|
Asian Americans Are Confronting a New Wave of Racial Violence |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=53457"><span class="small">Jesse Jackson, Chicago Sun Times</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 11 March 2021 13:21 |
|
Jackson writes: "A new wave of anti-Asian racial violence is sweeping the country. Sadly, racial violence, bigotry and hatred directed at Asian Americans has scarred their history in this country."
Jesse Jackson. (photo: Getty)

Asian Americans Are Confronting a New Wave of Racial Violence
By Jesse Jackson, Chicago Sun Times
11 March 21
The scapegoating of Asian Americans is taking an ugly, violent turn.
new wave of anti-Asian racial violence is sweeping the country. Sadly, racial violence, bigotry and hatred directed at Asian Americans has scarred their history in this country.
Nothing is more dehumanizing. Asian Americans come from many countries and many cultures. They have played a remarkable role in building this country. And yet, the violence erases their humanity, identifies them as the other, and ignores their contributions.
I remember in May of 1983, I met with Lily Chin and Asian American leaders at San Francisco Chinatown’s Cameron House. A year earlier, her son Vincent was chased down in the streets of Detroit by two unemployed white auto workers, who beat him to death with baseball bats.
“It’s because of you mother-(expletive)s we’re out of work!” shouted one of his attackers. They thought Vincent was Japanese. This was the 1980s when U.S. auto plants were shutting down during the Reagan recession, and blame was wrongfully placed on competition from Japanese auto imports, setting off a wave of anti-Japanese/anti-Asian hysteria.
I was struck then by the way Lily Chin stood up and fought against this injustice, and how leaders like Norman Fong, Mabel Teng and Helen Zia organized marches and resistance in the Asian American communities from Los Angeles to New York.
They rose up to organize against anti-Asian racial violence. They found common ground with African Americans, Latinos and others, and forged alliances with people and organizations that have long been targets of racial violence. The fight against racial violence became a key pillar of my 1984 presidential campaign, and Asian Americans became an integral part of our Rainbow Coalition from its very start.
Today, violence targeting Asian Americans is becoming an alarming weekly, if not daily, occurrence. It is stoked to no small degree by more than a year of Trump obsessively describing the coronavirus as the “China Virus” and “Kung Flu.” Fueling his base of white nationalism, Trump resurrected a “Yellow Peril” scare.
Trump combined this vitriol with a big lie, blaming our loss of jobs to China. The reality is that American corporations took our jobs to China, seeking to take advantage of low-wage labor with few rights and few environmental protections. It was U.S. policy that failed to protect our jobs. Now Trump and others blame China when it was our leaders who were at fault.
Words matter. The scapegoating of Asian Americans is taking an ugly, violent turn: On Jan. 28, 2021, 84-year-old Vicha Ratanapakdee was out for a morning walk in San Francisco when he was violently assaulted. Days later, he died.
On Feb. 3 in Manhattan, Noel Quintana, 61, was riding the subway when his assaulter slashed his face.
Last year, an Asian woman in Brooklyn had acid thrown in her face as she took out the garbage. A Burmese man and his two children were slashed by a knife-wielding attacker while shopping in Midland, Texas.
On street corners and in shopping malls, “Asian Americans Have Been Attacked, Spat On, and Cursed Out,” as reported by Slate. Stop AAPI Hate received reports of more than 3,000 incidents of anti-Asian violence in 2020.
It’s reminiscent of the post-9/11 hysteria that targeted Muslims, as well as Sikhs and other South Asians living in the U.S.
For Chinese Americans, Lunar New Year in the month of February is usually a time for firecrackers, lion dances and celebration in Asian communities. This year, community leaders marked the occasion by confronting this inglorious rise of racial violence.
From progressive Asian community activists to Hollywood actors, business leaders and athletes, Asian communities are rising up and confronting this new wave of racial violence. Community activists are organizing self-patrols and community escorts for the elderly. They want these anti-Asian attacks to be prosecuted as hate crimes.
In the best tradition of the civil and human rights movement, they are holding marches and rallies to defend their communities against violence, and building alliances with African Americans, Latinos and other communities fighting against racial injustice.
NBA basketball player Jeremy Lin said, “It would be hypocritical of me to say I’m anti-racism if I only stand up for people who look like me. There is definitely power in unification and solidarity. ... We as minorities also have to collaborate, unify and use our voices and stand up for each other.”
