Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

Voices From the New Civil Rights Movement

By Roberto Lovato, The Nation. Posted June 1, 2006.


Immigrant rights activists aren't just focused on legalization; they have a vision of helping create a more progressive nation.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Under cover of an oak tree on a tobacco farm deep in the heart of rural North Carolina, Leticia Zavala challenges the taller, older male migrant farm workers with talk of a boycott and legalizacion.

"We will not get anything without fighting for it," declares the intense 5-foot-1 organizer with the Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC). Pen and notebook in hand, Zavala hacks swiftly through the fear and doubt that envelop many migrants. She speaks from a place, an experience, that most organizers in this country don't know: Her earliest childhood and adolescent memories are of migrating each year with her family between Mexico and Florida. "We have five buses and each of you has to decide for yourselves if you want to go to Washington with us," she says. After some deliberation most of the workers, many of whom have just finished the seven-day trek from Nayarit, Mexico, opt to get on another bus and join the May 1 marcha and boycott. They trust her, as do the more than 500 other migrant workers from across the state who heed the call from one of the new leaders of the movimiento that is upon us.

Asked why she thinks FLOC was so successful in mobilizing farm workers (the union made history after a stunning 2004 victory that secured representation and a contract for more than 10,000 H-2A "guest" workers who labor on strawberry, tobacco, yam, cucumber and other farms), Zavala talks about "the importance of networks" and the need to respond to the globalization of labor through the creation of a "migrating union." She and other FLOC organizers have followed migrant workers to Mexico, where the organization has an office--and then have followed them back over several months. She also points to the vision, strategies and tactics shared by her mentor, FLOC founder Baldemar Velasquez, who passed on to her the advice that Martin Luther King Jr. gave him during the Poor People's Campaign in 1967: "When you impact the rich man's ability to make money, anything is negotiable."

But when you ask her what is most important in the twenty-first-century matrix of successful organizing, the bespectacled, bright-eyed Zavala will bring you back to basics: "One of the biggest successes of the union is that it takes away loneliness."

The 26-year-old Zavala's vision, experience and learning are a telling reflection of how the leaders of the movimiento merge traditional labor and civil rights strategies and tactics with more global, networked--and personalized--organizing to meet the challenges of the quintessentially global issue of immigration. While it's important to situate the immigrant struggle within the context of the ongoing freedom struggles of African-Americans, women (like Zavala, an extraordinary number of movimiento leaders are mujeres) and others who have fought for social justice in the United States, labeling and framing it as a "new civil rights movement" risks erasing its roots in Latin American struggles and history.

The mainstream narrative of the movement emphasizes that single-minded immigrants want legalization--and how "angry Hispanics" and their Spanish-language radio DJ leaders mobilized in reaction to HR 4437 (better known as the Sensenbrenner immigration bill, which would criminalize the undocumented). But Zavala and other movimiento leaders across the country say that while it's true that the Sensenbrenner bill provided a spark, explaining this powerful movement of national and even global significance as a reaction to DJ-led calls to "marchar!" leaves many things--and people--out of the picture.

This time, there is no Martin Luther King or Cesar Chavez centering and centralizing the movement. Instead, grassroots leaders like Zavala mix, scratch and dub different media (think MySpace.com and text messaging, radio and TV, butcher paper and bullhorns) while navigating the cultural, political and historical currents that yoke and inspire the diverse elements making up this young, decentralized, digital-age movimiento.

At the older end of the age and experience spectrum (the average Latino is 26) is 44-year-old Juan Jose Gutierrez. He started organizing in the late 1970s, distributing mimeographed copies of the radical newspaper Sin Fronteras to immigrant workers in the face of hostility from the anti-Communist right. The director of Latino Movement USA and a key figure in the recent (and, to some, controversial) May 1 boycott, Gutierrez has logged thousands of miles and met hundreds of leaders in his efforts to build one of many vibrant movement networks. "Since January, I've been to about thirty-five different cities and seen old and new leadership coming together to create something that has never been seen before," says Gutierrez, who migrated to Los Angeles from Tuxpan, Jalisco, Mexico, when he was 11. "The [Spanish-language] DJs played a role, an important role, but they let us put our message in their medium. You can trace this movement all the way back to 1968."

