The Rev. Miguel Rivera of the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders tells National Public Radio that immigrants — legal and illegal — should boycott the Census because of past raids and deportations of immigrants.

“Law enforcement has been very effective in areas where the data of Census 2000 has been used,” he said, adding that a boycott would put pressure on members of Congress. “So if they don’t want lacking of funding for their constituents, maybe losing seats at the congressional level, then what they have to do is roll their sleeves and move forward with comprehensive immigration reform.”

That presents a conundrum for Bachmann, who has advocated increased enforcement of current immigration policy. “This is an issue of anarchy versus the rule of law,” she once told Bill O’Reilly.

She said during the 2008 campaign that illegal immigrants were “bringing in diseases, bringing in drugs, bringing in violence.”

But the more interesting twist? Bachmann doesn’t think the Census asks about citizenship. She told Sean Hannity:

Sean, you know the one question they don’t ask? They don’t ask, “are you an American citizen?” They don’t ask if you’re here on a visa or when it expires. We have no real idea how many illegal aliens are in our country. But wouldn’t you think, here they are asking every personal question about our lives, they could at least ask if we’re an American citizen? They don’t bother to ask for that. That’s why I think people need to read this census for themselves. If you go to my website, michelebachmann, you can read it.

But, as Think Progress pointed out, the Census has asked about citizenship since 1890.

If the anti-immigrant reactions to the outbreak of H1N1 influenza — “swine flu” — are any indication, advocates for immigration reform are going to have an uphill battle in Congress this year.

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship held its first hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform. The hearing was full of powerful arguments for why comprehensive immigration reform would boost the U.S. economy, enhance public safety and reinforce American values of hard work, family unity and entrepreneurship. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified to how legalizing undocumented immigrants would boost economic conditions for everyone, while Thomas Manger, Montgomery County, Md., Police Chief and Chairman of the legislative committee for the Major Cities Chiefs’ Association, testified that legalization would improve relationships between local communities and police officers and help law enforcement do its job.

But one witness, Joel Hunter, a church pastor who spoke eloquently of the humanitarian need for immigration reform, alluded to the dark side of the debate that could ultimately torpedo the reform effort: “A broken [immigration] system tempts many to predatory practices,” he said, including “the talk show hosts that increase their fame and fortune by picturing those without the proper papers only as conniving and dangerous parasites…”

The swine flu crisis this week played perfectly into the hands of those Hunter described.

When it comes to immigration, the facts often don’t seem to matter. Whether it’s a struggling economy or the threat of a pandemic, the crisis of the day becomes fodder for restrictionist activists to claim that immigration reform – particularly if it involves legalization, or what they derisively call “amnesty” – will only exacerbate the United States’ problems.

As Media Matters documented, nationally syndicated radio host Michael Savage led the pack last Friday, saying: “Make no mistake about it: Illegal aliens are the carriers of the new strain of human-swine avian flu from Mexico.”

Never mind that the first reported cases in the United States came from schoolchildren at a New York City Catholic School who’d traveled to Mexico for spring break. “If we lived in saner times, the borders would be closed immediately,” insisted Savage, who went on to ask, “could this be a terrorist attack through Mexico? Could our dear friends in the radical Islamic countries have concocted this virus and planted it in Mexico knowing that you, [Homeland Security Secretary] Janet Napolitano, would do nothing to stop the flow of human traffic from Mexico?”

Immigration restrictionists unabashedly argue that the crisis of the day — whatever it may be — is the fault of illegal immigrants.

As the fear of swine flue spread on Monday, Fox News anchor Glenn Beck asked on his radio show: “Gee, it would be nice if we had border security now, wouldn’t it?” He went on: “But if you are a family and you’re down in Mexico and you’re dying and those in America are not, why wouldn’t you flood this border? Why wouldn’t you come across this border? It’s exactly what I warned of — different scenario, different reason of — I was talking about economic collapse. People start to come and rush this border, then what happens?”

William Gheen, head of the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, on Monday blamed the Obama administration for risking American lives by its “failure to secure our borders.” In a press release issued Tuesday, he called on Congress to “demand that the southern border be closed to all non-essential traffic and that military troops are deployed to stop the nightly flow of thousands of illegal immigrants into America.”

Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) soon chimed in, insisting that the U.S. government close the U.S.-Mexico border until the threat is resolved: “The epicenter of this outbreak is still in Mexico and while we now have several confirmed cases in the United States, we must consider all options to help reduce the number of new cases entering our nation,” said Massa. “I’m glad that the White House has issued a travel advisory and is conducting passive screening at the border, but I think we should consider stronger measures at the border. I am in favor of using all tools available to reduce the spread of Swine Flu.”