President Biden has weighed in, issuing an executive memorandum saying the “inflammatory and xenophobic rhetoric has put Asian American and Pacific Islander persons, families, communities and businesses at risk.” Special task forces are being organized by local police departments. Local elected leaders have taken to the media to call for unity with the Chinese and Asian communities and decry the violence and harassment.
Some of the most shameful chapters of our history involve racial prejudice against Asian Americans. In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act (extended to all Asians in 1924) made it illegal for Chinese to immigrate to the U.S. In the Rock Springs Massacre of 1885, white mobs in Wyoming murdered 28 Chinese coal miners and burned Chinatown to the ground. World War II witnessed the internment of 120,000 Japanese Americans in U.S. concentration camps, even as many of their sons fought loyally in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Asian communities are suffering, even as they are summoning the courage of Lily Chin, turning their pain into power, determined to stop the violence and never surrender. At Rainbow PUSH, we stand with them, and call on all citizens of conscience to join them in their drive to confront the hatred and stop the violence.

|
|
RSN: Rahm Emanuel Is in the Running for a Top Ambassador Post. The Prospect Is Appalling. |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=55970"><span class="small">Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 11 March 2021 12:48 |
|
Excerpt: "Rahm Emanuel has never been associated with the word 'diplomatic,' but news reports say that President Biden is seriously considering him for a top position as U.S. ambassador to Japan or China. Naming Emanuel to such a post would be an affront to many of the constituencies that got Biden elected."
Former Obama official Rahm Emanuel. (photo: Reuters)

Rahm Emanuel Is in the Running for a Top Ambassador Post. The Prospect Is Appalling.
By Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News
11 March 21
ahm Emanuel has never been associated with the word “diplomatic,” but news reports say that President Biden is seriously considering him for a top position as U.S. ambassador to Japan or China. Naming Emanuel to such a post would be an affront to many of the constituencies that got Biden elected. The saga of Emanuel’s three decades in politics is an epic tale of methodical contempt for progressive values.
One thing Emanuel can’t be accused of is inconsistency. During his political career, he has steadily served elite corporate interests, and rarely the interests of the broad public or the causes of racial justice or peace.
Emanuel rose to prominence as the finance director for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign. He excelled at pulling in large checks from super-wealthy individuals. As a high-level Clinton administration aide, he played a major role – and bragged about it – in the passage of the disastrous NAFTA trade bill, which was strongly opposed by unions, environmentalists and most Democrats in Congress. He also was a spark plug for passage of the mass-incarceration-oriented 1994 Crime Bill, with prison-term-lengthening provisions like “three strikes.”
In 1996, Emanuel boasted to a Washington Post reporter of the administration’s “tough” policies on “wedge issues – crime, welfare, and recently immigration.” In a memo that year, he urged Clinton to move rightward on immigration policy by working to “claim and achieve record deportations of criminal aliens.” The next year, Emanuel’s approach was explained by a senior staffer at the Immigration and Naturalization Service who worked closely with him: “As long as we dealt with illegal immigration, we could be to the right of Atilla the Hun. Rahm felt that Americans believed too many people were coming into this country, too many foreigners, so he wanted to show the administration returning people, deporting them, putting up bigger fences, sending them back.”
In July 1996, the Republican-controlled Congress pushed through its punitive "welfare reform" bill that ended the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, added work requirements and gave states the power to slash support. In the intense White House debate over whether to sign the bill, Emanuel was one of the strongest voices urging Bill Clinton not to veto the bill, as the president had done with earlier GOP welfare bills. Clinton signed the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996,” prompting an outcry from anti-poverty activists and high-level administration resignations.
After leaving the Clinton administration in 1998, Emanuel made a quick $18 million in two and a half years as managing director of the Wall Street investment bank Wasserstein Perella, working out of its Chicago office.
Elected to Congress in November 2002, Emanuel supported George W. Bush’s disastrous Iraq invasion, and defended the war after most Democrats in Congress and most of the public had turned against it. As head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006, Emanuel seemed oblivious to the change in public opinion. While he took credit for Democrats regaining the House majority, his selection of right-leaning candidates, including Iraq war supporters like himself and former Republicans, ultimately led to GOP gains.
While serving as President Obama’s chief of staff in 2009 and 2010, Emanuel argued for mollifying healthcare reform opponents by significantly weakening Obamacare. (He acknowledged years later it was a good thing Obama didn’t listen to him.) In a 2010 meeting with liberal leaders who planned to publicly pressure the Democratic Party’s conservative wing into supporting healthcare reform, Emanuel famously called them “fucking retarded.”
Emanuel was known in D.C. for hyper-combativeness (earning him the nickname “Rahmbo”) and his ability to gain positive spin from corporate media: “He is on a first-name basis with every political reporter in Washington,” a Washington Post columnist asserted.
After being elected mayor of Chicago in 2011, Emanuel’s administration faced a series of scandals that included concerted warfare against the teachers’ union and the closing of 49 public schools, many in black neighborhoods.
In his 2015 bid for re-election, he was forced into a runoff by progressive challenger Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, a contest that would be decided largely by African American voters. Emanuel very likely would have lost the election except for the fact that for 13 months, through the duration of the campaign, his administration suppressed a horrific dashcam video showing the death of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald, an African American who’d been shot 16 times by a police officer as he walked away from the officer. (The city had paid $5 million to McDonald’s family without a lawsuit having been filed.)
Soon after a judge ordered the city of Chicago to release the video, polls found that only 17 percent of Chicagoans believed Emanuel when he said he’d never seen the video and that most city residents wanted him to resign as mayor.
When it was reported last November that Biden was considering him for a cabinet post, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted: “Rahm Emanuel helped cover up the murder of Laquan McDonald. Covering up a murder is disqualifying for public leadership.” Then-Congressman-elect Mondaire Jones added: “That he's being considered for a cabinet position is completely outrageous and, honestly, very hurtful.”
Emanuel’s 30-year campaign against pro-working-class policy reforms is unending. Asked last August how he would advise the Biden administration, he told CNBC: “Two things I would say if I was advising an administration. One is there’s no new Green Deal, there’s no Medicare for All.”
If Rahm Emanuel becomes the ambassador to China or Japan – countries with the world’s second- and third-largest economies – he will gain new leverage in a region bristling with ethnic and military tensions. Everything about his record indicates that such power would be vested in the wrong hands.
Days after Biden’s election, AOC told The New York Times that Emanuel’s inclusion in the Biden administration “would signal, I think, a hostile approach to the grassroots and the progressive wing of the party.”
We’ll soon find out whether Biden is willing to send such a signal.
Jeff Cohen is an activist, author and co-founder of RootsAction.org. He was an associate professor of journalism and the director of the Park Center for Independent Media at Ithaca College and founder of the media watch group FAIR. In 2002-2003, he was a producer and pundit at MSNBC. He is the author of Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media.
Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and the author of many books, including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 and 2020 Democratic National Conventions. Solomon is the founder and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

|
|
|
Undoing Trump-Era Policies Is Not Enough to Transform the Immigration System |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=58619"><span class="small">Guadalupe Chavez, NACLA</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 11 March 2021 09:08 |
|
Chavez writes: "In March 1, 2020 President Joe Biden and Mexican President Andres Manuel López Obrador held a virtual summit to discuss pressing issues key to the U.S.-Mexico bilateral relationship, among them migration."
Migrants demanded clearer immigration policies from the Biden administration during a protest at the San Ysidro port of entry on the Mexican border last week. (photo: Guillermo Arias/Getty)

Undoing Trump-Era Policies Is Not Enough to Transform the Immigration System
By Guadalupe Chavez, NACLA
11 March 21
The Biden and López Obrador administrations should take the lead from solidarity organizations in the U.S. and Mexico and decriminalize immigration.
n March 1, 2020 President Joe Biden and Mexican President Andres Manuel López Obrador held a virtual summit to discuss pressing issues key to the U.S.-Mexico bilateral relationship, among them migration. The leaders agreed to cooperate and develop collaborative mechanisms to stem and manage the flow of irregular migration, particularly from Central America, by addressing the root causes of migration.
While Biden’s politics on migration are not overtly anti-immigrant compared to those of his predecessor, the new president and his Mexican counterpart have a long way towards reshaping and transforming the politics of migration in the U.S.-Mexico corridor. For the last 20 years, Mexico has served as the U.S.’s extra-territorial border. Both countries have continuously implemented bilateral frameworks grounded on deterrence, criminalization, and removal, mechanisms that frame migration as security concern rather than a necessity and as a means of survival. If both countries want to address regional migration, they should listen closely to the demands of organizations that work to decriminalize mobility through practices of solidarity.
Mexico’s Southern Border and Criminalization of Migrants
Over two decades, the United States and Mexico have strengthened their bilateral relationship through collaborative partnerships managing human mobility. This partnership became most visible during Trump’s presidency.
Mexico initially implemented a border policy agenda in the 1990s. But enforcement was heightened beginning in 2001 when the Mexican government implemented Plan Sur (Southern Program) with support from the U.S. government. The objective of Plan Sur was to halt unauthorized migration by establishing migration checkpoints throughout Mexico’s southern border. Mexico also used it as a bargaining chip for negotiating better treatment of Mexican nationals in the U.S.
But the 9/11 attacks forced the Mexican government to intensify the scope of Plan Sur. The U.S. pressured its allies and closest neighbors to adopt stricter immigration control policies. The Mexican state created deportation programs and deployed the national police and army to its southern border. This pushed migrants into more desolate and dangerous routes, an early infrastructure criminalizing their mobility and visibility across the country.
Plan Sur became a blueprint for managing the U.S.’s ongoing “crises.” The arrival of unaccompanied Central American minors at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2014 during the Obama administration again led the U.S. to ask Mexico to control the flows of Central Americans in transit. Former President Peña Nieto implemented Programa Frontera Sur (Southern Border Program). Since its implementation, the U.S. has supported this program through funds, technology, equipment, and training to deter migration from Central America.
Like Plan Sur, the purpose of this program is to curtail unauthorized migration flows from reaching the U.S. The program established roadblocks and mobile checkpoints throughout the interior of the country, expanded detention centers, and established mechanisms that facilitated collaboration between Mexico’s National Institute of Migration (INM) and local police in carrying out raids and arrests. In 2015, Mexican apprehensions of migrants from Central America increased, surpassing apprehensions by U.S. immigration authorities. The impacts of the program have been devastating, criminalizing all forms of mobility and increasing deportations of individuals seeking political asylum in Mexico.
The program has radically transformed how migrants move across the country. Immigration control has forced migrants to take more dangerous routes controlled by criminal organizations. According to research by New School Professor Alexandra Délano Alonso, this has pushed migrants to develop new strategies to avoid violent encounters, including traveling in families or larger groups.
In 2018, President-elect López Obrador announced that his administration was going to address migration through a human rights lens. In response to the arrival of Central American caravans in January 2019, López Obrador implemented a humanitarian visa program that provided certain migrants identification documents, work authorization for one year, and allowed temporary mobility across the country. This represented an alternative approach to the U.S. migration governance framework. However, the program was cancelled three weeks after its implementation.
Paradoxically, since taking office, López Obrador made significant federal budget cuts affecting the capacities of NGOs and of the Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance (COMAR). Trump’s implementation of metering policies and the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) placed additional constraints on Mexico’s already underfunded refugee infrastructure. These changes left “many migrants in conditions of legal limbo and precarity,” says Alexander Voisine, former member of the legal accompaniment team at Casa Refugiados, a Mexico City NGO that provides legal accompaniment to asylum seekers.
In 2019, when Trump threatened to increase tariffs if Mexico did not stop migrants from reaching the U.S. border, the situation further deteriorated. With Programa Frontera Sur already in place, López Obrador deployed the National Guard to the southern border, increasing violence, deportations, and raids throughout border towns.
Practices of Solidarity and Demands for the New Administration
The deterrence policies implemented by the U.S. and Mexico in the last 20 years have transformed Mexico from a country of mass emigration to a country of legal limbo, permanent settlement, and return. These policies have stranded many migrants in Mexico, including those who seek to reunite with their families in the U.S. The lack of governmental support has pushed local organizations to adopt new practices and mobilize demands to hold both governments accountable.
These organizations have created physical safe spaces and accompany people to access basic rights. In 2018, I visited Espacio Migrante in Tijuana to learn how organizations there and in San Diego were addressing the needs of migrants in transborder spaces. Espacio Migrante is a community space that supports migrants from all over Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa. Their services range from providing access to shelter, employment, and education and offering legal referrals. More than that, it is a space for community building. The physical space, which is feet away from the San-Ysidro port of entry, stands out for its vibrant colors.
Haitian members of Espacio Migrante shared with us that the Haitian Creole classes they taught at the space facilitated cultural exchange with the broader Mexican community in Tijuana. Another member explained how Espacio Migrante accompanied him in the process of enrolling at the Autonomous University of Baja California to study architecture. Organizations like Espacio Migrante are establishing alternative models of integration and solidarity through community building and cultural exchange. These practices are resisting and transforming false narratives about migrants reinforced by governments and the media.
Other organizations such as Al Otro Lado have resisted these deterrence policies through offering legal services across Tijuana, California, and Central America. Al Otro Lado is one of the few organizations that accompanies asylum seekers to the San Ysidro port of entry to claim asylum and has implemented family reunification programs to reunite parents who have been separated from their children under Zero Tolerance.
According to Damaris Venegas Montiel, a member of the accompaniment team at Otros Dreams en Accion (Other Dreams in Action, ODA), an organization in Mexico City that supports deportees and returnees, accompaniment is essential because it is a practice of solidarity. “Accompaniment is a way of letting the person know that you will be there physically and emotionally present with them throughout their process of demanding access to basic rights,” Damaris says.
Since Biden took office, Espacio Migrante, Al Otro Lado, asylum seekers, and the deported/returned community in Mexico have written a joint letter with demands and proposals to the new administration. Organizations demand the Biden administration to end family separation policies, reunite families that have been separated under the Trump-era zero tolerance and mass deportations carried out under the Obama administration, end expulsions under Title 42, and provide a pathway to citizenship for the approximately 11 million undocumented migrants living in the U.S.
On his first day in office, President Biden sent an immigration bill, titled “The U.S Citizenship Act of 2021,” to Congress as part of his commitment to “modernize” the immigration system. This bill is significant, as it addresses many of the demands that migrant communities on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border have mobilizing behind for decades. The bill provides a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, aims to change the word “alien” to noncitizen in its immigration law, and seeks to reunite families that have been separated by deportation by eliminating the three- and 10-year bars that are imposed on individuals after they are deported. While these are radical changes, the latter will only benefit families that were deported under the Trump administration, overlooking the millions of families that were separated under the Obama administration.
The Biden administration has promised to reverse several of Trump’s policies, but advocates, refugees, deportees, returnees, mixed-status families, and allies want to see transformative change. Both the Biden and López Obrador administrations need to adopt political discourse, policies, and practices that decriminalize human mobility.

|
|
Problems With Pentagon's Plans to Build an Arsenal of Nuclear ICBMs |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=58618"><span class="small">Federation of American Scientists</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 11 March 2021 09:08 |
|
Excerpt: "The Pentagon is currently planning to replace its current arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) with a brand-new missile force, known as the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, or GBSD."
The GBSD nuclear missile would replace the Minuteman III, pictured, but questions have been raised about its viability in the event of a conflict with Russia. (photo: Clayton Wear/Getty)

ALSO SEE: 'Cold War-Era Weapon': $100bn US Plan to Build New Nuclear Missile Sparks Concern
Problems With Pentagon's Plans to Build an Arsenal of Nuclear ICBMs
By Federation of American Scientists
11 March 21
he Pentagon is currently planning to replace its current arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) with a brand-new missile force, known as the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, or GBSD.
The GBSD program consists of a like-for-like replacement of all 400 Minuteman III missiles that are currently deployed across Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming, and will also include a full set of test-launch missiles, as well as upgrades to the launch facilities, launch control centers, and other supporting infrastructure. The GBSD program will keep ICBMs in the United States’ nuclear arsenal until 2075, and is estimated to cost approximately $100 billion (in Then Year dollars) in acquisition fees and $264 billion (in Then Year dollars) throughout its life-cycle.
However, critics of the GBSD program––which include a chorus of former military commanders and Secretaries of Defense, top civilian officials, current congressional committee chairs, subject matter experts, and grassroots groups––are noting a growing number of concerns over the program’s increasing costs, tight schedule, and lack of 21st century national security relevance. Many argue that the GBSD’s price tag is too high amid a plethora of other budgetary pressures. Many also say that alternative deterrence options are available at a much lower cost, such as life-extending the current Minuteman III ICBM force.
Despite these concerns, the GBSD program has been accelerated in recent years, apparently in an effort to lock in the system before the arrival of a new administration. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that there has not been a serious consideration of what role these Cold War-era weapons are supposed to play in a post-Cold War deterrence environment. Attempts in Congress to scrutinize the program have been shot down, usually with the lobbying help of the major GBSD contractors.
As a result, key decisions during the most crucial years of GBSD have been made without being able to access the full scope of information and analysis about the program.
To that end––and with generous support from Ploughshares Fund––the Federation of American Scientists has initiated an external review of the GBSD program, in addition to reviewing the fundamental role of ICBMs in US nuclear strategy. This project aims to put together a comprehensive, unclassified picture of the GBSD, while challenging many assumptions about the history, purpose, and utility of ICBMs. We hope it will be a useful resource for Congress, the incoming Biden administration, and the public.

|
|