# data[].attributes.headline
1973- Espinoza v Farah Manufacturing Company

# data[].attributes.subject
1973- Espinoza v Farah Manufacturing Company

# data[].attributes.body
Espinoza, a Mexican woman was discriminated against by the Farah Manufacturing Company as they would not hire her because of her race and citizenship status. She brought her case to the Supreme Court stating that the Farah Manufacturing Company violated the Civil Rights Act. This case helped create more protections for people of color in the workplace. EEOC guidelines were built in place so immigrants would not be discriminated against in the workplace.

# data[].attributes.body
The Mariel Boatlift of 1980 was when a mass amount of Cubans emigrated when Fidel Castro permitted Cubans to immigrate to Florida from the port of Mariel. About 125,000 Cubans and 25,000 Haitians immigrated to Florida, but it was soon discovered that many of these immigrants came from mental hospitals and jails. This did not sit well with President Carter, as he sent guards to arrest these  “Marielitos.” Of the mass Cuban emigration, more than 1,700 were jailed and another 587 were detained and waited for their deportation hearings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
Boats and boating--Equipment and supplies

# data[].attributes.headline
1986 - Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)

# data[].attributes.subject
1986 - Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)

# data[].attributes.body
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, when passed by congress and signed into law by the president, was considered one of the first major revisions of immigration laws within the U.S. The law seeks to secure jobs for American citizens and aliens authorized to work in the U.S. IRCA prevents employers from intentionally hiring,  recruiting, or referring aliens that are unauthorized to work. It reflects the concerns regarding the issue of illegal immigration and stricter control over employment policies.
https://immigrationhistory.org/item/1986-immigration-reform-and-control-act/

# data[].attributes.headline
1991--The Official Languages Act Revoked

# data[].attributes.subject
1991--The Official Languages Act Revoked

# data[].attributes.body
After the Spanish-American War in 1898, English was made an official language in Puerto Rico. In 1902, under the Official Languages Act, English and Spanish were used in all activities and became co-official languages within Puerto Rico’s government; this was deemed as part of the Americanization of the island. The Official Languages Act was revoked later in 1991, and Spanish then became the sole official language within Puerto Rico.

# data[].attributes.headline
1991- Referendum is held for Puerto Rico's Statehood 

# data[].attributes.subject
1991- Referendum is held for Puerto Rico's Statehood 

# data[].attributes.body
A Constitutional referendum was held in order to encourage Puerto Rico becoming a state with the population favoring such. Regardless, they refused to make Puerto Rico a legal state, but allowed other things as a compromise.

# data[].attributes.headline
1994-The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

# data[].attributes.subject
1994-The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

# data[].attributes.body
The North American Free Trade Agreement established a free-trade zone in North America and it was signed in 1992 by Canada, Mexico, and the United States and took effect on January of 1994.  The goal was to eliminate all tariff and non-tariff barriers of trade and investment between the signatory nations.  The purpose was to reduce trading costs, increase business investment, and help North America be more competitive in the global marketplace.
Mexico's workers suffered exploitation in its maquiladora programs which is a low-cost and U.S.-owned manufacturing factory operating near the Mexico-U.S. border.

# data[].attributes.headline
1994 - California Proposition 187: "Save our State"

# data[].attributes.subject
1994 - California Proposition 187: "Save our State"

# data[].attributes.body
In 1994, the California Proposition 187, also called the "Save our State" (SOS) initiative, was proposed. In 1995, the law was passed with 59% of representatives in California voting in favor of the act. This initiative, among other things, allowed the state to screen any citizen and ban immigrants from certain services in the state of California. This included public social services, non-emergency healthcare services, and public schooling. Any person could be denied one or all of these services until they were confirmed to be a US citizen or a "lawfully admitted alien".

# data[].attributes.headline
1996 - California voters pass Proposition 209

# data[].attributes.subject
1996 - California voters pass Proposition 209

# data[].attributes.body
On November 5, 1996, Proposition 209, the Affirmative Action Initiative, was approved as a constitutional amendment with 55% of the vote. It added section 31 to California’s Declaration of Rights, which stated that the state could not show preferential treatment based on race or gender, thus eliminating affirmative action in any part of the state. Proposition 209 has been the subject of many lawsuits in state courts since its passage but has withstood legal scrutiny over the years. On August 2, 2010, the Supreme Court of California found for the second time that Proposition 209 was constitutional, and two years later another challenge was rejected by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Based on research from the University of California, the enrollment rates of African Americans and Native Americans has decreased since 1996. There has also been evidence that suggests a negative impact on graduation rates, graduate school attendance, and income for black and hispanic students.

# data[].attributes.body
California public schools passed proposition 227 which banned bilingual education and English as a second language program. In order to save money by limiting special classes in schools, students with limited english are taught in classes with all english to try to "improve" their skills. By rushing and trying to get them to regular classes, they want to limit the students in these "special classes." Instead of considering that students will not be able to understand in an all English classroom, they are forcing the students to learn without assistance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
June, 1998

Proposition 227
Education. Public Schools.
English as Required Language of Instruction.
Initiative Statute

Background

California's public schools serve 5.6 million students in kindergarten through twelfth (K-12) grades. In 1996-97, schools identified 1.4 million, or 25 percent, of these students as "limited English proficient" (LEP). These are students who cannot understand English well enough to keep up in school. Eighty-eight percent of the state's schools had at least one LEP student, and 71 percent had at least 20 LEP students.

Under current law, schools must make their lessons understandable to LEP students. To help schools address the needs of these students, the State Department of Education created guidelines for the development of local LEP programs. These guidelines state:

The main goal of all programs is to make LEP students fluent in English.

Programs must allow LEP students to do well in all school work. In some cases, this means teaching some subjects to LEP students in their home languages.

