More people are becoming aware of the massive injustices increasingly faced by undocumented immigrants. But now it turns out that even legal immigrants are being deported based on next-to-nothing.

From Asian-Nation:

As the New York Times reports, many legal immigrants are being caught in a web of technicalities, bureaucracy, and injustice and in fact, end up fighting orders from the Immigration Control and Enforcement (ICE, the successor to the INS) to be deported back to their sending country, even though they came to the U.S. legally […]

The article includes many examples of how the ICE has used various bureaucratic items to order legal immigrants to be deported: a discrepancy regarding marriage status from 25 years ago, a 10-year old misdemeanor conviction that was wiped from one’s record, green card holders mistakenly voting in state elections, failing to update one’s home address, falsely accusing someone of committing a felony, and not showing up to an ICE office to be fingerprinted even though the person was a quadriplegic. […]

Apparently, a person’s decades of positive actions and contributions to his/her community don’t matter in whether or not they should be considered an American.

What seems to be more important these days is whether they’ve completed a form properly or not.

There’s more.

As C.N. at Asian-Nation points out, this sort of thing is a natural byproduct of the climate created by the “war on terror.”

Duke at Migra Matters writes:

Each year approximately 2.8 million students graduate from US High Schools. Some will go on to college, join the military, or take other paths in life, hopefully all becoming productive members of society.

But for approximately 65,000 of them, these opportunities will never be available. Not because they lack motivation, or achievement, but because of the undocumented status passed on to them by their parents.

Lacking legal status and social security numbers, these students, raised and schooled in the US, cannot apply to college, get jobs other than those at the bottom of the economic ladder, or otherwise follow their dreams.

(There’s lots more in Duke’s post.)

From ADreamDeferred.org:

All three presidential hopefuls co-sponsored the federal DREAM Act, yet it has never been made law. The DREAM Act would enable states to grant in-state tuition to these hardworking immigrant students, making higher education (and eventually citizenship) a real possibility.

We need to put pressure on all three presidential candidates to commit to securing America’s future by enacting the federal DREAM Act in their first 100 days of office.

Sign the petition so that we can show our elected officials that the dreams of students must not be sacrificed to the anti-immigrant, anti-American status quo.

I’m hereby banning the use of the word “illegals” to refer to human beings on “Alas,” with exceptions for sarcasm (i.e., someone using the term to mock anti-immigrant attitudes). A database search shows that many posters here have used the term — not all the time, but on occasion. I’m confident it’s a habit we can break.

I’m not banning “illegal immigrant” or even the vile “illegal alien,” although I hope most “Alas” comment-writers will choose not to use these terms, out of respect for my sensibilities (you are a guest here, blah blah blah) if nothing else.

I myself will try to use “undocumented immigrants.” This seems to me to be less logical than my preferred term, “unauthorized migrants” (which is the most accurate term, with the least derogatory implications), but “undocumented immigrants” has come to be the consensus term among most people defending the interests of undocumented immigrants.

* * *

In our last discussion on this, Robert, Ron, and Sailorman offered a variety of arguments in defense of “illegal alien” and/or “illegal immigrant,” and against “undocumented immigrant.” None of the arguments were persuasive.

1. The appeal to accuracy.

First was the argument that “illegal alien” is the most accurate term. But in fact the term carries two inaccurate connotations in regular English usage. (It is accurate in legalese, but since “Alas” is not a legal journal legalese isn’t the relevant criteria.)

The term “illegal” implies that a felony has been committed; but being an undocumented immigrant is not a felony, it’s a misdemeanor. The term “alien” implies “strange,” “adverse,” and “hostile” — not to mention “non-human” — according to Webster’s. None of that is accurate.

Furthermore, we don’t use the word “illegal” to refer to people who commit misdemeanors, except in the case of undocumented immigrants. We don’t call teenagers out after a legal curfew “illegal teenagers”; we don’t call a speeding driver an “illegal driver.” For that matter, even in the case of felonies, we don’t call the person “illegal.” The action is illegal; the person is not. Referring to the person as illegal is inaccurate.