Unlike the movimiento leaders who cut their teeth organizing in left-leaning Latin America, Gutierrez traces his political roots to post-civil rights East LA; he and many of the most important Mexican and Chicano immigrant rights leaders in LA--including union leader Maria Elena Durazo, longtime activist Javier Rodriguez and LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa--came out of the Centro de Accion Social Autonomo (Center for Autonomous Social Action), or CASA, a seminal Chicano political organization founded by legendary leaders Bert Corona and Soledad "Chole" Alatorre in 1968. One of the central tasks of CASA, which from its inception had a strong working-class and trade union orientation, was organizing undocumented workers. Gutierrez and others who have covered the country spiderlike for years see a direct line from the organizing around the amnesty law of 1986, which legalized 3 million undocumented workers, to immigrant rights organizing in California (home to one of every three immigrants in the United States), the fight against Proposition 187 of 1994 (which tried to deny health and education benefits to the children of the undocumented) and the historic shift of the AFL-CIO in 2000, when it decided to undertake immigrant organizing.

Having hopped back and forth among many of the more than 200 cities and towns that staged actions in April and May, Gutierrez sees different kinds of leaders emerging from the grassroots: "There are, of course, the undocumented, who are also leading things in local communities; there are legal immigrants getting involved, because they have friends and family who are affected by the anti-immigrant policies; and there are immigrants from different countries who bring their own political, sometimes radical, experiences from places like Guatemala and El Salvador."

One of the "radical" legacies that New York immigrant rights leader Miguel Ramirez has carried with him since fleeing El Salvador is an intensely collective outlook on personal and political identity. Ramirez, who heads the Queens-based Centro Hispano Cuzcatlan, recalls how one of his US-born colleagues told him to "correct" the resume he used to apply for his first organizing job in New York. "He [the friend] told me I had to take out the 'we,'" says 53-year-old Ramirez, whose bushy mustache often lifts to reveal a disarming smile. "I didn't know it was wrong to write, 'We organized a forum, we organized a workshop, we organized a network.'"

The experience and approach of Ramirez, who left his homeland in 1979 after many of his fellow students at the University of El Salvador were persecuted and killed, show that the US movimiento is as much the northernmost expression of a resurgent Latin American left as it is a new, more globalized, human rights-centered continuation of the Chicano, civil rights and other previous struggles that facilitated immigrant rights work here.

Ramirez, who estimates that since migrating he's helped organize more than 100 marches--all of them "very disciplined and without incidents"--is informed by the experience of organizing students, campesinos and others in revolutionary El Salvador, where one of every three Salvadorans adopted radicalized politics during the war. Lacking the wealth and pro-US government politics of Cuban-Americans and other, more conservative immigrant groups, Ramirez and many Salvadoran immigrants (most of whom were denied legal status and benefits granted to Cubans, Vietnamese and others) created organizations that then formed vast multi-issue, mass-based networks challenging the foreign and domestic policies of the most powerful country on earth.

This robust legacy energizes Ramirez and Centro Hispano Cuzcatlan, which organizes around worker rights, housing and immigration, as they play definitive roles in the construction of local networks like the Immigrant Communities in Action coalition. Through the coalition, Centro joined Indian, Pakistani, Korean, Filipino, Bangladeshi, Indonesian and other groups that have organized some of the country's most diverse marches.

Reflecting the historic and ongoing tensions between more election- and legislative-focused immigrant rights advocates in Washington and local and regional players, Ramirez, like the younger Zavala, calmly insists the movimiento must look beyond the upcoming elections and even the pending immigration bill. "In the end, it's an issue of power, one that can only be addressed by constant organizing."

US-born Latinos also feel Ramirez's urgency about organizing around immigration. Their ranks include teens and twentysomethings relatively new to politics, along with veterans like Wisconsin's Christine Neumann-Ortiz, who was influenced by several Latin American movements as well as the struggle against California's Proposition 187.