Schools must allow all LEP students the option of being in bilingual programs. A bilingual program is one in which students are taught both in their home language and in English.

Schools must allow parents to choose whether or not their children are in bilingual programs.

How Are Students Currently Served?

Schools currently use a range of services to help LEP students (1) learn how to speak, read, and write English; and (2) learn academic subjects (such as math, reading, writing, history, and science).

Services to Help Students Learn English. Almost all LEP students get special services to help them learn English. These services are often provided during a part of the school day, separate from lessons on regular academic subjects.

Services to Help Students Learn Academic Subjects. Most LEP students receive special help in their academic subjects in one of two basic ways:

Lessons That Use Special Materials. About 40 percent of all LEP students are taught their academic subjects in English. The class materials and teaching methods for these students, however, are specially designed for students who do not speak English well.

Lessons That Are Taught in Students' Home Language. About 30 percent of all LEP students are taught some or all of their academic subjects in their home languages. These are what people usually refer to as bilingual classes.

The remaining 30 percent of LEP students do not receive special help in their academic subjects. This is either because they do not need it or because the school does not provide it. These students are taught their academic subjects in regular classrooms.

How Long Do Students Receive LEP Services? State guidelines say that schools should give LEP students special services until (1) they can read, write, and understand English as well as average English speakers in their grade; and (2) they can participate equally with fluent speakers in the classroom. Schools report that LEP students often receive special services for many years.

How Are LEP Services Funded? The state currently provides over $400 million in special funds for students--both LEP and non-LEP--who need extra help to succeed in school. These funds are known as "compensatory" funds. Schools report that the majority of this money is spent for LEP students. In addition, schools may spend federal and local funds for special services for LEP students.

Proposal

This proposition significantly changes the way that LEP students are taught in California. Specifically, it:

Requires California public schools to teach LEP students in special classes that are taught nearly all in English. This would eliminate "bilingual" classes in most cases.

Shortens the time most LEP students would stay in special classes. The initiative states that: (1) LEP students should move from special classes to regular classes when they have acquired a good working knowledge of English and (2) these special classes should not normally last longer than one year. This would eliminate most programs that provide special classes to LEP students over several years.

Exceptions. Schools would be permitted to provide classes in a language other than English if the child's parent or guardian asks the school to put him or her in such a class and one of the following happens:

The child is at least ten years old and the school principal and teachers agree that learning in another language would be better for the child.

The child has been in a class using English for at least 30 days and the principal, teachers, and head of the school district agree that learning in another language would be better for the student.

The child already is fluent in English and the parents want the child to take classes in another language.

If a school lets 20 or more LEP students in a grade choose to take their lessons in a language other than English, then the school must give such a class. If there are not 20 students or more, then the school must let the students go to other schools that have classes in those languages.

Funding Provisions. The initiative requires the state to provide $50 million every year for ten years for English classes for adults who promise to tutor LEP students. In addition, the measure requires that any special funding currently spent on LEP students be maintained, if possible.

Fiscal Impact
School Costs and Savings
This proposition would result in several fiscal impacts on schools.

Savings. By limiting the time LEP students can be in special classes generally to one year, the initiative would reduce the number of special classes schools would have to offer. This could result in major savings for schools.

Costs. The proposition could also result in new costs to schools, for a number of reasons. For instance, the one-year special classes could be more expensive than existing classes if schools provide more intensive services. Schools may also need to give LEP students extra help in academic subjects once they are moved to regular classes if they fall behind other students.

Distribution of "Compensatory" Funds. The state provides "compensatory" funds to schools based in part on the number of LEP students. The proposition would likely reduce the number of students who are considered LEP at any given time. As a result, state funds would be allocated differently--some schools would get more compensatory funds and others would get less.

Net Impact on Schools. We cannot predict the proposition's net impact on schools. It would depend in large part on how people respond to its passage, including:

Parents' decisions on the types of services they want for their children.

Schools' decisions on the types and levels of services provided to LEP students.

State decisions on the allocation of "compensatory" funds it currently provides to schools with LEP students.

The net impact could vary significantly by individual school.

State Fiscal Effects

Under the proposition, the state would spend $50 million each year for ten years for English classes for adults who promise to tutor LEP students. This provision, however, probably would not change total state spending for schools. (This is because the level of state spending for K-12 schools is generally based on a formula in the Constitution.) As a result, the costs to the state of this provision would likely reduce spending on other school programs by a like amount.
Return to Initiatives and Propositions Return to Legislative Analyst's Office Home Page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Proposition 227, 1998: English Language in Public Schools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
June, 1998 California's public schools serve 5.6 million students in kindergarten through twelfth (K-12) grades. In 1996-97, schools identified 1.4 million, or 25 percent, of these students as "limited English proficient" (LEP). These are students who cannot understand English well enough to keep up in school.

# data[].attributes.body
Elián González was a young boy from Cuban who was brought to America by his mother, who perished during the journey. American Coast Guard officers found Elián in a tube about 3 miles off the coast of Florida. When the officers took him onshore, he was released to his Great-Uncle and other extended family in Miami. However, Elián's father did not want him in America and garnered the attention of Fidel Castro, who told the US to release him to Cuba within 72 hours. He ended up being returned to his father's custody 7 months after he arrived, due to court trials. Elián's story is important because it set a precedent for many future international custody disputes.

# data[].attributes.headline
2003--Hispanics are declared the largest minority group in the US

# data[].attributes.subject
2003--Hispanics are declared the largest minority group in the US

# data[].attributes.body
In 2003, the U.S. Census Bureau released data that showed Hispanics to be the largest minority group in the US, with a population of 37.1 million (2001), while the population of Black Americans (the next largest minority group) is just below at 36.2 million. This increase is a result of higher birth rates and an increase in immigration. These numbers have significance because according to Robert Puro (Pew Hispanic Center), race in America has largely been seen as a solely black-white issue, and the new numbers show we cannot look at race in just this way anymore.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hispanics have edged past blacks as the nation's largest minority group, new figures released today by the Census Bureau showed.