Then on Wednesday, The Washington Times, under the banner “Border Still Open,” opened their story on the swine flu outbreak saying, “U.S. officials say traffic across the southern border will not be interrupted by the swine flu outbreak, despite rising numbers of Mexican-origin infections in the U.S. and a warning that the number of infections could reach international pandemic levels.”

And Greta Van Sustren’s show on Fox News yesterday ran with the headline: “Seal the Border?”

Even The Los Angeles Times ran the headline: Swine flu: Time to close the U.S.-Mexico border?

In fact, experts on infectious diseases say that closing down the legal U.S.-Mexico border — even if it were possible — would only exacerbate the problem. “There is no connection between the severity of a pandemic and border crossings,” Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy and a longtime adviser to the U.S. government on public health told the Public Radio International show “The World” on Tuesday.

Closing the border could actually inhibit the United States’ ability to obtain what it needs to treat patients and stop the swine flu’s spread. “Few people realize how many of the medical products we use in this country are made outside of the country,” Osterholm said. These products include the circuits for mechanical ventilators that help people breathe in a severe case of the flu. “One of largest producers of circuits in the world is in Mexico,” said Osterholm. “So if we suddenly shut down the border we’d limit how many ventilators we could provide.” Despite those ranting to the contrary, “Border closings in and of themselves do not accomplish walling yourself off from that virus.”  As President Obama said at his press conference on Wednesday, closing the border now would be “akin to closing the barn door after the horses are out, because we already have cases here in the United States.”

Still, it’s difficult to convince border restrictionists and their high-pitched advocates that anything but sealing the U.S.-Mexico border is the solution, whether the problem is a flu pandemic, drug-related violence or high unemployment.

At the Senate hearing on Thursday, although different witnesses emphasized different aspects of immigration reform, seven of eight witnesses, representing a broad range of interests, from labor to law enforcement to civil rights and business, supported some form of comprehensive reform that would provide a path to legalization for many of the nation’s current undocumented immigrants. To be sure, there are policy differences, particularly regarding how many temporary “guest” workers should be allowed, for example — businesses want more, unions want fewer — but there appears to be, at least among most serious advocates, legislators and policymakers, consensus about the need for comprehensive reform.

The biggest hurdle may be getting such sober, rational policy arguments heard above the alarmist.

Daphne Eviatar is a law reporter for the Washington Independent.

Photo: Minnesota Independent

Minnesota’s most outspoken member of Congress, Republican Michele Bachmann, took to the House floor Monday evening to lambaste Democrats on everything from gay marriage and abortion to taxes, immigration and Mountain Dew. At one point she said the State Childrens Health Insurance Program, recently reauthorized by Congress, would be a “magnet” for “illegal aliens.”

Bachmann: “[B]ecause now President Obama even voted for the SCHIP bill, which we all know will now for the first time swing the door wide open for illegal aliens. I know one thing: The people in my district are not interested in paying for the health care for illegal aliens that are coming across our border to be yet one more magnet to bring people in that should come here legally.”

On taxes and Mountain Dew: “Congress just had a sugar high. It’s as though every member of Congress just ingested a 24-pack of Mountain Dew and said, ‘Hallelujah. I’m on a sugar high. We’re going to spend money, and we’re going to rev this economy up.’ Well, I’m telling you, if you had a 24-pack of Mountain Dew, you would not only be on a sugar high, you would be zooming, but you would crash. And that’s about what we are going to be seeing. That crash is called taxes, Mr. Speaker. And the American people haven’t seen anything yet when they open up their tax bills.”

On the French Revolution: “I know these Minnesota accents are a little tough to get through, but I also want to mention, just for point of reference, I am a federal tax attorney. That’s my background. That’s what I do. Taxes are us.

“But the Obama administration has taken a completely different view. They have taken the view of the French Revolution, which is to tax, tax, tax and spend, spend, spend. And now they have even taken another cue from them — off with their heads.

“Because in their budget proposal, by their own language, the evil are the top 1 percent of income earners. And that’s who they want to whack off their heads.”

On social issues: “We are losing freedom by the boatload. That’s the difference between, I think, what the Republican agenda is and the Democrat agenda. We believe in the Constitution. We believe in the First Amendment, religious freedom, freedom of speech. We believe in the Second Amendment, the right to hold and bear arms. We believe in these important values. We believe in bedrock values for our country.

“Marriage should be between a man and a woman; life should be protected from the moment of conception. We believe in these values. We believe in securing our nation. We believe in taking on the enemy and winning and not being ashamed to win.”