So neither the term “illegal alien” or “illegal immigrant” can be defended on the basis of superior accuracy.

2. The argument from necessity.

It was implied that not using the term “illegal immigrant” will somehow prevent us from discussing what immigration laws should be, and how our laws and practices should address undocumented immigrants. As Robert put it, “the existing [alternative terms] are pathetic jokes that attempt to win the argument by defining it out of existence.”

This argument is so stupid that I don’t know how to respond to it. Consider this sample dialog:

SUE: I think the police should round up undocumented immigrants and feed them cupcakes.
NANCY: They can’t do that without a warrant.

See? Perfectly easy to argue policy one way or the other. This is because “illegal immigrant” is not, in fact, the only term that can be used — hence the debate over which term to use. If I decide to use the term “big” instead of “large,” that doesn’t mean I’ve defined the concept of “large” out of existence.

3. The argument from indifference. (”So what if the term I used is insulting to the people I’m talking about? Why should I care?”)

In response, I’d argue that undocumented immigrants are people, and needlessly insulting or dehumanizing them is wrong simply because needlessly hurting people is wrong. There is no policy approach towards immigration (including undocumented immigration) which cannot be argued for while avoiding the term “illegal immigrants,” or the vile “illegal aliens.” There is therefore no need to use these terms when discussing policy.

If that doesn’t sway you, then consider the practical implications. Many politically engaged Latin@s are insulted by the terms “illegal” or “alien.” Needlessly alienating large numbers of Latinos and Latinas is poor strategy if you actually want to have your policy preferences on this issue enacted.

4. “This argument is just semantics.”

Well, it’s certainly true that this is a semantic argument, and that people choose words based not only on literal meaning, but also based on subtext. For instance, while not all who use the term “illegal aliens” hate immigrants, among immigrant-haters the use of the term (or its shorter form “illegals”) is commonplace. That’s not a coincidence; immigrant-haters recognize that these terms are dehumanizing, and that’s why they prefer to use them.

So yes, it’s a semantic argument. But “semantic” doesn’t mean “illegitimate.” It’s perfectly legitimate not to want people referred to with terms that both they, and those who hate them most, recognize as dehumanizing and insulting.

From the AP story:

A wrongly deported U.S. citizen who was missing for months in Mexico sued the Department of Homeland Security and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department on Wednesday.

Pedro Guzman, 30, who is mentally disabled, was deported last May after he was arrested and jailed on a misdemeanor trespassing charge. For nearly three months, his family searched for him in shelters, jails and morgues in Tijuana, Mexico, and the surrounding area.

During that time, he rummaged for food in garbage cans, washed himself in rivers and walked as far south as Ensenada — more than 60 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border, according to the lawsuit.

Guzman tried to return to the United States several times, but was turned away. He was found near the Calexico border crossing in August and reunited with his family.

“I will never forget what Peter looked like when he finally returned to the U.S. — exhausted and in terrible shape,” said Guzman’s brother, Michael. “Peter’s life is forever changed by what his government did to him.”

His lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, was filed in federal court in Los Angeles by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Guzman.

“Not only does Peter and his mother want some vindication, they want to make sure immigration officials understand they can’t do this,” said attorney Jim Brosnahan, who represents Guzman. “They should have apologized and said they would take steps to make sure this doesn’t happen again.”

A statement released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a branch of Homeland Security, called the incident a “one-of-a-kind case” and added more than 1 million illegal immigrants have been deported since the agency’s inception.

See other posts on Guzman here and here.

Cross-posted at The Gimp Parade

A vow to give the boot to criminal aliens has become an almost daily part of the New York senator’s presidential campaign spiel on overhauling the immigration system.

“Anybody who committed a crime in this country or in the country they came from has to be deported immediately, with no legal process. They are immediately gone,” Mrs. Clinton told a town hall meeting in Anderson, S.C., Thursday. [..] “No legal process,” the New York senator said at a forum in Tipton, Iowa, according to a political news outlet, the Politico. “You put them on a plane to wherever they came from.”

