Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: California | Labor & Workers
Dolores Huerta And UFWA Support Mexican Slave Guest Worker Legislation "Guest Workers"?
by repost
Friday Mar 25th, 2016 8:59 AM
UFWA founder Dolores Huerta is now lying about Sanders record and continues to support the S-744 slave labor bill that would set up a bracero program in the US and also further the militarization of the border. The UFWA also made a deal with the Mexican and US government to set up labor brokers offices in Mexico to "recruit" Mexican workers to become slave labor "guest workers" in the US
Dolores Huerta And UFWA Support Mexican Slave Guest Worker Legislation- Huerta "becoming an instrument of the establishment.”
Both "Dolores Huerta" & The "United Farm Workers Union" have & Do Support the current U.S Senate's Passage of the Most "Inhumane "Comphresensive Immigration Reform (CIR) S-744 legislation while the "UFW" has signed agreements with the "PRI" Corrupt Michoacan Mexican State Government in the "Employment Recruitment" in the "Importation of Mexican Slave Guest Workers' through their "AG-Jobs" "Bracero Guest Worker Program included in the U.S.Senate's "CIR" S-744" Legislation which they refuse to Disclose & make public in addition now their "Non-Profit" Corporate Alliance with their "Close relationship with Non-Union Corporations " in a "Working Relationship ??' "Walmart's,Costco's,Whole Foods" Corporate Food Industry their "Equitable Food Initiative" "EFI" ???,
& Refuse to Support "Boycotts" of these Non-Union Corporations ??.
The AFL-CIO compared the exploitative nature of the guest worker provision to a “modern-day Bracero Program,” referring to the program launched during the Second World War to meet labor demands in the United States — one which led to the forced deportation of millions of Mexicans, including a few U.S. citizens, from the United States under Operation Wetback beginning in 1954. (Article by Hector Luis Alamo here.)
The AFL-CIO compared the exploitative nature of the guest worker provision to a “modern-day Bracero Program,” referring to the program launched during the Second World War to meet labor demands in the United States — one which led to the forced deportation of millions of Mexicans, including a few U.S. citizens, from the United States under Operation Wetback beginning in 1954. (Article by Hector Luis Alamo here.)
An Open Letter to Dolores Huerta…/an-open-letter-to-dolores-h…
03/24/2016 09:24 am ET | Updated 1 day ago
Actress; Co-founder, Voto Latino
“When you have a conflict, that means that there are truths that have to be addressed on each side of the conflict. And when you have a conflict, then it’s an educational process to try to resolve the conflict. And to resolve that, you have to get people on both sides of the conflict involved so that they can dialogue.” — Dolores Huerta
Dear Dolores,
Before responding to your article on Bernie Sanders on Medium, I want to take a moment to acknowledge you and the work you have done for Latina/os, workers’ rights, unions, the feminist and LGBTQ movements, as well as against police brutality and pesticides. You stood up and gave a voice to the less fortunate and unrepresented parts of our communities, no matter what obstacles or challenges were thrown in your way. This is exactly why your article on Bernie Sanders came as such a surprise to me — that the same woman who has made it her life’s mission to speak the truth and shed light on corruption, lies, and false narratives created by the corporate elite and special interest groups, would now suddenly create a narrative that distorts facts and misguides American voters.
Just like you stated in the above quote, I, too, believe in the American ideal of reasonable and robust debate between opposing viewpoints in order to move a discussion forward and ultimately arrive at a sensible resolution. This becomes impossible, or at least unnecessarily difficult, when one of the parties involved is purposefully trying to obfuscate the facts. I recognized that very same tactic that the mainstream media has been using when I read your opinion piece, where the details of Bernie Sanders’ voting record and positions were misrepresented and, again, when you and America Ferrera spread the false story on Twitter that Bernie supporters chanted “English only” at a Nevada caucus. Though it was debunked by multiple media outlets and video evidence, neither of you have corrected, apologized for, or taken down the posts. It’s race baiting, misleading, divisive and inaccurate and I hope you both will rectify that immediately. Regardless of either your interpretations of the event, the guidelines strictly prohibited any form of communication with caucus participants by campaigners once the caucus was called to order!
The democratic process, as it was intended, is quite simple: Present your facts, track records and plans, move forward honestly and openly, debate, call out discrepancies, explain and educate, then let the American people decide whom they would like to lead the country based on such answers. By distorting and omitting facts you do not give us, the American people, a transparent picture. You cheat us out of making an educated and well-informed decision and dishonor our voting process and democracy itself.
“Hillary Clinton’s track record goes directly against what you and every other activist before and after you has fought for.”
My intention is not to tell anyone how to vote, but instead offer the facts and invite you to a healthy dialogue and debate.
So let me address your statements made:
1. People of good will can disagree about the H.R. 6094 (109th): Community Protection Act of 2006, which Bernie Sanders voted for. But:
— The words “indefinite detention” did not appear anywhere in the bill Bernie voted for. The bill only applied to people awaiting deportation (“under orders of removal”), often for having criminal records.
— The Congressional research office said people could be detained indefinitely under the bill if they were “specified dangerous aliens under orders of removal who cannot be removed.” Only about 4,000 people had been detained for more than six months as of 2009 — and the bill Bernie voted for would have required review of their detention status every six months.
— The bill split liberals in Congress, with some voting against it and many others (including Nancy Pelosi, Hillary supporter Sherrod Brown, and DNC chair and Hillary supporter Debbie Wasserman Schultz) voting for it, along with Bernie.
2. About the 2007 bill you criticized Bernie for voting against and have made your main argument:
He supported the DREAM ACT, but the entire bill had too many sections that would have been detrimental to American workers, immigration reform, immigrants and their families, so he ultimately decided to keep fighting for a better bill. A couple of the more contentious points were:
— It stepped-up border security, adding 20,000 more Border Patrol agents and 370 miles of additional fencing (you might call that “Trump wall” building) along the U.S.-Mexico border.
— It removed four of the five family-based categories under which an immigrant could apply for permanent residency. All that was left was the preference for spouses and children of U.S. citizens (which strikes me as a form of privilege).
— It expanded the horribly abusive guest worker program that has left some people in what the Southern Poverty Law Center calls “close to slavery“ in its report on the subject. (There are other horror stories, too.)
— The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), a federation of our country’s largest trade unions, both opposed the bill. LULAC’s Executive Director said the group “cannot support a bill that will separate families and lead to the exploitation of immigrant workers while resulting in widespread undocumented immigration in the future.”
— The AFL-CIO compared the exploitative nature of the guest worker provision to a “modern-day Bracero Program,” referring to the program launched during the Second World War to meet labor demands in the United States — one which led to the forced deportation of millions of Mexicans, including a few U.S. citizens, from the United States under Operation Wetback beginning in 1954. (Article by Hector Luis Alamo here.)
3. You mention that Bernie did not sign Harry Reid’s letter to president Obama in 2011:
— The letter was written and issued by 22 Senate Democrats. It was not presented to the entire Senate for signature, nor to Bernie Sanders (an independent at the time), and was signed by only a small fraction of the Democratic Party.
— Hillary Clinton did not respond to the letter sent to Obama. She did not denounce the deportations at that time, which makes the whole mention of the letter unreasonable.
4. The “Minutemen” amendment:
— The majority of politicians involved agreed that it actually didn’t do anything, since the Customs and Border Patrol said it directed them to do what they were already doing anyway.
— Hillary was blatantly misleading in the debate when she said Bernie “sided” with “hardline Republicans” on it, since 76 other Democrats voted for it too. She made it sound like it was just him and the extremist right-wingers. The ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee said of the amendment “If people want to put it in the bill, I guess that is okay because it apparently does nothing.”
5. Your claim that Hillary has a better immigration track record and plan. Let’s compare a few of their points on each subject:
About your side comment of “not knowing where Bernie Sanders stands” and “Hillary Clinton being on the right side of history”:
Hillary Clinton’s track record goes directly against what you and every other activist before and after you has fought for: the rights of the people based on the Declaration of Independence and the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are principles that Hillary did not uphold when taking away American citizens’ freedom by voting for the Patriot Act, twice; by not treating all men as equal when going against same-sex marriage until 2013; and when she sold out her own citizens by taking money from lobbyists and promoting the rise of the private prison complex. This has led to modern-day slavery for the impoverished, and especially forLatino and African American communities. She has put corporations and special interest groups before the people of this great country by voting to bail out banks and not her constituents. She does not uphold the sanctity of life when endorsing wars, condoning fracking or the death penalty.
Bernie Sanders, the proud son of an immigrant, wants to raise the minimum wage and make it easier for workers to join or form a union. He led the first civil rights sit-in in Chicago history, protesting the University of Chicago’s segregated housing policy; walked alongside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. during the 1963 March on Washington, supports ending all family deportations;l and is the leading voice on issues of income inequality, global warming, LGBTQ issues, and universal health care. He is transparent and consistent and has been, time and time again, on the right side of history fighting for all of us and our rights. He has done so, oftentimes when it was unpopular to do so, because he didn’t need public opinion to evolve in order to take a stand.
“I am surprised, dismayed, and concerned that you would do your legacy such a disservice by becoming an instrument of the establishment.”
That is leadership and vision. Bernie is the only candidate running who will not blindly lead us into another war. He is using his position to champion free higher education for our children and fight for the future of our country. He has refused to take money from Super PACs and special Wall Street interest groups, inspires participation and engagement with his constituents, and once in the White House will leave the door open for average citizens to become active participants in government. This is the cornerstone of the political revolution he has inspired.
Dolores, I am surprised, dismayed, and concerned that you would do your legacy such a disservice by becoming an instrument of the establishment, rather than joining this movement to create a better America like you once inspired us to do.
I write this letter in the hopes that we can continue to have a robust and honest conversation based on the facts and on the actions that Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have taken during their legislative careers. I, like you, continue to be encouraged by the millions of young people that have flooded the streets demanding that we address issues of race and power, class and privilege. They show us what true inclusion and democracy looks like. From ‪#‎BlackLivesMatter‬ to the migrant rights movement, young people are pushing us to live up to our highest ideals and values. And today, young people are demanding that Bernie Sanders is allowed to run in a fair and transparent primary. This election is too important to do anything less.
In solidarity,
Rosario Dawson
“I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.” Abraham Lincoln
Follow Rosario Dawson on Twitter:
Photos of Huerta getting an award from the present Mexican government involved in the attacks on trade unions and covering up the murder of school children