The Hispanic population in the United States is now roughly 37 million, while blacks number about 36.2 million.

The figures, the first detailed findings on race and ethnicity since the 2000 Census was released two years ago, confirm what demographers and many advocacy groups have anticipated for several years. The new numbers are based on new population estimates from July 1, 2001, that were compared with the census figures from April 1, 2000. The figures showed that the Latino population grew by 4.7 percent, while the black population grew by just 1.5 percent. The white, non-Hispanic population, estimated at roughly 196 million, grew by 0.3 percent during the same period.

''It is a turning point in the nation's history, a symbolic benchmark of some significance,'' said Roberto Suro, director of the Pew Hispanic Center, a Washington-based research and policy analysis organization. ''If you consider how much of this nation's history is wrapped up in the interplay between black and white, this serves as an official announcement that we as Americans cannot think of race in that way any more.''

The explosive growth in the Hispanic population results from higher birth rates and from the huge wave of immigration that has taken place in the last decade. The Census Bureau counts all people residing in the United States, whether they are legal immigrants or not.

In addition to their symbolic significance, the figures carry important implications for the allocation of resources. In recent years blacks and Hispanics have often felt in opposition in seeking financing and political representation, and the new numbers could bring fresh tensions.

Some Latino advocacy organizations, perhaps anticipating possible difficulties, are already playing down the significance of the shift. ''Rather than comparing groups we should be looking at the status of communities,'' said Sonia Perez, deputy vice president for research at the National Council of La Raza, a national Latino organization. ''When you look at Latino and African-American communities, the elements of the agendas are not that different. We share many of the same issues, interests and values.''

In many ways, the new figures are an indication of the growing multiculturalism in American society and the change in the way the Census Bureau allows people to classify themselves. The 2000 census, for the first time, allowed respondents to choose more than one race in identifying themselves. In addition, Hispanics, a cultural and ethnic classification, can be of any race.

While the general African-American population is slightly smaller than the general Hispanic population, the number of Americans who declared themselves as black ''in combination with one or more other races'' is now 37.7 million, slightly higher than overall figure for Latinos.

''The statistics are in the eyes of their beholders,'' said William H. Frey, a demographer at the University of Michigan. ''What these numbers reveal is a bit of a conundrum. But advocacy groups, policy people and politicians will pick the interpretation of them that works best for them at any given time.''

Much of the social and political impact of the population surge may not be immediately apparent. Roughly one quarter of Latinos living in the United States are noncitizens. And while there has been a significant migration of Hispanics to cities in the South, Midwest, and central plains, more than 50 percent of the Latino population remains concentrated in Texas, California and New York.

The speed of population shift, though anticipated, has taken some demographers by surprise. ''It came sooner than we thought,'' said Martha Farnsworth Riche, director of the Census Bureau during the Clinton administration.

Among the factors that contributed to the faster than anticipated growth, said Ms. Farnsworth Riche, was greater cooperation between the Census Bureau and Latino organizations, which helped undocumented migrants feel safer cooperating with census takers.

The slim numerical gap between blacks and Hispanics is expected to widen significantly in the next decade. Deteriorating economic conditions across Latin America, say many demographers, will continue to spur immigration. The birth rate among Latinos is also higher than among blacks.

Researchers expect the spurt to level off in a generation or so, as economic stability leads to lower fertility rates and Hispanics intermarry with other groups with some choosing to identify as black, some as white, and some as a combination of one or more ethnic groups or races.

''It will only get more broad and more complicated,'' said Mr. Suro. ''It's a reminder that we will increasingly, as Americans, need to find new ways of categorizing people and talking about their differences.''

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hispanics Now Largest Minority, Census Shows (Published 2003)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Census Bureau figures show that Hispanics have edged past blacks as nation's largest minority group, numbering about 37 million, compared with about 36.2 million blacks; numbers based on estimates from July 1, 2001, show 4.7 percent rise in Latinos since April 1, 2000, compared with black gain of 1.5 percent; white, non-Hispanic population, about 196 million, grew by 0.8 percent in period; explosive growth results from higher birth rates and huge wave of immigration, including illegals who are included in count; about one quarter of Latinos in US are noncitizens; chart showing other minorities as well (M)

# data[].attributes.headline
2000 -- Protests against the Vieques Agreement 

# data[].attributes.subject
2000 -- Protests against the Vieques Agreement 

# data[].attributes.body
On April 19, 1999, Navy planes dropped a bomb during a military exercise on Vieques Island, which resulted in the accidental killing of David Sanes, who was a Puertan Rican security guard. His death prompted the strong opposition to Naval presence in Vieques and gave birth to protest camps fighting against the presence of the U.S. Navy. The efforts of the protestors would include a sit-in at the office of Puerto Rico's Secretary of Health. In response to this public outcry, President Bush changed Clinton's attempts of negotiation and halted the military exercises of the Navy In February 2003. The island of Vieques celebrated the closure of the military bases all over.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To demilitarize Vieques; to remove U.S. Navy presence from Vieques; to return control of land to residents of island

Location City/State/Province

Vieques and San Juan, Puerto Rico; Washington, D.C.