Hat tip: Dump Bachmann

(mccollum.house.gov)

Reps. Keith Ellison and Betty McCollum are cosponsoring legislation that would help bi-national same-sex couples keep their families together. Called the Uniting American Families Act, the legislation would allow non-citizen partners of gays and lesbians to gain permanent resident status in the same manner as married couples.

The United States would join most of the developed world in granting such rights: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the United Kingdom all currently allow same-sex partners to become permanent residents.

The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law estimates (PDF) that 6 percent of same-sex couples are bi-national with Canada and Mexico being the two most common countries of origin. Both countries have legalized same-sex marriage or civil unions to some degree. For heterosexual couples, 5.2 percent are bi-national.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., the chief author of the bill, has been offering it in the House since 2003. In 2005, he said, “The idea now is to build up more and more pressure, get more and more co-sponsors, until one of two things happens. The pressure becomes unbearable and Republicans finally change, or we get a Democratic Congress, whichever comes first.”

And now with a Democratic Congress and a president who says he will support the bill, supporters are hopeful it will at least get a hearing in committee this year.

But not everyone is happy about the bill. The religious right finds it appalling, considering the bill targets two issues that make them squeamish: immigration and homosexuality.

“‘United American Families Act of 2009 … would allow Americans caught up in immoral homosexual relationships to sponsor their foreign-living homosexual lovers for immigration into the United States,” said Peter Labarbera from Americans for Truth in an email to supporters. “We might rename this last bill the ‘Foreign Homosexual Lovers Importation Act of 2009.’”

Nadler’s bill (HR 1024) has 84 cosponsors in the House, and the Senate version (S 424), authored by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has 14 cosponsors.

Minnesota’s lone senator, Amy Klobuchar, is not a cosponsor.

The central aim of the agenda is to find areas of mutual agreement among evangelicals and progressives. For gay rights, that means a focus on employment nondiscrimination laws for the LGBT community with an exemption for religious institutions. In reproductive health, it means finding ways to reduce the need for abortions by “preventing unintended pregnancies, supporting pregnant women and new families, and increasing support for adoption.”

The agenda takes an encompassing approach to immigration: “We agree that we need secure, compassionate, and comprehensive immigration reform. We support policies that create an earned path to citizenship and protect families, while securing our borders and treating American taxpayers fairly.”

Torture is one area where both sides seem to have found common ground. The coalition rejects torture as un-American and immoral.

Tony Jones

Among the dozens of evangelical leaders who have signed on is Tony Jones of Solomon’s Porch in Minneapolis. In his letter of support he wrote, “My hope is that President-elect Obama and the new Congress will embrace this governing agenda, which includes policies that represent real progress on historically divisive issues: reducing abortions and ensuring workplace equality for gay and lesbian persons.” Jones continued, “Together, this growing group of faithful persons represents a new path forward in America that models a positive religious presence in the public square.”

Another signatory is Paul de Vries, a member of the board of the National Association of Evangelicals. “There is one Lord Jesus Christ, and he has many issues,” wrote de Vries. “Tragically, while the Democratic and Republican parties each have at least an attenuated sense of some of his issues — each party seems tone-deaf to some others. Nowhere has the failure to be faithful to Truth and to listen to one another been more acute than on issues underlying the so-called ‘culture wars.’”

During a recent conference call with reporters, a number of evangelical leaders explained why they agreed to be a part of this effort to end the culture war. Probably the most profound example was Jonathan Merritt, founder of the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative.

“As a committed Southern Baptist, I know all too well the ‘culture war’ mentality. It is a mentality that often speaks without listening, divides rather than unites and promotes destructive partisanship,” he said. “At the same time, I am proud of the unwavering moral stances that conservative Christians, including Southern Baptists, have taken. We remain committed to important issues like the traditional marriage and protecting life conception.”

He continued, “Yet conservative Christians must also live out the other tenets of our faith, including compassion, charity, human dignity and the pursuit of peace. Therefore, I support this agenda because I am a Southern Baptist, not in spite of that fact.”

Of immigrants unlawfully in the U.S., she added, “They’re bringing in disease and violence and every sort of difficulty. We need to protect ourselves against that.”

Read reporter Lawrence Schumacher’s account of the debate.

Joel Barkin, executive director at the Progressive States Network

Nathan Newman, a policy director at Progressive States Network, authored the report.

The New York-based political group Progressive States Network (PSN) has just released a report entitled, “The Anti-Immigration Movement That Failed,” which counters media hype around anti-immigration legislation, revealing that over the past few years, states have largely enacted various policies that embrace new immigrants.