Katharine at Obsidian Wings points out:

If you read the full article, she does not, in fact, seem to be suggesting summary deportation in violation of the 5th amendment of any immigrant with a criminal conviction. This is just an applause line. But it reflects EXACTLY what I fear about the Clintons: the voters are anti-immigrant this year? Throw in an applause line about putting people on a plane without legal process. […]

“Deport the criminals!” sounds great in theory, but when you’re wondering if you actually have to draft a deportation order for someone who came to the United States as a six month old based on a fairly petty conviction, & reading the “don’t deport my daddy!” letters in his file, it looks rather different. When you’re trying to avoid having to draft an opinion that sends someone to rot in a godawful Haitian prison because of a marijuana conviction he got in high school, it looks rather different. Now, if you’re talking about felonies & people who are here illegally to begin with, that’s another thing; I don’t mind the Z visa restriction she’s talking about & I don’t think any candidate opposes it. But there’s a real possibility of Congress passing some crappy, mean, immigration bill at some point during the next 4 years, & I have zero confidence that she’d fight them on it.

(2) Where have I heard the circular “we don’t need a legal process because they’re bad people and don’t deserve it!” argument before? Hmm….

And then from immigration attorney Crankyliberal, discussing the current laws that Clinton apparently finds too merciful:

Do you want to know how many Lawful Permanent Residents I’ve helped lately who were in proceedings for a single drug possession conviction? These people have been here for over 20 years in most cases, have families and jobs, and screwed up. One of them was a bit stressed out after surviving cancer and also having to take care of her mother who is suffering from cancer. So she did some drugs. Right now, they have a chance to prove that they deserve to stay because the positive equities outweigh the negative. Now, that’s their only chance- if they ever screw up again, they’re removed, no questions asked. […]

…You want to deport the asylum seekers who have crimes? Are you saying you want to overturn the Convention Against Torture, a remedy founded in international law that may be availiable to ANYONE regardless of crime, provided they can prove to a judge that there is more than 50% chance that they will be TORTURED at the hands of their government?

Clinton’s rhetoric contributes to an anti-migrant atmosphere which has made it a real danger that (to pick one issue of many) some victims of domestic violence will be deported.

(You may wonder, reading this, where Obama stands on migrant issues. My impression is that he’s not perfect, but he’s better than other mainstream politicians, including Clinton. Even when it involves taking a political risk by supporting drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants.)

The sky has been falling for a long, long time….

Click on the image to see a larger version.

Nothing I could say about Palestinians forcing open the Gaza-Eygypt border at Rafah could possibly measure up to that action’s power.

Egypt is already trying to close the border. Maybe by the time I wake up tomorrow this relief will be shut off again, but maybe the Egyptian government will find it hard to shut people back in. It’s the world’s biggest prison break and should remind everyone of the possibility and power of resistance.

For more Raising Yosuf, brownfemipower has a great collection of links, and Al Jazeera is always good.

In The American Prospect, Jeff Faux argues that the economic pressures on poor Mexicans to immigrate to the US in search of paying work are going to just get more intense for at least the next decade or so. He argues that the best way to relieve that pressure would be to proactively work to improve job growth in Mexico.

The bargain that undergirded the creation of the European Union could serve as a rough model. When the EU was being negotiated, many in France, Germany, Great Britain, and other wealthier countries feared that they would be flooded with workers from poorer nations like Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Greece. To prevent that, the EU provided a substantial transfer of investment funds to generate job growth in the poorer countries. It worked. Despite the EU’s provision for free movement of labor across the borders, when offered reasonable economic opportunities, workers in the poor countries stayed home.

The aim of a renegotiated NAFTA would be to provide for a similar fund for investment in Mexico in exchange for changes in Mexican law and institutions that would allow the income of Mexican workers to rise as their economy grows. These would include guarantees for free trade unions, enforceable minimum wages, and an increase in education, and other social spending. The cost would be about $100 billion, although much of it would be in the form of loan guarantees rather than cash. Not an insignificant sum, but certainly affordable.