Database Narrative

Since 1938, the United States Navy has occupied a significant portion of the Puerto Rican island of Vieques, a fifty-two square-mile island eight miles east of the mainland of Puerto Rico. By the end of the twentieth century, the U.S. Navy controlled over 70% of the island. Thousands of the island's 10,000 inhabitants had been forcibly removed from their homes and relocated to the center portion of the island, surrounded by training grounds, weapons depots, and bomb sites on both sides. According to the U.S. Navy, the island was used for live-fire practice, air-to-ground bombing, ship-to-shore shelling and various other maneuvers. Other countries also used the island for training purposes. During World War Two and the Cold War, Vieques and other Caribbean islands served as important military locations for the U.S. armed forces. In 1998, 23,000 bombs were dropped on the island and live training took place 180 days out of the year. Additionally, the municipality faced an unemployment rate above 50% and more than 70% of the population lived below the poverty line. A campaign to remove the U.S. Navy two decades earlier had failed after violence broke out and the Puerto Rican governor was forced to sign a good-neighbor agreement with the United States to guarantee continued financial support (see "Puerto Ricans protest United States Navy presence on Vieques Island, 1977-1983").

After the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the twentieth century, the U.S. began to reassess its presence at various bases around the world. The people of Vieques hoped that the two Navy sites on the island would be among those closed. When Vieques was not included on the list, the grassroots movement was revitalized in its fight to evict the U.S. Navy and return control of the island to Puerto Rican citizens. In the two decades that had passed since the fishermen's campaign against the U.S., awareness about the dangers of toxic contamination had grown extensively. Residents' concerns now revolved around chemical waste, environmental damage from bombings, polluted water, and increased rates of cancer.

Although the Comite pro Rescate y Desarrollo de Vieques (Committee for the Rescue and Development of Vieques, CPRDV) and others protested the U.S. Navy's presence on the island throughout the 1990s, it was not until a major accident in April 1999 that the campaign began to gain wider support. On April 19, 1999, David Sanes Rodriguez, a civilian security guard, was killed when two F-18 jets misfired two 500-pound bombs. Within a year of his death, fourteen protest camps had been established in Vieques and at other naval sites in Puerto Rico. Protesters acting as human shields were able to stop military maneuvers for a year by scaling fences and traveling by boat to occupy closed military sites. The Alianza de Mujeres Viequenses (Vieques Women's Alliance, AMV), which had formed in May 1999 in response to Rodriguez's death, organized demonstrations at the gates of the Navy bases on Vieques, banging pots and pans and distributing white ribbons to symbolize their desire for peace. In June, the AMV organized a procession of 100 cars that arrived at Camp Garcia's gates on the eastern coast of the island. The cars blocked traffic and members of the AMV tied hundreds of ribbons to the fence. Slogans, such as "ni una bomba mas" (not one more bomb), and speeches pleading for the immediate halt to bombing and training exercises continued throughout the summer and winter of 1999 and 2000. In July, protests also took place at Roosevelt Roads, a military base on the mainland of Puerto Rico. In December 1999, protesters built the Peace and Justice Camp at the Camp Garcia gates. Saturday night prayer vigils were held with the support of the Catholic Church until the protest camp was torn down and 224 actionists were arrested in May 2000. In February 2000, 150,000 people participated in the Peace for Vieques March in San Juan.

The population at the protest camps demonstrated the wide appeal of the struggle against the U.S. Navy's presence. Housewives, environmentalists, independence activists, church groups, fishermen, students and members of various political parties were united. Both the Puerto Rican Independence Party and the Puerto Rican Socialist Party supported the removal of the U.S. Navy from Vieques and other sites in Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rican Federation of Teachers assisted by providing education and literature on civil disobedience and the Puerto Rican Bar Association offered free legal advice and assistance to arrested protesters. Celebrities, including musical artists Ricky Martin and Rosie Perez, world-boxing champions Felix Trinidad and Jose Torres and Miss Universe Denise Quinones, visited the camps in solidarity with the protesters. Supporters of civil disobedience such as the Dalai Lama, Reverend Jesse Jackson and Rigoberta Menchu, also visited protest camps in 1999 and 2000. Lastly, several American politicians backed the Vieques struggle, although this was most likely to gain support from Puerto Rican constituencies.

Members of the AMV and the CPRDV sent delegates to Washington, D.C. and other cities throughout the United States to gain further support in their struggle. The Puerto Rican diaspora rallied behind the protesters and demanded action from their representatives in Congress. An example of the diaspora's support was the 2000 Puerto Rican Day Parade, which was dedicated to the Vieques struggle and featured slogans, signs and chants against the U.S. Navy. Additionally, the DC-based Vieques Support Network and the Puerto Rican Solidarity Committee helped to create alliances between people in Vieques and supporters in the U.S.. International support came from connections that the CPRDV had established by attending international meetings, hosting delegations from communities fighting similar battles with the U.S. armed forces (Hawaii, Guam, Ecuador, Korea), and speaking in front of the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization. The CPRDV acted with the support of the National Council of Churches and various peace and human rights organizations, such as the Proyecto Caribeno de Jusiticia y Paz, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, and Operation PUSH.

Even after security forces tore down the camps, picketing continued at the gates and Puerto Ricans wore white ribbons to demonstrate their support. In late 2000, protesters conducted a sit-in at the office of Puerto Rico's Secretary of Health, demanding information about cancer rates on Vieques. In March 2001, the people of Vieques refused to meet with officials from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry who were conducting research on the environmental impact of military activity on the island. Residents declined to speak with the officials because they believed the results would be biased against them. Instead, sixty crosses were carried into the room where the officials were located to mark the sixty-year-long presence of the U.S. Navy.

In response to widespread protest, President Clinton created two committees to report on the Navy's impact in Vieques. Based on the results of these studies, Clinton offered up to $90 million as economic incentive to allow indefinite use of the island for military purposes. A referendum was to be held that would give residents the option between financial support and the removal of the U.S. Navy within three years. Actionists rejected this offer and continued to demand immediate withdrawal. An informal referendum in July 2001 showed that 70% of the population wanted the Navy to leave immediately. President Bush reversed Clinton's attempts to negotiate with Vieques and stated that the Navy would halt military exercises in February and leave the island by May 2003. The closure of both military bases on Vieques was met with an island-wide celebration and support rally. The land was given to the Department of the Interior for the purpose of building a wildlife refuge. Some debate has continued over the high cost of clean up as well as the issues of control and ownership of the former military sites.