"To see those thousands of people marching against Prop 187 was an inspiration," says Ortiz, who heads Voces de la Frontera, an immigrant worker center in the belly of the anti-immigrant beast, James Sensenbrenner's Milwaukee. "I was very impressed that there was that kind of response [to Prop 187]. We used that as a lesson," says Ortiz, who was one of the main organizers of marches of 30,000 and 70,000 people, some of the largest marches ever in a state with a storied progressive past.

Ortiz was not caught off guard by the movimiento. "I'm happy to be alive to see this shift," she states from one of Voces's three offices in Wisconsin, "but I'm not at all surprised. We've been building up networks of people over many years."

She and other activists point to years of service and advocacy on behalf of immigrants, which built up good will and trust in the community, as being defining factors in the ability to rally people into political action.

Founded in Austin, Texas, with a mission to build solidarity between US and Mexican maquiladora workers following the signing of the NAFTA accords in nearby San Antonio in 1994, Voces de la Frontera embodies a local-global sensibility. Ortiz started the Milwaukee Voces in November 2001 in response to the growing needs of Milwaukee's fast-growing Latino immigrant population. Like the settlement houses and mutual aid societies and other organizations that supported German and other white European immigrant workers of previous, more progressive eras in Wisconsin and elsewhere, Voces provides a critical support structure for the mostly Mexican and Central American workers in the agricultural, hotel and restaurant, construction and manufacturing industries in HR 4437 country.

Sensenbrenner "wants to leave a legacy. So did McCarthy. Immigrants in Wisconsin know his hypocrisy better than anyone," says Ortiz, whose German and Mexican immigrant heritage portends the not-so-distant future of once wholly white Wisconsin. "He is encroaching on his own base. Dairy farmers in his own district are revolting because he's attacking their economic base. This can't last in the long term," she says, as if eyeing developments in post-Prop 187 California, where short-term anti-immigrant backlash led to a longer-term movement that gave Los Angeles its first Latino (and progressive) mayor--and gave the movimiento a vision of its potential.

Like organizers in Los Angeles, Chicago and other cities, Ortiz and Voces have built strong and deep relationships with the local Spanish-language media. But they're also keenly aware of who's leading the charge. "We had lists of more than 4,000 workers before the radio stations or Sensenbrenner came into the picture," Ortiz explains.

As they continue to organize and lobby around the immigration debate in Congress, around the inevitable backlash at the local and state levels and around a more proactive agenda, Ortiz and many of the other leaders of the immigrant rights movement are keeping their eyes on a larger prize, beyond the issue of immigration. "We're going to change this country," she says, adding, "We've gained public sympathy for immigrants. We've gained recognition and power, and we are an inspiration to the larger movement for change." She is especially motivated when she describes the effect of the movimiento on the generations to come. Like the "Hmong students who went to a Sensenbrenner town hall meeting in South Alice [a Milwaukee suburb] and chanted 'Si se puede, Si se puede' at him." Asked if the backlash will damage the movimiento, Ortiz responds, "In the long run this will make us stronger and build our movement."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Roberto Lovato is a Los Angeles-based writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
You have the right to come here LEGALLY...Use it!!
Posted by: Chuck Norris on Jun 5, 2006 10:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's sad to see that one of the world's most cherished posessions, United States citizenship, is about to be given away to millions racing here to get it. Earn it. Stop whining when it isn't given to you. It's the same story wen Dad gives you $10 for mowing the lawn. You haven't earned that $10 until you've worked fot it. IT was given. Shouldn't there be more pride in earning it!? I'm more than with those who earned their citizenship, irrespective of race. But I have a problem with it being given out. Why? Why not have a problem? Why not have a problem with astronomical bithrates (which us legal citizens pay for), Why not have a problem with legal citizens paying for someone who is too damned lazy to learn English!? Why not have a problem with illegal aliens raping people's daughters!? Why not have a problem with crazy illegal alien drivers running people over!? Also remember that "coyotes" are a part of the problem, too.

I personally haven't had to deal with the problem myself, but I rest assured that if this "immigration reform" is passed, then it will not be so.