While the anti-immigration movement may appear to hold sway at the federal government, the report makes the case that there’s still a heated debate going on at the state level, especially within swing states, said PSN executive director Joel Barkin, at a recent press conference. He calls the report, which examines nationwide policies on a state-by-state scale, “important and timely.” “It’s a significant fight and the pro-immigrant side is winning,” he said, adding, “It’s far from over.”

Report author Nathan Newman, a PSN policy director, attributes the inflated anti-immigrant message to political opportunists who tried to make it a “wedge” issue in electoral politics. But the data shows they’ve been so far unsuccessful. “The states that are the most experienced with the immigration issue, conservative or liberal, have the most positive approach.”

Newman advocates for “strong, integrative policies” that work to assimilate foreign-born people. That’s beneficial for everyone, he argued, pointing out that it can help raise labor standards for both immigrants and American-born workers. That includes things like higher wages for all employees. “Scapegoating immigrants is not going to solve the economic pressure working families experience.  The real problem is a far more pervasive one of employers violating the workplace rights of all workers, both native and immigrant,” the report states.

The vast majority of immigrants across the U.S. live in places that have adopted positive, “integrative” approaches that are welcoming to “New Americans.” A mere 11 percent of undocumented immigrants reside in states that have comprehensive punitive policies, or ones that are broadly unfriendly to immigrants. To the contrary, many states have started offering in-state tuition for undocumented people heading to public universities, health insurance for undocumented children and English language instruction.

Others have introduced programs that provide assistance to immigrants who want to obtain citizenship. More and more states are getting tough on employers that aren’t up to par when it comes to minimum wage, safety code and workers compensation.

(Minnesota, which has a mix of both punitive and integrative laws, is among several states that have passed “new crackdowns on companies misclassifying employees as ‘independent contractors’ in order to evade wage and tax laws.” Other states, like New York, have established something along the lines of a Bureau of Immigrant Workers’ Rights to go after companies that violate wage laws.)

Only in a handful of states that were already conservative-leaning were “significant anti-immigrant policies able to make headway in 2008… Everywhere else, states either stalled anti-immigrant bills or enacted positive policies to better integrate new immigrants,” the report reads.

Minneapolis and Cuernavaca have a longstanding bond.

Minneapolis recently entered into a “sister city” agreement with Cuernavaca, the capital of Morelos, a small Mexican state that is the homeland to nearly 30,000 immigrants who have resettled in the area. That pre-existing relationship, which is unusual for sister cities, was cemented in a signing ceremony in Minneapolis on Sept. 13.

Ricardo Hernandez, who heads the Mexican Consulate in St. Paul, explained that the trend began years ago, sort of informally, with people who trickled in gradually at first and then called for their family members and friends to join them. After that, the next generation comes. “That’s a pretty common way for an entire village to move,” he said, terming it an “immigration shift.”

Part of the reason for coming to Minnesota as opposed to places that are closer to the nation’s border is that immigrants have been “pushed to move somewhere else, where labor is needed and immigration isn’t so aggressive,” Hernandez explained. Here, there’s a good standard of living and a sense of community among the immigrants and “everyone knows each other.”

Over the past 50 years, more and more arrivals from Cuernavaca and its neighboring areas have landed in Minneapolis, with a marked influx just in the last 15 years or so, while the city’s overall Hispanic population more than doubled from 1990 to 2000. (They set up shop, for instance on Lake Street, where the word “Morelos” appears in business names such as in Morelos Taxi, Video Morelos and others.)

It’s part of a larger movement of immigrants flooding into Minneapolis from Laos, Cambodia, Latin America, Somalia, Eritrea, Liberia and other places, in contrast to the wave of northern European immigrants that redefined the city’s demographics at the turn of the 20th century, a city staff report states.

Currently, Minneapolis’ social network includes eight other cities. Some of those are Eldoret, Kenya; Uppsala, Sweden; Kuopio, Finland; and Ibaraki, Japan. Its first sister city was Santiago, Chile; that connection was established in 1961 (it’s no longer active). The Cold War-era program, which is administered by the Washington, D.C.-based Sister City International, started out as a government-aided initiative to promote peaceful international relations with elementary school students who corresponded with overseas pen pals. The program fosters “educational exchanges, tourism, arts and culture, and economic development,” according to a city report.

City Council member Gary Schiff, who has been leading the charge along with Mayor R.T. Rybak, summed up: “We consciously chose [Cuernavaca] based on immigration. I hope it sets a framework with regions of the world where the people have already chosen us … I hope it raises awareness about where people come from and that we’ll learn about our future.”