orrupt Dolores Huerta Political Operation At Democratic Party Convention-A Family Operation

Emilio Huerta draws on family name, blocks rival's Democratic party endorsement in Central Valley race
It was a bit of a throwback weekend in San Jose, with labor legend Dolores Huerta flexing organizing muscle to gather the delegate support to boost her son Emilio Huerta's congressional bid.

After gathering hundreds of signatures and following a lively floor vote, Emilio Huerta succeeded in blocking Fowler City Councilman Daniel Parra from getting the party endorsement as he challenges Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) in the Central Valley race. Valadao is considered vulnerable given it is a presidential year with higher voter turnout.

The effort was a family affair: Dolores, Emilio and his daughter Ana Lucia worked the California Democratic Party convention all weekend to make it happen.

Thanks to Huerta's actions, neither Democrat will have the party's official support or the funding that comes with it.

After Parra won the endorsement vote of a small, local caucus Saturday night, Emilio and Ana hit the convention halls to gather the 300 signatures needed to challenge it on the convention floor Sunday.

A trio of delegates from Lancaster were among the first to sign.

"I support him, he is Dolores Huerta's son," said delegate Camille Dunn. "Let the people hear him."

At around 11 p.m. the group filed enough signatures. A tired Dolores and Emilio came into the press room looking for coffee.

Decaf for Dolores, cafe con leche for Emilio.

"An organizer eats when he can, sleeps when can," he said between sips.

In the morning Ana Lucia and Andres Chavez, the 22-year-old grandson of United Farm Workers founder Cesar Chavez, worked the halls explaining the particulars of the parliamentary voting to delegates.

Then the big guns came out.

First up to speak in favor of vacating the endorsement was Rep. Zoe Lofgren, chair of California's Democratic Congressional delegation.

She admitted the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee wasn't able to recruit a candidate in the race early on, one reason Huerta had a late start. She said her heart did a "pitter patter" when Huerta entered in early January. Next up was Rep. Mark Takano (D-Riverside).

Then came Dolores Huerta:

Huerta was successful — sort of. While he took the endorsement away from Parra, but he failed to win a second vote that would have given the party's backing. That means the party is neutral in the race, and won't offer financial support.

"I won this thing twice," Parra said the night before. "Now, people outside my district get to decide it."

For Parra's supporters the whole process left a bitter taste. After all, they said, Parra had earlier in February won a pre-endorsement vote with backing from more than 80% of local delegates. And he claimed just under two thirds of the vote Saturday night.

"Honor our local grass roots votes," said Parra backer Estella Kessler, 67 of Selma, Calif., in urging statewide delegates to vote to keep the endorsement.

After the vote Parra left the hall, while Huerta walked the halls shaking hands.

Huerta said the real test comes with the June 7 primary when voters take to the polls. He acknowledged his name helped him block Parra.

"It opens the door but it's up to me to bring substance to the table," he said.

Nobody Shouted "English Only" at Dolores Huerta-Former UFWA Leader Lies For Clinton
By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News
22 February 16

et me begin by saying that I respect the lifetime accomplishments of Dolores Huerta. She is an icon in the labor movement, Cesar Chavez’s partner in the farmworker movement. I would not have objected to her translating at the caucus being held at Harrah’s Casino in Las Vegas.

She is mistaken, however, when she claims that supporters of Bernie Sanders shouted “English only.” One person in that room uttered the words “English only,” and it was the precinct chair, who said: “We are going to go with English only, I’m sorry.”

The room did get loud, but there was no objection to there being an interpreter; the objection was to having a Clinton surrogate on the stage. In the video above, you can hear “No” and “Neutral” being shouted. Nobody was chanting “English only.”