It's not racist. I'm ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that there are legal Chinese and Hispanics in this country. Welcome to America. I wish you good luck. Illegal aliens? Good luck with amnesty. You know...those who are farmhands now can be fired at will. Those who are illegal farmhands will be able to enjoy the job security that no White, Black, or Hispanic citizen has. Hell, I wouldn't be suprised if our future generations will be FORCED to learn Spanish, or even down the road a century...Spanish television (or whatever in the future) programs subtitled in English. Still think I'm racist? Take a little visit here: You Don't Speak For Me

I think a wall does no good. The corrupt businessmen / lobbyists / politicians will sneak them across to work for next to nothing, let alone a living wage, and keep us from competing for those jobs (Don't tell me we cannot use those jobs for our people...The reason why crime is high is because many people HERE are unemployed.). I struggle to keep in mind that not all of them are bad people, but merely attempting to escape poverty. That's fine. Go about getting here legally. No one here has a problem with that.

Oh, and the bullshit of a spanish national anthem? Two words:
LEARN ENGLISH!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

notfree
Posted by: losingmyliberties on Jun 7, 2006 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excuse me ,but I thought an immmigrant followed the laws to enter this country. An illegal broke the federal immigration law, and demands the same rights as immigrants that followed the law. And if the goverment dosen't inforce the law on illegals dont inforce it on legal citizens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excuse me, Mr. Lovato, but this is NOT a "Civil Rights Movement".
Posted by: Chuck Norris on Jun 9, 2006 12:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to stand up for my African-American brothers and sisters (Yes, I am white.). The African-American of the 1960's was a CITIZEN, something these people know nothing about. They were trying to get the rights they were supposed to get under the Constitution. These people? Bitching and waving MEXICAN flags! How dare you call this a Civil Rights movement. I would only imagine that some psycopathic lunatic would have shot the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. many years earlier than 1968 had he been a foreign national waving a foreign flag. And the murderer would have had a little more justification for it.

They should shove their Mexican flags where they belong and go to apply for legalization, rather than expecting it. This is like a deer hunter sitting in his cabin and waiting for the deer to jump through the window so that he can shoot it. The hunter should go out in the stand...and my friend, these illegals are the hunters, and the deer is citizenship. Go hunt it down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

citizen
Posted by: rivers on Jun 9, 2006 11:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it is important to note that we must understand that a civil rights battle is a struggle to keep government from taking away the basis rights as outlined in the united states constitution bill of rights, as outlined in the declaration of independence of the united states, the human rights decree of the united nations in 1948, first and most of all those rights endowed upon all of us by The Creator.

i make this statement first because historians continue to use the civil rights struggle and the struggle for the rights of blacks to gain civil rights as one and the same. well they are not. the struggle by black americans was a civil rights struggle, not "the civil rights struggle". the struggle for the rights of handicapp persons, the struggle for the right of women, the struggle for the rights of children and the elderly , the rights of immigrants are civil rights struggle. whenever the government creates a law that blocks the civil (rights of citizens) by the government, the effort to correct it is a civil rights struggle.

next let me also say that the effort to gain civil rights by blacks in this country was not done by the persons identified as black leaders. the struggle was created and led by local people. the montgomery bus boycott is a clear case in point. local women had organized and called for a protest-boycott before there was involvement by national organizations and leaders of those organizations. local women had been protesting against many injustices before the boycott even started.

and finally let me please add that a group of women (4) filed a class action lawsuit to force the government to obey the rights of citizens as oulined in the 14th amendment of the united states constitution. the lawsuit was supported by the boycott and international pressure from african states. and one of the lesser talked about results was the rights gained by immigrants from that court ruling.( see browder vs gayle, 1956., federal district court montgomery, alabama, filed february 1, 1956.

i hope this will help the readers understand more about the united states constitution.

i am a black man from north carolina and i worked the fields just like immigrants i toiled in those fields was not treated like a citizen then, and not too much better now. i support the fact that if companies brought immigrants here to make them rich, then immigrants, just like me and my sharecropper ancestors should have full citizenship rights.

william dickerson-waheed
riversofchange.org
rivers_of_change@yahoo.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

not the same
Posted by: feller on Jun 11, 2006 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a huge difference between people who have no right to be here from folks who were brought here as slaves against their will and not legally equal almost 400 yrs after they came.

Nations have immigration laws. There is not international law or tradition that if you sneak into another nation successfully, you have a legal right to stay or get social benefits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement