May, 18 2010, 10:02am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Luis Fernandez, Ph.D., luis.fernandez@nau.edu, 928-523-5673
Randall Amster, J.D.,
Ph.D., ramster@prescott.edu,
928-350-2238
Consortium of Professional and Academic Associations Condemns Arizona Immigration Law
A working group comprised of representatives from over a
dozen leading professional and academic associations has issued
a joint statement condemning Arizona's immigration law (SB 1070) and related
state policies such as the prohibition against Ethnic Studies programs (HB
2281), calling for these laws to be rescinded.
ARIZONA
A working group comprised of representatives from over a
dozen leading professional and academic associations has issued
a joint statement condemning Arizona's immigration law (SB 1070) and related
state policies such as the prohibition against Ethnic Studies programs (HB
2281), calling for these laws to be rescinded. We, the Consortium of Professional and Academic Associations, believe that
these laws are inherently unjust, and that their application threatens to inflame
anti-immigrant sentiments and undermine constructive solutions to the
challenges faced by communities in Arizona
and across the nation. We call upon the governor, legislators, and people of Arizona
to work diligently and swiftly to repeal these laws.
Our organizations include members from fields including
sociology, criminology, political science, peace studies, psychology, anthropology,
environmental studies, Chicano/a studies, and a multitude of related areas of
study. Our collective membership numbers more than 10,000 scholars, educators,
and activists, with many residing in Arizona.
The decision to join together in issuing the open letter below represents an
unprecedented and historical moment of collaboration. As academics and
professionals concerned about social and environmental justice, human rights,
and due process, we add our collective voices to those of many others from
across the country calling for the immediate rescission SB 1070 (and, as
amended, HB 2162) and HB 2281 in the name of equity, compassion, integrity, constitutionality,
and sound public policy.
Signatories to the joint statement include representatives
from the following professional organizations and academic associations, all of
which have issued individual statements or
otherwise indicated their opposition to and condemnation of SB 1070 and related
policies (additional signatories may be added to this growing list as organizations
finalize their support):
American Studies Association (ASA)
Chicano/Latino Faculty and Staff Association, ASU (CLFSA)
Justice Studies Association (JSA)
Mujeres Activas en Letras y Cambio Social (MALCS)
National Association for Chicano and Chicana Studies (NACCS)
Native American and Indigenous Studies Association (NAISA)
Peace and Justice Studies Association
(PJSA)
Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR)
Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP)
Sociologists Without Borders (Sociologos Sin Fronteras)
(SSF)
A press conference
featuring delegates from these organizations will be held on Wednesday, May 19,
2010, at 1PM on the Senate Lawn at the Arizona State Capitol. Representatives
will each issue short statements, and then be
available for questions and follow-up discussion. Confirmed participants and
representatives at the press conference include:
Randall Amster, J.D.,
Ph.D., Executive Director, PJSA
Paul Espinosa, Ph.D., President, CLFSA
Luis Fernandez, Ph.D.,
Board Member, SSSP
Zoe Hammer, Ph.D., Program
Committee Member, ASA
Manuel de Jesus Hernandez G., Ph.D., Former National Chair,
NACCS
Marie Keta Miranda, Ph.D., Chair, MALCS
Devon Pena, Ph.D., President, NACCS
Michelle Tellez, Ph.D., Board Member, NACCS
Finally, by way of background and context, the following member
organizations have issued specific statements
condemning SB 1070, which can be found at these online locations:
SSSP: https://www.sssp1.org/file/Brewer%20Final%20Ltr%20-%20Arizona%20SB%201070.pdf
PJSA: https://www.peacejusticestudies.org/resources/blogcomments.php?qwerty=79
NACCS: https://www.naccs.org/images/naccs/ltrs/SB_1070.pdf
MALCS: https://malcs.net/blog/?p=335
and https://malcs.net/blog/?p=349
SSF: https://www.petitiononline.com/ssfbyctt/petition.html
PsySR: https://www.psysr.org/about/programs/wellbeing/immigrationreform.php
NAISA: https://naisa.org/node/189
==================================================
May 17, 2010
To Governor Brewer, the State Legislature, and the People of Arizona:
We wish to express our deep concern with and unequivocal
condemnation of Senate Bill 1070, which you signed into law on April 23, 2010. By making it a state crime to be in Arizona without federal
authorization, and also making it a punishable offense to support someone
without the appropriate documents, SB 1070 criminalizes countless decent human
beings who live, work, pay taxes, and raise their families in Arizona. In addition,
the enforcement of such a constitutionally problematic law threatens everyone's
civil rights in the process, and undermines the potential for fostering an environment
based on peace and social justice. We unanimously denounce this law and strenuously
urge that you rescind it in the name of compassion and human dignity.
We are all non-partisan professional organizations of scholars,
educators, and practitioners, with thousands of members from across the country
and abroad, committed to and knowledgeable about a wide range of social justice
and environmental issues. We count among our members numerous scholars and other
professionals who are among the most knowledgeable in the country on the
subjects of immigration, including undocumented immigration, and our legal and
political systems. While immigration reform in the United States may be overdue, we also know that using this to justify state
laws that usurp federal authority over immigration will create many more legal
and social problems than it resolves.
