have to prove a labor shortage before recruiting them. The compromise was supported by farmworker unions, who argued that the existing glut of farm labor made it unlikely that growers would vastly increase their use of guestworkers, and that some expansion of the program was likely to pass in any case. At the last moment the Republican right wing, opposing any amnesty at all, killed the proposal. But guestworker expansion in agriculture is sure to resurface in Congress soon.

"We're going to have a big fight this year," Medina predicts. "The Republicans think that a stolen presidency gives them a free hand, and Gramm's new bracero program is going to be front and center on their agenda. I think they'll introduce a comprehensive bill. Even nursing home employers want guestworkers now."

While fighting guestworker schemes, labor is preparing to introduce its own program. "We're also going to put forward a comprehensive agenda, which will include legalization, repeal of employer sanctions, and workplace protections regardless of legal status," Medina says. At the immigration march in Oakland, the new president of the Laborers Union, Terence O'Sullivan (also a member of the AFL-CIO immigration committee), announced support for five general proposals, including a broad legalization program, repeal of employer sanctions, opposition to contract labor, and protection for the right to organize. A fifth point, especially important to Asian American immigrants, calls for increased ability to reunite families in the U.S.

Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez introduced one bill at the end of January to end discrimination against Central American and Haitian refugees, and another at the beginning of February to expand legalization opportunities for immigrants who arrived before this year. No bill repealing sanctions or containing the AFL-CIO's other program points has yet been introduced. Despite Republican control of both the White House and Congress, however, labor strategists believe real reform is possible, although they caution that it will not likely happen this year, or maybe even next. "But there is a coalition out there that can win," Medina emphasizes. "We need immigrant communities to unite. We have to strengthen labor support, and we need churches, especially the Catholic Church, which has historically been the most active. Even some sectors of business will support us. For them, sanctions have failed-they fear a new bracero program and don't have the resources to take advantage of one."

Wilhelm says, "We're going to go to all members of Congress and ask them to sign on. If we can get the Democrats, and part of the Republicans, we can make a great law. If not, this will be our opportunity to punish those who oppose it." He compares the immigrant vote to that of African Americans: "The Democratic Party can rely on the votes of African Americans today because some people in it supported the African American freedom movement. Those who didn't are still paying the price. It's going to be the same with the votes of immigrants."

Making immigration a civil rights issue will not be easy, however. Many civil rights groups opposed the H1-B tradeoff, pointing out that increasing the number of contract labor visas makes it more difficult to open up jobs for engineers of color in the high tech industry, where the percentage of African-American and Latino engineers is very low. In Los Angeles, the wave of immigrants that has provided the votes now changing its political landscape, and that has become the backbone of union organizing drives among janitors and hotel workers, also displaced an earlier generation of African American workers in those same industries. "Today, hotels and janitorial contractors no longer hire African-Americans," Wilhelm says. "The workforce should fairly reflect the community. It's not responsible to support the rights of immigrant workers and not support people who've paid their dues, and I don't mean union dues."

The conversion of Phil Gramm and at least part of the Republican right (including, most recently, longtime immigrant-basher Jesse Helms) to the pro-bracero position may actually help clarify the immigration debate. Gramm, the AFL-CIO, and immigrant rights activists agree on one thing: The choice to be made is not over what will or won't stop people from coming across the border, but over their status in the U.S. It's the age-old American dilemma: bondage (whether as slaves, indentured servants or braceros) or freedom (even if that still leaves workers with the need to organize and fight to improve conditions).

Migrant Watch International, based in Switzerland, estimates that 130 million people in the world live outside their countries of birth. Neoliberal economic reforms and the transfer of enormous wealth from developing to developed countries makes survival impossible for millions of people in their home countries. Many cope by migrating to places with greater employment possibilities and higher standards of living. U.S. investment in Mexico (the source of most migrants to the U.S.), and the low-wage economic climate fostered by the governments of both countries, push people north along with repatriated profits. Under the rules of free trade, profits and investment have free passage across the border, but people don't. In addition to factors pushing people out of their countries of origin, there are pull factors as well. Communities of immigrants act as magnets, attracting other family members of those who have already immigrated. "These people are not strangers," explains Lillian Galedo, co-chair of Filipino Civil Rights Advocates. "They are our mothers and fathers, grandparents, aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters, and even our children."

Behind the immediate political debates over individual reform proposals lies a fundamental question: Is the purpose of immigration law to supply labor to industry on terms it finds acceptable, or is its purpose the protection of the rights and welfare of immigrants themselves?

Punitive policies and the militarization of borders cannot stop the flow of migrants. But there is another framework for dealing with migration, other than contract labor and repression. In 1990, the United Nations General Assembly adopted an International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. It extends basic human rights without distinction to all migrants, documented or undocumented. It supports the right of family reunification, establishes the principle of "equality of treatment" with citizens of the host country in employment and education, protects migrants against collective deportation, and makes both sending and receiving countries responsible for protecting them. All countries retain the right to determine who is admitted to their territories, and under what conditions people gain the right to work.

Predictably, countries that send immigrants favor the Convention, and countries that receive them don't. The U.S. has not ratified it. The Convention does not answer all questions, but it takes two basic steps that still paralyze U.S. debate. It recognizes the global scale and permanence of migration. And its starting point is the protection of the rights of migrants themselves. That's where an immigration policy based on human rights begins.

Back to Top

Last month I wrote my first article for the Community Alliance newsletter about KFCF. The plan is to write an article each month letting readers know about what is happening at the station. Since I am new to the controversy surrounding the station it was felt that I could offer an objective and unbiased opinion about what has been happening after the recall election. I was quick to discover (see letter to the editor on page 2) that not only is there controversy about what is going on at KFCF - there is controversy about how you report on those events. I just want you to know that KFCF is a very important part of my life and I do not want to do anything to harm it.

At the May 8th, meeting of KFCF/FFCF all board members were present except Catherine Campbell, Robert Munce, and Dixie Salazar. Executive Director, Vic Bedoian was out of town. There were four guests from the community. They introduced themselves. There was some input from the guests during the meeting. It was nice to be able to all sit down together at the same table.

Rych Withers gave the President’s Report and the Executive Director’s Report for Vic. He went over coming events for KFCF. David Gans from KPFA’s "Dead to the World" is tentatively scheduled for a concert July 8th. The Inter-Mountain Nursery Cultural Festival is taking place May 20th. Last month I accidentally dropped the zero in 20. I apologize for any trouble this may have caused.. The documentary film, "Secrets of Silicon Valley" will probably be shown in the Fall.

A lot is going on in regards to Pacifica. Rych and Deborah Speer discussed the KPFA May marathon drive. Rych handed out a newsletter, Pacifica Notebook, to everyone. It was full of information about the Pacifica struggle. You can contact the editor, Lee Loe, at leeloe@igc.org or call 713-524-2682, to request a copy. Rych also talked about a group called the Pacifica Campaign, who is calling for a boycott during the marathon. You can read more about them at http://pacificampaign.org/. KFCF gets 100% of the funds raised by its listeners during the marathons. Pacifica does not get a cut. Rych said there will be letters mailed out to the subscribers discussing the boycott and how it relates to KFCF.

The KPFA Local Advisory Board (LAB) may be coming to Fresno in June. They plan on meetings with listeners in seventeen communities. On a very close vote the LAB voted to support the boycott, but has made it clear that everyone still needs to support KFCF. What is happening at KPFA and KFCF is much different than what is happening in New York, Washington, Houston and Los Angeles.

Randy Stover stated that the satellite transmitter is back from being repaired and should be back in service soon. It has been determined that if a tower is 35 feet or less no permits or licenses are required. After getting final approval from the landlord they hope to soon start the placement of a micro-wave tower at the Wishon office site.

There was discussion around the website domain name of ffcf.net. At this time the website is linked to the Community Radio Coalition and not to Fresno Free College Foundation. There has been much work to try and get the current user of the domain name to release it to FFCF. All attempts to resolve the issue seemed to have failed. The next likely action will be official arbitration through the group that handles website domain name disputes. Hopefully, this issue can soon be put to rest and all involved can push forward towards a bright and positive future.

Dr. Su Kapoor gave an update on the mediation between the two different factions on the present KFCF/FFCF board. Their last session was held February 25th, and the next session probably won’t be until June. Dr. Kapoor stated that things are moving ahead slowly and they are now getting to the really hard part. He commended the group for all that has been accomplished. It has been hard to get all interested parties together at the same time. He made a suggestion that the board may want to change to a paid mediator. Having to pay someone whether or not everyone shows up could motivate those involved to pick a date and get everyone together. Dr. Kapoor also recommended that the board take a look at attending a board development training session. He has a colleague that he could recommend who could provide such a training session.

Alex Vavoulis mentioned that at the next meeting they might take a look at increasing the FFCF dues from $25. With all that is taking place at KPFA and Pacifica it could be a matter that merits some looking into. The next meeting is scheduled for June 19th, 7:30 PM, at the Unitarian Universalist Church.

Back to Top

My friend Vinh Ngo, who I’m sure many of you know, died on May 10, 2001. Vinh was a tireless worker for human rights and social justice. He worked at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte defending a women’s right to choose. He was a strong defender of family planning and reproductive rights. Vinh and I organized candidate forums together so the "left" would have a voice in the electoral process. We were able to ask candidates tough questions that they would not be asked anywhere else - questions about workers rights, environmental justice, and gay/lesbian issues. I will miss the intelligence and integrity that Vinh brought to everything he did. The loss will be felt by everyone in the Fresno progressive community who had the opportunity to know him.

Mike Rhodes
Editor

Back to Top

Will 2001 be the year women lose the rights we’ve worked so hard to gain? Inch by inch we’ve climbed the ladder toward equality but with Bush sitting in the White House, these rights are vanishing one by one.

Before Feminism, before NOW, before Roe v. Wade, when I was a child, no one talked about "women’s rights." The only one we had was the vote... In fourth grade I wanted to take shop with the boys. "You can’t do that," I was told. "You’re a girl." We girls sat at our desks and did handwork. Our high school athletics consisted of cheering the boys on from the sidelines. As a mother and wife, looking for work, prospective employers asked how many children I had and how dependable was my childcare. I was out of the work force quite a while. Later, divorced and with a good job, I wanted a credit card, and the stores wanted to check my ex-husband’s credit as reference for me. And, after I scored first or second on the test for a County job, I was told not to bother to come for an interview because they intended to hire a man. So, if you think the battles are won and we don’t have to worry any more, think again!

Here’s where we are now with Bush’s "compassionate conservatism." The first thing he did was to close the White House Office for Women’s Initiatives and Outreach. And the people he’s hired! His head of the Council of Economic Advisors says there is no gender gap in pay. The new head of Personnel Management opposes affirmative action. Programs such as labor contracting rules and Title IX funding for female sports are in jeopardy. The new assistant for family support at the Department of Health and Human Services is also president of the National Fatherhood Institute and has been known to "push marriage as a way to keep women and children out of poverty."

Bush and the Republican Congress repealed the Ergonomics Standard that OSHA developed over a ten year period which would have protected workers (mostly women) from repetitive strain, back injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome, and other musculo-skeletal disorders caused by lifting, repetitive movements, and poorly designed workplaces.

Through an Executive Memorandum, Bush re-imposed the Global Gag Rule on U.S. funding for family planning programs in developing countries. This rule forbids doctors from discussing all issues related to abortion or the country will lose all American funding, even if the offending country is using its own money, not U.S. funds. The House, using the new (1996) Congressional Review Act, passed a Global Democracy Promotion Act, which was intended to counteract the Gag Rule. But, before the Senate could act, Bush issued a new Executive Memorandum reinstating the Gag Rule and, since Executive Memorandums are not subject to the Congressional Review Act, the Global Gag Rule is again in effect.

Congress is now talking about not reinstating the contraceptive coverage part of health care insurance for federal employees. Its funding runs out this year. And Congress will also be considering increased funding for abstinence-only sex education programs for schools. There will be no mention of sexually transmitted diseases (clamydia is epidemic in teenage girls here in the valley). Title X, Public Health Service Act - Family Planning Program, will again be reviewed and the FDA will be asked to review its ruling on RU-486 (the abortion pill).

Currently, though, the most serious attack on women’s rights is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001, H.R. 503. This legislation purports to be protection of the unborn. Its real goal, however, has nothing to do with protecting the unborn or the pregnant woman. Its purpose is to elevate the legal status of the fetus to that of an adult, and it would require legal protection for the fetus separate from the pregnant woman. Section 1841 D (d) of the bill states, "As used in this section, the term: ‘unborn child’ means a child in utero, and the term, ‘child in utero’ or ‘child who is in utero’ means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." The only thing it doesn’t specify is if humanity begins before or after fertilization. There are at least two differing beliefs as to whether or not the unborn is a human being, separate from the woman who carries it, and therefore supercedes the woman’s right to make her own decision over her own body. H.R. 503 creates a new definition of a person which directly contradicts the definition spelled out thoroughly in Roe v. Wade (410 US 116-177): "To say that life is present at conception is to give recognition to the potential, rather than the actual. The unfertilized egg has life, and if fertilized, it takes on human proportions. But the law deals in reality, not obscurity–the known rather than the unknown. When sperm meets egg life may eventually form, but quite often it does not. The law does not deal in speculation. The phenomenon of life takes time to develop, and until it is actually present, it cannot be destroyed. Its interruption prior to formation would hardly be homicide..." Are women independent persons or only "breeders?"

And we must wonder, what’s coming next? Women’s rights are in danger. They can be blown away, legislated out of law, once again relegating women to the category of helpmate of man, attached to him, and having no worth of our own. What can we do to stop this? Well, our legislators do pay attention to phone calls, letters, email, petitions, and personal visits when they are in town. There are many ways to contact them, particularly if you have access to a computer, but old fashioned phones work well also and letters cost only 34 cents.

Legislators:

Senator Dianne Feinstein
1130 O, Suite 2446
Fresno 93721, 485-7430
Washington, D.C. (202) 224-3841

Senator Barbara Boxer
2300 Tulare, Suite 130
Fresno, 93721, 497-5109
Washington, D.C. (202) 224-3553

Representative George Radanovich
2366 W. Shaw, Suite 105
Fresno, 93711, 248-0800
Washington, D.C. (202) 225-4540

There are a number of organizations you may contact to keep informed about issues of importance. If you have access to a computer and the internet, it is easy to be in touch with these organizations. If you do not have a computer at home, all branches of the County Library have them. You will need a library card to use them. A library card does not cost anything and may be used at any branch. Each user is allowed one half-hour at a time but, if there’s no one waiting a turn, you may use the computer longer. It does cost 10 cents per sheet if you need/want to print out anything. The noon hour (12-1) and after school (3-6) are the busiest hours so, if possible, plan to go at other times. There are workers at the library who can help you to use the computer if you need help.

List of organizations:

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN
email: now@now.org
http://www.now..org/

LEGISLATIVE ACTION CENTER
http://www.now.org/congress
Phone: 1-202-628-8669
Fresno NOW phone: 221-7229

ACLU:
http://www.aclu.org/

RESPONSIBLE CHOICES ACTION NETWORK
email: actionnetwork@rc.planned-parenthood.org

ACCESS-Women’s Health Rights Coalition
3948 Webster Street, Oakland 94609
1-510-923-0822, 1-800-376-INFO

Eye On Bush (People for the American Way Activist Network)
http://www.pfaw.org/activist
email: webmaster@eyeonbush
1-800-326-PFAW

Back to Top

Centro Bellas Artes is an important cultural and political center for the Latino community in Fresno. Their center, which is on E Street in Downtown Fresno, hosts a wide array of grassroots organizations and events. But, unless they can come up with funding to buy the building, they are probably going to get evicted. The directors of Centro Bellas Artes have started a fund drive and are calling on all individuals, organizations, churches, unions, and businesses in the Fresno area to save their center. You can send your contribution to Centro Bellas Artes, 1048 E Street Fresno Ca 93706 or call them at 237-2783 for more information.

Back to Top

If you need to send a Press Release to the local media about an event your group or organization has organized, go to:

http://www.fresnoalliance.com/crc/media.htm

You will find an up to date list of fax numbers for all of the local media. This information is a free service of the Community Radio Coalition and the Community Alliance.

Back to Top