Influences

The campaign to remove the U.S. navy from Vieques was inspired and influenced by a similar campaign in Culebra, Puerto Rico (see "Puerto Ricans expel United States Navy from Culebra Island, 1970-1974"), as well as an unsuccessful campaign that took place two decades earlier in Vieques (see "Puerto Ricans protest United States Navy presence on Vieques Island, 1977-1983"). (1)

Aponte, Carmen I. "U.S. Navy versus Vieques, Puerto Rico: Social Justice Through Civil Disobedience." Journal of Poverty. October 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J134v08n04_04.

Baver, Sherrie. "Peace Is More Than The End of Bombing: The Second Stage of the Vieques Struggle." Latin American Perspectives. January 2006.

McCaffrey, Katherine T. Military Power and Popular Protest: The U.S. Navy in Vieques, Puerto Rico. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2002.

McCaffrey, Katherine T. Security Disarmed: Critical Perspectives on Gender, Race, and Militarization. Edited by Barbara Sutton, Sandra Morgen, and Julie Novkov. "Chapter 9: Because Vieques Is Our Home: Defend It!". New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2008.

McCaffrey, Katherine T. "Social Struggle Against the U.S. Navy in Vieques, Puerto Rico: Two Movements in History. Latin American Perspectives. January 2006. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27647907.

Murillo, Mario. Islands of Resistance: Puerto Rico, Vieques, and U.S. Policy. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2001.

Reals, Fernando. Vieques: Island Under Siege. Earth First! July 31 1999.

Yates, Larry. "Vieques: Not One More Bomb, Not One More Bullet." Everyone's Backyard. Fall 2001.

Yelin, Joel, and Miller, Demond. "A Brief History of Environmental Inequity and Military Colonialism on the Isle of Vieques, Puerto Rico." Environmental Justice. 2009.

Additional Notes

In 2005, Vieques was added to the U.S. Superfund list, which allocates funds for clean up of toxic waste.

Name of researcher, and date dd/mm/yyyy

Nathalie Schils, 07/07/2011

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Puerto Ricans force United States Navy out of Vieques Island, 1999-2003

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To demilitarize Vieques; to remove U.S. Navy presence from Vieques; to return control of land to residents of island Location City/State/Province Vieques and San Juan, Puerto Rico; Washington, D.C. Database Narrative Since 1938, the United States Navy has occupied a significant portion of the Puerto Rican island of Vieques, a fifty-two square-mile island eight miles east of the mainland of Puerto Rico.

# data[].attributes.body
The Minutemen Project was founded by Jim Gildchrist in Arizona to bring attention to the situation at the border. It is a citizen-border control group. In the spring of 2005, hundreds of volunteers from the project observed the movement of immigrants on the Arizona-Mexican border and report the movements to the U.S. Border Patrol. The project later split into two different sections: a border defense corps and an internal vigilance operation that looked into businesses and government.

# data[].attributes.headline
2006-- A National Day of Action for immigrant justice

# data[].attributes.subject
2006-- A National Day of Action for immigrant justice

# data[].attributes.body
Thousands of immigrants' rights activists protest across different cities in response to Congress intending to increase deportation of undocumented immigrants. People of all kinds protested against the anti-immigration laws and wanted to end discrimination to immigrants or to speed up the process to citizenship. This shows the power of immigrants in our nation because the bill passed through the house, but failed to pass through the senate.

# data[].attributes.headline
2008 -- Freedom Tower is is designated a National Historic Landmark.

# data[].attributes.subject
2008 -- Freedom Tower is is designated a National Historic Landmark.

# data[].attributes.body
The Freedom Tower in Miami, Florida is considered the "Ellis Island of the South" for its role between 1962 and 1974. As the Cuban Assistance Center, it offered nationally sanctioned relief to the Cuban refugees who sought political asylum from the Communist regime of Fidel Castro. The Freedom Tower stands as the single most identifiable building with the Cuban exile experience. After receiving help at the Freedom Tower, Cubans seeking political asylum received a warm welcome into the United States. Many Cubans fled to Miami, Florida because of its close proximity to Cuba. This landmark marks the  single most significant building
related to the Cuban exodus to America and remains a national symbol of the liberty sought and found by Cuban refugees.

# data[].attributes.headline
2009-- Sonia Sotomayor is nominated as the first Latinx member of the Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.subject
2009-- Sonia Sotomayor is nominated as the first Latinx member of the Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.body
Sonia Sotomayor was nominated as Associate Justice on May 26, 2009 by President Barack Obama. She was born in New York and earned a degree from Princeton (graduating summa 🤬 laude). She was very active in Puerto Rican groups on campus. She has been a judge since 1992 and is the first Latina Supreme Court Justice. She was part of the majority who made same sex marriage legal. She has been a part of many large rulings and is very respected.

# data[].attributes.body
In the spring of 2010 Arizona passed an immigration law, SB 1070. This law meant that the police could determine the immigration status of someone arrested or detained based on suspicion, which essentially was based on racial biases against immigrants. The law was immediately met with a lawsuit from the U.S. Justice Department, claiming that this law was unconstitutional. In 2012 the court declared that 3 out of the four provisions in the law were null, but they left one of the provisions as it was. This section of the law stated that the police could detain anyone who they thought might be an immigrant without their papers, which led to racial profiling. In 2016 that provision was dropped as well. This law left a legacy of racial profiling, strict enforcement, and fear.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

Supreme Court Ruling: See more information on the immigration ruling that took place Monday, June 25
In April 2010, Arizona enacted two laws addressing immigration, SB 1070 and HB 2162. These laws added new state requirements, crimes and penalties related to enforcement of immigration laws and were to become effective on July 29, 2010. Before the laws could go into effect, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit asking for an injunction against these laws arguing that they are unconstitutional. On July 28, Judge Bolton granted the request for injunction in part and enjoined those provisions related to state law officers determining immigration status during any lawful stop; the requirement to carry alien registration documents; the prohibition on applying for work if unauthorized; and permission for warrantless arrests if there is probable cause the offense would make the person is removable from the United States. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer appealed the injunction and arguments were heard by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals on Nov. 1, 2010. On April 11, 2011, the cout upheld the injunction.