In the comments section of this post on marriages between whites and Latin@s, there is a newly revived discussion about Latin@s and race. It reminds me of a real conversation I overheard just yesterday. I was sitting in a restaurant, which was almost empty. My waitress was Latina, most likely of Mexican or Central American descent. Since I was sitting in the back, I was near the kitchen area. The young white woman, who appeared to be the manager, sat at the table behind me. The Latina waitress came up to the white woman manager and started discussing her (the Latina’s) children. I suppose this was a continuation of a previous conversation, but here’s what I heard.

The waitress: My children are white. LOL!

The manager: Yes, they are very light.

The waitress: Well, my husband is very light.

The manager: Yes, he’s very white looking.

The waitress: I want my kids to be white.

The manager: Well, they are light, and you are pretty light too. Look you’re just a shade darker than me, and I’m Irish.

The waitress: Well, I want to be white, too.

Oh how I wanted to interject myself in the conversation, and I know that they knew I heard all of this. I sat there and debated about whether or not to keep my mouth shut, and I decided that I wouldn’t say anything. But the tone of the conversation was very interesting and depressing. It was as if the Latina waitress was trying to fit in by asserting the whiteness of her children, and the white manager was trying to give affirmation that she and her children could be white. They both were placing whiteness as something that was superior and something that you strive for. I’m not the least bit surprised that these two women felt that way, but I am a little surprised that they were so open about that conversation. I guess they felt that I was white, so I must approve of it. Of course, since I didn’t say anything, I gave my tacit approval to the whole discussion.

I don’t know about the children, but the woman who was my waitress, much to her chagrin, would have had a difficult time passing for white.

I should have said something like, “Well, there’s nothing special about being white.” What’s even more ironic is that I was deeply concentrating on my African American sociology syllabus and I had several books sitting on the table that reflected this. Their discussion helped me to lose that concentration, and soon after, I left.

This is one of those times when I am reminded of a strange aspect of white privilege–this conversation would have never occurred if these two women did not presume that I was white. This is why I cringe and laugh everytime I hear whites proclaim that they don’t hear people make racist comments. Most of the whites (and those who aspire to whiteness) I know prefer to make their racist comments in front of other whites.

In February last year, I put forth my predictions for the top racial/ethnic trends in 2007. I want to revisit this before I post my top trends of 2007 and my predictions for the top trends of 2008.

So where was I right and wrong? The original post is up here. You can go there and read the details of the predictions, but for the purposes of this post I’m just going to list the subject headings for each prediction, and after the heading I’ll list whether or not I think my prediction was right or wrong.

1. Asia/Asians are Hip and Cool

Well, this was a little true, but I overstated it a little.

2. End of Voluntary Desegregation Plans

This was true to some extent, since the supreme court rule against the desegregation plans in Louisville and Seattle, but it is going to take a long time for these plans to be completely dismantled. The Supreme Court is in dire need of another moderate or liberal judge.  If a Democrat wins, this may happen.

3. Biological Notions of Race

Does this ever really go out a style? :)

4. Latinos Becoming White

I was wrong; just flat out wrong here.

5. Non-African American Blacks are Popular

I think this was by far my best prediction. There were numerous articles describing non-African American Blacks as model minorities.

6. Anti-Racism/Pro-Racial Equality Blogs Blow Up

I’m not really sure about this one. There definitely were more of these sites than in 2006, but I don’t know if they “blew up.” They did grow.

So what do you think about my 6 predictions?

From the kick-ass blog Migra Matters:

The yearly cap on unskilled workers is placed at a 5000 maximum. This despite the fact that according to the Dept. of Labor, the US economy produces between 400,000 and 500,000 new low-skilled jobs a year and the vast majority of the nearly ½ mil unauthorized workers who enter the country each year find work in these unskilled sectors.

But as unrealistic as the 5000 cap appears, the situation is actually far worse.

Last year the total number of unskilled workers allowed into the US legally was roughly half the official cap: 2513. Out of nearly 3 million people allowed to enter the country either as temporary workers or stay as legal residents, only 2513 were unskilled workers.

But here comes that number I asked you to keep in the back of your mind ….remember it 147?…

Of the 2513 unskilled workers allotted green cards last year, 2366 were already here living and working in the US. They simply “readjusted” their status to permanent residents (most likely from some temporary worker status) …that leaves 147

147 new un-skilled workers without US citizen or legal resident family already here were allowed to enter the US last year legally and receive green cards.

147 out of 1,266,264.

147 …so tell me again how there is a legal path for all who are willing to work and wait patiently.

How long is one expected to wait… because if the ½ a million who enter each year through improper channels were to go home and wait patiently for their turn, it would take over 3000 years before they would get that chance when only 147 are allowed in each a year.

From the International Herald Tribune:

A female teacher and a 13-year-old student planned some sort of life together in Mexico after fleeing Nebraska together, but they were tripped up by a lack of cash, the Baja California policeman who detained the pair said Saturday.

Kelsey Peterson, a 25-year-old sixth-grade math teacher and basketball coach at Lexington Middle School, was detained Friday in the border city of Mexicali.

She was turned over to the FBI early Saturday and remains in custody. The boy, ________, is staying with relatives in Mexicali.

As an undocumented migrant, ________ apparently will not be allowed to return to the United States. But police here have told him to stay in touch in case he is needed to testify in any possible criminal case.

Via ¡Para Justicia y Libertad!, who also points out that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is refusing to say if they’re planning to deport the victim’s parents or not.

So when the next unauthorized migrant gets raped or kidnapped, the parents now have a very powerful reason to try and resolve the situation themselves, rather than report it to police. Lovely.

Tiny Cat Pants, in a post entitled “How Nice For Child Molesters,” gets at why this story is so horrifying:

Great. Let’s just have a whole underclass of people with no legal standing and no legal recourse and let’s just let every corrupt corporation and evil jackass prey on them while we all sit back and wring our hands about whether they don’t deserve it just a tiny bit because they or their parents came here illegally.

That will be good fun and totally moral!

For more discussion of this, see posts by Brownifemipower and Anxious Black Woman.

From Reappropriate:

Story Quickpoints:

• In 2004, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Ephraim Cruz became a whistleblower against the mistreatment of detainees that he witnessed while working at the Douglas Border Patrol Station. Reported abuse of detainees included overcrowding of cells, denial of food for 20-30 hours to children and pregnant women, and the forcing of a male detainee into a “stress position” until he collapsed in pain and exhaustion.
• Though Ephraim wrote memos and letters to his supervisors and political representatives for nearly a year, nothing was done about the mistreatment of undocumented aliens at the Douglas station. Meanwhile, Ephraim faced retaliation from his co-workers and supervisors in U.S. Border Patrol for his whistle-blowing.
• In 2006, Ephraim was charged — and acquitted in federal court — of transporting an illegal immigrant across the border. Ephraim believes the charges brought against him were thinly-veiled retribution for his whistle-blowing.
• Now, U.S. Border Patrol is attempting to dismiss Ephraim based on the same charges that he was acquitted of by a federal court. He has until Friday (November 9, 2007) to either resign from his post or be fired.
• Ephraim doesn’t have the money to hire a civil attorney to help combat this latest move by the U.S. Border Patrol, nor can he find a lawyer willing to take on the case pro bono. Ephraim Cruz needs your help!
• If you are (or you know) a civil attorney experienced in a case like this and willing to help Ephraim, please email him at ephraimcruz@hotmail.com.
• If you are willing to donate a few dollars to offset Ephraim’s projected legal fees, please contact him at ephraimcruz@hotmail.com.
• If you are a blogger, journalist, or a member of a non-profit organization, please forward / re-post / link this post to everyone you know to help us get Ephraim’s story out!

Click through to Reappropriate to read the full story. Jenn at Reappropriate has really done a lot of good interviewing work, as well as quoting extensively from primary source documents; there’s a lot more to this story, and Jenn’s post, than the quickpoints quoted above.

UPDATE: For more background on this story, read these three stories from the Tucson Weekly: November 2005 (about the charges being pressed against Cruz), March 2007 (about Cruz’s acquittal), and September 2007 (about the apparent lack of investigation into Cruz’s allegations of abuse of migrants).

It was March 2004 when U.S. Border Patrol Agent Ephraim Cruz first broke ranks, by reporting the grave mistreatment of immigrant detainees at the agency’s station in Douglas.

But despite Border Patrol claims to the contrary, an investigation of these allegations may never have occurred. Or if it did, perhaps the results were too embarrassing for public consumption.

Either way, after a dizzying two months and several dozen phone calls, the Tucson Weekly has been unable to learn which government agency actually conducted the probe–or whether the investigation transpired at all. This failure denotes either outright stonewalling by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security–parent agent to the Border Patrol–or a startling level of federal ineptitude.

I’ve added an “Immigrant Rights” section to the “Alas” blogroll. Here are the blogs currently listed:

• ¡Para Justicia y Libertad!
• Brownfemipower
• Citizen Orange
• Immigrants and Politics Blog
• Immigrants In USA Blog
• Immigration Equality Blog
• Immigration News Blog
• Immigration Prof Blog
• Latina Lista
• Latino Politico
• Migra Matters
• Migration Debate
• Standing FIRM
• The Mex Files
• The State of Opportunity
• The Unapologetic Mexican
• Working Immigrants

Check ‘em out.

From Three Wise Men:

Crazy, racist, hate mongering Congressman Tom Tancredo has announced he will not seek re-election, regardless of the outcome of the race for the Republican presidential nomination. I pretty much can’t think of anyone in the House that’s more clearly a bad human being than him.

I agree. For more on Tancredo, check out these posts at Migra Matters: 1 2 3 4.

[This is a guest post, reprinted with Carmen’s permission from the blog All About Race. Thanks, Carmen.]

In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court ruled that people of African ancestry were not, and could never become, citizens of the United States of America. The Dred Scott decision asserted that blacks were property. And because no state or federal government could take a citizen’s property away from him, this decision meant that any slave who managed to escape to a “free state” would be hunted down and returned to bondage and his or her “owner.” This decision enraged many of the most vocal abolitionists and politicians in the North and was an important precursor of Abraham Lincoln’s election to President.

But still, even among those who philosophically opposed slavery, I imagine dinner conversations sounding something like this:

“That Dred Scott decision is appalling.”
“Yes, it’s simply awful.”
“But, you know, those Negroes who just up and run away? I mean, they are breaking the law.”
“Yes, and our country cannot tolerate law breakers.”
“Just to think, what if everybody just went about doing whatever they wanted to do?”
“The whole Union would collapse into chaos.”
“Absolutely!”

The issue of immigration in America is cause for this kind of conversation now. Many well meaning and good natured people are not critically examining what it means that the media uniformly and incessantly blares the term “illegal immigrant” as if the people who risk physical harm to get to America to work, are only that. The media would have you believe that these are not the same people America has welcomed to come to build and clean our houses, harvest, prepare and serve our food, and raise our children.

In the South, the American Civil War was termed “the War of Northern Aggression.” During the 1960’s, those who made the trip south to support Southern grassroots movements in their protests for an end to Jim Crow and racial terrorism, were called “agitators.” Now, it is all so clear. But, as the events of America’s Civil Rights movement unfolded, many decent people, with hearts in the “right” place, felt “Negroes are pushing too hard, for too much. These things take time.”

I support strong and secure borders, period. And with that, I believe that if we as a nation welcome people to come and clean our houses, harvest, prepare and serve our food, and raise our children, then I believe we must provide a path for those people to become full citizens of the United States sharing all of the rights and responsibilities that citizenship entails.

There was a time in America when it was illegal to gather and discuss independence from England. There was a time in America when it was illegal for an American of African descent to vote or own property or drink from certain water fountains. There was a time in America when it was illegal for Americans of Japanese descent to live in their homes. Instead, Japanese Americans were legally evicted from their homes and moved to internment camps.

So, I have a question for you. When you say “illegal immigrant,” other than relating a fact of American citizenship status, what are you saying? What do you want me to know about the people you describe in this way?

I’ve written in the past about European countries being forced to confront racism and xenophobia, which is especially the case in nations where large scale immigration is making the countries more ethnically and racially diverse. One of the latest countries confronting discrimination is Ireland. Unlike many other Western European countries, Ireland was never colonial power. In places, like France, Spain, and Britain many immigrants are coming from former colonies, but since Ireland didn’t have colonies, Irish immigration is a little less predictable. Nevertheless, Ireland is facing some of the same problems as other European countries. Many Irish people do not accept the new immigrants, and this is especially true for Black immigrants, who come mostly from West African countries like Nigeria.

Traditionally, Ireland has been a country of emigrants.¹ Given this fact, it should be no surprise that there are more people of Irish descent in the US alone than there are in Ireland, but in a surprising twist of fate, the trend is beginning to reverse.² With Irish birth rates above replacement level and a new wave of immigrants from Africa and Eastern Europe, Ireland is actually gaining more people than it is losing. Some hope that this will contribute to growth in the Irish economy, which has been one of the weakest economies in western Europe.

Right now, there is little research on this trend, and the manifestations of anti-immigrant attitudes and racism come to light with stories this one. The gist of the story is that in a suburb of Dublin nearly all of the approximately 90 children who couldn’t find a school to attend were black kids.

The children will attend a new, all-black school, a prospect that educators called disheartening.

About 90 children could not find school places in the north Dublin suburb of Balbriggan , a town of more than 10,000 people with two elementary schools. Local educators called a meeting over the weekend for parents struggling to find places and said they were shocked to see only black children.

“That overwhelmed me. I’m not quite sure what to make of it. I just find it extremely concerning,” said Gerard Kelly, principal of a school with a mixture of black and white students in the nearby town of Swords.

The parents at Saturday’s meeting in a Balbriggan hotel said they had tried to get their children into local schools but were told that all places had to be reserved by February.

Almost all of the children are Irish-born and thus Irish citizens, under a law that existed until 2004.

There is no way this is merely a coincidence, especially when a neighboring town has mixed schools. It should be noted that they are not starting a school that only admits black pupils, like this poorly worded headline from The Times Online suggests. The school is made up overwhelmingly of black children because those children “mysteriously” were not allowed to enter many of the local schools.

Part of the problem is that the Irish government allows schools to discriminate on the basis of religion, which ends up being a form of indirect institutional racism.

About 98 percent of schools are run by the Roman Catholic Church, and the law permits them to discriminate on the basis of whether a prospective student has a certificate confirming they were baptized into the faith. Some of the African applicants were Muslim, members of evangelical Protestant denominations or of no religious creed.

Since many immigrants are not Catholic, these schools were allowed to not accept them without a Catholic baptism certificate. It is difficult to know how many black children who were Catholic were also excluded. I know many of the African children are Nigerian, and many Christian Nigerians are Catholic, so I’d be curious to see how much religious discrimination and racial discrimination overlapped in this case. Clearly, this is a great case for the separation of church and state, and this is an issue that the Irish will have to confront as they become a multicultural nation.

I suspect that the 2004 referendum changing laws that allow parents of Irish citizen children to also become citizens is part of an anti-immigrant backlash. It will also be interesting to see how the role of the Catholic church changes because of immigration. They may lose some power. Ireland can’t call itself democratic when 98% of their schools are run in an openly discriminatory fashion.

Over the next few years, I expect to see more stories on discrimination like the case in Balbriggan. Hopefully, we will see more pro-immigrant organizations developing from ethnic Irish and immigrants.

1. Emigration with an “e” refers to people exiting the country. This is how I teach the words in class: Immigration with an “i” means into and emigration “e” means exit. (back)
2. Unfortunately, this article is now a paying article, but I was able to read in my New York Times home delivery. (back)