In an interview in The Washington Post, Huerta said, “The Bernie organizers were shouting, ‘No, no, no.’ Then a Bernie person stood up and said, ‘No, we need to have it, I can also do translation’ or whatever. The person who ran the caucus said, ‘Well, we won’t have a translator.’ The sad thing about this is that some of the organizers were shouting, ‘English only! English only!’ The Bernie organizers.”

Most of her statement is accurate, but the most serious allegation she made is not true. For the record, I shot the video and was centrally located in the room.

Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott will be spending a year covering the presidential election from Iowa.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

Open Letter To UFWA President Arturo Rodriguez From UFWA Co-Founder Al Roja On The 50th Anniversary Of The Delano 1965 Grape Strike

Dear brothers and sisters many of you for the last several months have been asking me whether I was invited or decided to attend the "UFW" 50th year commemoration of the Delano 1965 Grape Strike. Three days prior the event I received an invitation from, "Arturo Rodriguez." President of the "UFW" Union in so doing after consulting with my Family having sent our response have decided to share and to release publicly the letter that was sent to brother Arturo Rodriguez."Al Rojas
September 27, 2015
Arturo Rodriguez
United Farm Workers
Brother Arturo,
Unfortunately, me and my family will not be able to attend; however, it is my request that you read this letter at the 50th Anniversary of the Grape Strike and Boycott event.
No Time To Celebrate, Agricultural Workers In California and Mexico Are Still Unorganized!
The 50th anniversary of the Grape Strike and Boycott is important to address, but the reality is that the vast majority of farmworkers are still unorganized, more so today than before -- and they continue to face tremendous exploitation and discrimination. Today there is an anti-labor offensive not only against farmworkers but against all workers -- from postal workers who face privatization, to teachers who face charters and union-busting along with more segregation in the schools.
A critical lesson is that farmworkers need a democratic union in which the rank and file can elect their representatives, and all union officials and officers must come from the rank and file who are paid a similar wage. We need locals where the rank and file control their union and the working members are the elected representatives, locally and nationally. The UFW needs to end its reliance on the Democratic Party and on officials like Jerry Brown, who has been supported by labor yet then help the “farm owners” prevent unionization. The politicians are putting forward people like Driscoll’s chairman, Miles Reiter, who was appointed to the California State Board of Food and Agriculture. Both Republicans and Democrats take money from the growers and when push comes to shove they end up siding with the companies. We need to get Miles Reiter off this board for the way he has treated the workers in Mexico.
The UFW also needs to end its support of an indentured servitude "guest worker" outsourcing program. Unfortunately both the AFL-CIO and the SEIU, and other unions, have supported the so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” legislation (S-744), approved by the U.S. Senate, which included a “guest worker” program that sets up labor brokers in Mexico to recruit workers to be "union workers” as “replacement workers” in the United States. How would this help U.S. agricultural workers when, for example, the striking Sakuma workers, Familias Unidas Por La Justicia (FUJ) in the state of Washington, are faced with replacement "guest workers”? Already the FUJ has experienced employers’ use of replacing FUJ workers, using replacement “guest workers.”
We need to revitalize our solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Mexico, not with a "guest worker" program but by supporting their struggle for independent unions and for direct action, and by building solidarity with them. The key struggle that we need to actively support is the strike by the Alliance of National State and Municipal Organizations for Social Justice of over 50,000 workers. The U.S. government, through the immigration laws and support for union-busters like the Driscoll’s corporation, is helping to maintain virtual slave labor on our borders with wages at $7.00 a day. Our struggle is – and must be -- with our brothers and sisters and their families in San Quintin, Mexico, and with the Sakuma workers, Familias Unidas Por La Justicia (FUJ), in the state of Washington. They need our support through a boycott and also direct solidarity rallies and action between U.S. and Mexican workers. We face the same bosses and same corporate-controlled anti-labor governments.
It is not enough to "commemorate" the anniversary with talk. We need to support a mass organizing effort in the Central Valley and throughout California -- for the future of our families and children. We need to organize in our communities for the boycott of all Driscoll’s products, and to work for the victory for human and labor rights for our brothers and sisters in Mexico and against the use of reactionary U.S./Mexican laws that pit worker against worker and that prevent unionization on both sides of the border, which NAFTA has encouraged.
We have the power, and we need to build solidarity and education to win this struggle. The UFW must actively support the Driscoll’s international boycott campaign.
I would like to now add at a note on a more personal level: My family takes great pride and honor to have been part of the UFW Grape Strike and Boycott history. Our family, like many families, experienced great suffering during the movement, and the UFW has never shown any good faith or compassion toward my family to this very day. Me and Elena, and our children live with a great pain in our hearts that our family was so mistreated by the very union that we helped to found: The United Farmworkers Independent Union, founded in 1965.
Co-Founder of the United Farm Workers Union
Organizer - Grape Boycott - Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Organizer - Tomato Strike - Woodland/Davis/Sacramento, California
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!


Donate Now!

$ 85.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.


Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network