Note: The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on a separate Arizona law enacted in 2007 that mandates use of a voluntary federal employment verification system and penalizes employers who hire unauthorized workers. On May 26, 2011, the Supreme Court upheld Arizona's 2007 law that required the use of E-Verify by Arizona employers, punishable by suspension or revocation of the employer's business license. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) preempts any state or local law from imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens. Citation: 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h). The Supreme Court, by a 5-3 vote, found that language in IRCA did not preempt the state because it was a licensing law permissible under IRCA. The E-Verify program also did not preempt the state: "although Congress had made the program voluntary at the national level, it had expressed no intent to prevent States from mandating participation." The ruling on the case is "CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF UNITED STATES OFAMERICA v. WHITING ( No. 09-115). Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting.

Background
SB 1070, "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act," was approved by the Arizona Legislature on Monday, April 19, and signed into law by Governor Brewer on Friday, April 23, 2010. SB 1070 includes provisions adding state penalties relating to immigration law enforcement including trespassing, harboring and transporting illegal immigrants, alien registration documents, employer sanctions, and human smuggling.
The trespassing provision appears to be the first of its kind to be enacted in the United States. In the most recent reports by NCSL on state immigration laws, few states have attempted to create a state trespassing violation for unlawful presence. Bills were introduced but failed in Arizona in 2008 and 2009; Texas in 2009; Colorado in 2008; and California in 2007.

On the same day she signed the bill, Governor Brewer issued Executive Order 2010-09 requiring the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board to establish training to ensure law enforcement officials and agencies apply SB 1070 consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all people and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens. The executive order also requires clear guidance on what constitutes reasonable suspicion. The board is to provide a list of the specific forms of identification that provide a presumption that a person is not an alien unlawfully present in the United States.

A series of questions have been raised about the implementation and constitutionality of Arizona SB1070. Some concerns include the costs to the state for enforcing federal immigration law, particularly in tight budget times; how "reasonable suspicion of immigrant status" will be interpreted; and the narrow list of documents eligible to demonstrate lawful presence. Court challenges have raised constitutional issues including due process, equal protection under the 14th amendment, the prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th amendment, and preemption under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

On April 29, the last day of legislative session, the Arizona Legislature approved and the governor signed HB 2162 that included provisions intended to address the racial profiling concerns. HB 2162 amended SB 1070 to specify that law enforcement officials cannot consider race, color or national origin when implementing the provisions of the original law, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution. The law clarified the original law's language around "reasonable suspicion" by requiring state and local law enforcement to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person only while in the process of a lawful stop, detention or arrest (the original language referred to "lawful contact.") HB 2162 also stipulated that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town of this state.

HB 2162 lowered the original fines in SB 1070 for state or local entities sued by legal residents and found guilty of restricting the enforcement of federal law from a minimum of $1,000 to $500 for each day the policy is in effect. The law also lowered the fine for people who fail to complete or carry an alien registration document from $500 to $100 for the first offense.

The law was scheduled to go into effect on July 29, 2010 (90 days after the end of regular legislative session.) Parts of the law, however, were enjoined on July 28, 2010.

Similar Bills

As of November 10, similar bills had been introduced in six state legislatures: South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Michigan and Illinois. South Carolina HB4919 was introduced by Representative Eric Bedingfield on April 29 and SB 1446 by Senator Grooms on May 13. Pennsylvania HB 2479 was introduced by Representative Daryl Metcalfe on May 5. Minnesota HB 3830 was introduced by Representative Steve Drazkowski on May 6. Rhode Island HB 8142 was introduced by Rep. Palumbo on May 18. Michigan H6256 was introduced by Representative Meltzer on June 10; S1388 was introduced by Senators McManus, Cropsey, Allen and Brown on June 15; and H6366 was introduced by Representative Agema on August 11. Illinois H6937 was introduced by Representative Ramey on November 3, 2010. (Note that the Minnesota, Rhode Island and South Carolina legislative sessions have ended.)

Resolutions

Six resolutions have been introduced in legislatures that address Arizona's immigration law. The California Senate, Illinois House, and New York Senate introduced resolutions opposing the Arizona law, while Tennessee enacted a resolution supporting it. Resolutions both supporting and opposing Arizona's law were introduced in the Michigan House.

California SCR 113 urges various state and private entities to withhold financial support of Arizona businesses in response to recent Arizona state laws relating to illegal immigration. The resolution was introduced on June 23.

Illinois HJR 119 calls upon the Arizona Legislature to repeal SB1070 and asks Congress and the president to act quickly to enact comprehensive immigration reform. The joint resolution was introduced May 4, adopted by the House on May 7, and is pending in the Senate.

In Michigan, HR 291 urges repeal of SB 1070 and asks Michigan businesses and public and private organizations to refrain from doing business with or in the state of Arizona. The resolution was introduced on May 26.

Michigan HR 295 expresses support for Arizona's new legislation regarding immigration and opposes any boycott of Arizona businesses. The resolution was introduced on June 9.

New York SR 5081 denounces policy that encourages racial profiling and asks cooperation on all levels of government to enact immigration policies and laws. The resolution was adopted on May 4.

Tennessee HJR 1253 commends Arizona on its upcoming Centennial and salutes the initiative of the Arizona Legislature and Governor Jan Brewer in their actions to protect their citizens and the border. HJR 1253 became law without the governor's signature on June 19, 2010.

Court Challenges

Three individuals (two law enforcement officials and one researcher) and the Coalition of Latino Clergy filed the first challenges to the law based on equal protection, due process and preemption under the Supremacy Clause. A coalition of organizations including the ACLU, National Immigration Law Center and MALDEF filed a class action lawsuit against Arizona counties seeking a permanent injunction. The lawsuit states that SB1070 violates the Supremacy Clause, the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, the Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Equal Protection Clause guarantee of equal protection under the law, and Article II, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution. The lawsuit was filed May 17 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

On July 6, 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the district of Arizona seeking a permanent injunction of SB 1070. The civil action states that SB 1070 is preempted by federal law (8 U.S.C. 1101, and following sections) and by U.S. foreign policy, and violates the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit and supporting documents are available online at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/July/10-opa-776.html.

On July 15, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton heard arguments on a request for preliminary injunction filed by the earlier lawsuits and on Arizona's request to dismiss those lawsuits. Arizona's request to dismiss can be found here: http://www.ncsl.org/documents/immig/2010ArizonaDismiss.pdf

On July 28, Judge Bolton granted in part and denied in part the motion for preliminary injunction. The sections that were barred from taking effect (pending appeal) were: Section 2B, requiring law enforcement officers to determine immigration status during any lawful stop; Section 3, creating state crimes and penalties for failure to carry federally-issued alien registration documents; Section 5 making it unlawful for an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for or perform work in Arizona; and Section 6, permitting an officer to make a warrantless arrest if the officer has probable cause to believe the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States. Judge Bolton's ruling can be found here: http://www.ncsl.org/documents/immig/2010Arizonaboltonruling.pdf

Governor Brewer's appeal, filed on August 26, 2010, can be found at http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/AppellantsOpeningBrief.pdf

The summary below highlights the major provisions of the Arizona laws.

Summary of SB 1070 and HB 2162

Enforcement of Immigration Law
Prohibits state and local law enforcement from restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Requires state and local law enforcement to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful stop, detention or arrest in the enforcement of any other local or state law or ordinance where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present, except if it may hinder or obstruct an investigation.

Requires the immigration status to be verified with the federal government for anyone who is arrested.

Stipulates that law enforcement cannot consider race, color or national origin when implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution.

Specifies a presumption of lawful presence with these IDs: Arizona driver license or ID; tribal enrollment card or ID; valid federal, state or local government issued identification, if the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance.

Stipulates that these provisions do not implement or authorize REAL ID.

Allows legal residents to sue state or localities that restrict enforcement of federal law. Indemnifies officers unless they acted in bad faith. Violating entities must pay a civil penalty of at least $500 for each day the policy is in effect.
Willful Failure to Complete or Carry an Alien Registration Document
Creates a state violation comparable to federal law in 8 USC 1304(e) or 1306(a) and creates state penalties of jail costs and $100 for a first offense. Stipulates immigration status may be determined by a law enforcement officer authorized by the federal government to verify an alien's immigration status; or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

NOTE: The federal provisions mentioned in the Arizona law are included here for easy reference.
8 USC 1304(e): Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties. Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both. 8 USC 1306 (a): Willful failure to register. Any alien required to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses to make such application or to be fingerprinted, and any parent or legal guardian required to apply for the registration of any alien who willfully fails or refuses to file application for the registration of such alien shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both.)
Unlawfully Picking Up Passengers for Work
Makes it a class 1 misdemeanor for an occupant of a motor vehicle to hire on a street, roadway or highway if the vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic; or to enter a vehicle to be hired and transported; or for an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor.

Stipulates that law enforcement cannot consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement when implementing the provision, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution.
Unlawful Transporting or Harboring Unlawful Aliens
Stipulates that it is unlawful for a person who is in violation of a criminal offense to transport an alien; conceal, harbor or shield an alien; or encourage an alien to come to this state, if the person recklessly disregards the fact the person is here unlawfully. The vehicle may be immobilized or impounded. Provides exceptions for child protective services, first responders, ambulance or emergency medical technicians. Violators are guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor and subject to a fine of at least $1,000.

Stipulates that law enforcement cannot consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement when implementing the provision, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution.
Employer Sanctions
Provides employers with the affirmative defense that they were entrapped, but they must admit the substantial elements of the violation. The employer has the burden of proof to show law enforcement officer induced the violation.

Requires employers to keep a record of employment verification for the duration of the employee's employment or 3 years whichever is longer.
Miscellaneous
Authorizes peace officers in the enforcement of human smuggling laws to lawfully stop a person if they have a reasonable suspicion to believe the person is in violation of any civil traffic law and to arrest a person without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

Penalties and fines under this bill are to be deposited to the Department of Public Safety for the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission Fund.
Resources:
Arizona legislature:

Senate Bill 1070 http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=1070

House Bill 2162 http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=2162

Governor's executive order: http://www.azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/EO_042310_EO201009SB1070.pdf

Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board training information on SB1070: http://www.azpost.state.az.us/SB1070infocenter.htm

Prepared by Ann Morse
Program Director
National Conference of State Legislatures
Revised July 28, 2011

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
national conference of state legislatures

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Supreme Court Ruling: See more information on the immigration ruling that took place Monday, June 25 In April 2010, Arizona enacted two laws addressing immigration, SB 1070 and HB 2162. These laws added new state requirements, crimes and penalties related to enforcement of immigration laws and were to become effective on July 29, 2010.

# data[].attributes.headline
2010 - Congressional consideration of the DREAM Act

# data[].attributes.subject
2010 - Congressional consideration of the DREAM Act

# data[].attributes.body
The dream act was submitted from congressional approval in 2010, and stood for the Development, Relief, and Education of Alien Minors Act. This act would stop deporations of undocumented minors if they fit a certain set of criteria which included: arrival prior to 16th birthday, under 30, going to school (either HS or college) and was in good moral standing. Considering the bill never cleared the senate floor, it could not be implemented but some of the bill's provisions were included in the later DACA program and by some state bills.

# data[].attributes.body
Any person stopped without a driver's license or proof of residency can be handed over to ICE

# data[].attributes.body
The United States Supreme court shuts down Arizona Immigration law, however the ruling does allow officers to verify immigration status when stopping a suspect. The Arizona immigration law was intended to increase the local law enforcement powers to enforce federal immigration laws. The issue is whether this overlaps and disrupts the federal ability to regulate immigration laws and enforcement.

# data[].attributes.headline
2014 -- Deferred Action for Parents of Americans

# data[].attributes.subject
2014 -- Deferred Action for Parents of Americans

# data[].attributes.body
Deferred Action for Parents of Americans or DAPA was an Executive Order issued by President Barack Obama, granting deferred action to undocumented

# data[].attributes.headline
2019 -- Shooting in WalMart in El Paso, Texas

# data[].attributes.subject
2019 -- Shooting in WalMart in El Paso, Texas

# data[].attributes.body
A gunman walked into the store in the morning, carrying a rifle, and opened fire. This resulted in 23 deaths and 23 injuries. Three died within eight months of the shooting. The suspect was a 21-year-old white male, Patrick Wood Crusius, and told the detectives he had targeted Mexicans. Shortly before the act of terrorism/ hate crime, he had posted a manifesto called The Inconvenient Truth where he praised the shooter of the Christchurch mosques in New Zealand and talked about a "Hispanic invasion" among other white supremacist and anti-immigrant things.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 21-year-old white man accused of driving more than 11 hours through Texas to kill Hispanics at an El Paso Walmart in August pleaded not guilty to capital murder charges on Thursday, contradicting a confession he made following the shooting, according to police documents.

In his first public court appearance, Patrick Crusius remained calm, speaking only twice in response to the judge's questions. The hearing lasted for three minutes.

Crusius was indicted last month and charged with capital murder in the Aug. 3 attack that left 22 people dead and injured 26 others. If convicted he could face the death penalty.

According to an arrest warrant affidavit, Crusius surrendered to law enforcement as he was driving away from the bloodbath, saying, "I'm the shooter." He also confessed to investigators that he planned the rampage and made the drive from his home in Allen, Texas, a Dallas suburb, to the border city with the intention of targeting Mexicans.

The store is a popular destination among Mexican tourists who cross into the U.S. from the neighboring city of Juarez.

The Department of Justice has called the shooting an act of domestic terrorism and federal authorities say they are investigating possible hate crimes charges.

Less than 20 minutes before the massacre began the suspected shooter is believed to have posted a racist, anti-immigrant screed to a website popular within white supremacy circles. In it, the author ranted against interracial mixing and the "Hispanic invasion of Texas."

More than two months after the shooting, El Paso residents, 80% of whom are of Mexican descent, are still grappling with the alleged shooter's motives.

Patsy Gomez, a co-founder of Operation H.O.P.E., said, "We're still asking, 'why?' "

But her primary focus is on the survivors.

"The crying, screaming and bleeding, those things have all stopped. But people - the ones who survived - are probably suffering more than ever because now it's a combination of the grief and all of the practical things that happen after a shooting like this," Gomez said.

Operation H.O.P.E is a volunteer family effort run by Gomez, her husband and their daughter. "We hear from survivors everyday and we're doing what we can for them," Gomez said.

That includes building a ramp outside of one survivor's home who has used a wheelchair since the shooting. The three take turns driving people to and from medical appointments and making prescription medicine runs.

Two months after the shooting most survivors are experiencing financial hardship, according to Gomez. Many are unfamiliar with the ins and outs of applying for disability benefits or generally uninformed about the resources that may be available to help them "pay the rent or keep the lights on."

"What people need are caseworkers who are assigned to them, who can tell them what they need to know about how to apply for help or how to get their medication or even food because their basic needs are not being met," she added, somewhat frustrated "that it hasn't occurred to someone to do this already."

Gomez noted the unfortunate turn Antonio Basco's life has taken since his wife of 22 years was killed in the Walmart shooting.

The widower's story gained international attention following a Facebook post by a funeral home asking the public to attend Basco's wife's service. Her death had left him without any family. The story went viral prompting thousands to attend the service and strangers to send more than 500 floral arrangements. Someone gave Basco an SUV, a gift that has lead to his latest misfortunes.

Basco was arrested on a driving-while-intoxicated charge on Sept. 30., while sleeping in the same car. The El Paso Times reported Basco told officers "that he had been at the Walmart memorial all day and was very tired."

"I'm not trying to make excuses for him but he's not in a good mental state," Gomez commented. "He is grieving, he has no family, he has no money and he has no help."
KERA's Mallory Falk contributed to this story.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
El Paso Walmart Shooting Suspect Pleads Not Guilty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 21-year-old white man accused of driving more than 11 hours through Texas to kill Hispanics at an El Paso Walmart in August pleaded not guilty to capital murder charges on Thursday, contradicting a confession he made following the shooting, according to police documents.

# data[].attributes.headline
2020 - SCOTUS blocks Trump from ending DACA. 

# data[].attributes.subject
2020 - SCOTUS blocks Trump from ending DACA. 

# data[].attributes.body
This past summer the Supreme Court voted to reject the Trump administrations call to end the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program. The program created in 2012 by the Obama administration protects undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US as a child from deportation. The program places a renewable two year period of deferred deportation action and allows for immigrants to get a working permit. By rejected the Trump administrations call for removal of the DACA program around 700,000 immigrants were protected from deportation.