Moreover, we note that the combined effect of SB 1070 with the
prohibition on Ethnic Studies contained in HB 2281 creates an atmosphere of legislated
intolerance and racialized politicking that is simply untenable, unwise, and
unjust. Indeed, the simple fact that SB 1070 had to be amended, under pressure
following its passage, by HB 2162 (which sought to qualify the conditions for
officer contact) demonstrates quite clearly the inherently flawed and
potentially racist implications of this piece of legislation. We note here as
well that the purported "remedy" of requiring a "stop" before officers can
inquire further about legal status based a "reasonable suspicion" is equally
expansive in its application, and thus equally problematic. These alterations,
again adopted in haste following public pressure, will not provide sufficient
protection against racial profiling.
Police officers are not immigration officers. Putting them in the
position of enforcing federal immigration law will destroy the trust between
police officers and communities so essential for effective law enforcement. It
will also lead to unwarranted and prolonged detention of citizens and legal
residents, increasing the likelihood of civil rights litigation against police
departments, cities, and towns, and potentially damaging family units across
the state. Despite language ostensibly prohibiting racial profiling, this will
be the de facto reality of the law's
implementation. Physical appearance, particularly being of Hispanic background,
will unavoidably remain the primary factor determining whether someone is or is
not asked to prove her or his citizenship or residency status. For all these
reasons, many law enforcement leaders across the country, as well as in Arizona, oppose this
law. It would be wise to heed the objections of the law enforcement officers
who are now faced with enforcing this unjust law.
For some, the stated intent of SB 1070 unequivocally is to cleanse
Arizona of its undocumented immigrants and their families, among them children
and other relatives born in the United States, as evidenced by the fact that
legislative supporters of this law have repeatedly and proudly described this
as part of a strategy to make life so unbearable for undocumented residents and
their families that they will leave the state. Any law whose goal and effect is
to drive an ethnic population to leave its place of residence is a crime
against humanity under current international law. The law will also have the
effect of separating cohesive family units, leading to increased
marginalization and immiseration among communities already facing grave
challenges. In this manner, SB 1070 risks making Arizona a pariah state
on the national and international stages.
Furthermore, whatever the intent, at minimum this law will create
a climate of fear so intense as to make low-wage workers even more vulnerable
and therefore much easier to exploit by unscrupulous employers. Denying
immigrant workers protections or otherwise making them more vulnerable does not
stop them from coming. Rather, it simply drives them further underground and
makes them more exploitable. Finally, the climate of fear and hostility that
this law will create is antithetical to the aims of promoting a more just and
peaceful world. By institutionalizing chauvinism and magnifying differences of
race and ethnicity, SB 1070 promises to enlarge the gulf between diverse
communities and pit groups against one another, rather than encouraging people
to work together to find mutually-beneficial solutions to challenging issues. Ironically, and sadly, the
net effect of SB 1070 will be precisely what is sought to be prohibited under
HB 2281, namely that it will in practice and principle serve to "promote
resentment toward a certain ethnic group."
Opposition to this law has been rapid and strong, and is likely to
become even stronger, as more and more groups and individuals boycott the state
of Arizona and businesses based in Arizona. We are aware as well of the ostensible
support in the state for the law, and therefore recognize the political
pressures that have led you to pass this law. But widespread support for a law
does not make it just; not long ago the majority of southerners supported
segregation laws. As Martin
Luther King, Jr. wrote in his landmark essay Letter from a Birmingham Jail, following the teachings of St. Augustine: "'An unjust law is no law at all.'... Any
law that degrades human personality is unjust." It is especially in instances such as these
that strong moral leadership is needed, and we are appealing to the governor,
state legislators, and all concerned Arizonans to provide it. Please choose to
be on the right side of history and work to overturn this patently unjust law.
We thank you for your time and attention in this important matter.
Sincerely,
The Consortium of Professional and Academic Associations,
including the following:
American Studies
Association (ASA)
Chicano/Latino
Faculty and Staff Association, ASU (CLFSA)
Justice Studies
Association (JSA)
Mujeres Activas en
Letras y Cambio Social (MALCS)
National
Association for Chicano and Chicana Studies (NACCS)
Native American and
Indigenous Studies Association (NAISA)
Peace
and Justice Studies Association (PJSA)
Psychologists for
Social Responsibility (PsySR)
Society for the
Study of Social Problems (SSSP)
Sociologists
Without Borders (Sociologos Sin Fronteras) (SSF)
LATEST NEWS
FTC Opens Investigation Into Instacart Pricing After 'Bombshell Report'
Groundwork Collaborative revealed this month that artificial intelligence-enabled pricing experiments used by the shopping app have charged users up to 23% more than others for the same products.
Dec 18, 2025
The executive director of Groundwork Collaborative, the advocacy group behind a "bombshell report" that exposed Instacart's artificial intelligence-powered pricing schemes, welcomed the news that the federal government US opening an investigation into the business practice, and urged the Federal Trade Commission to follow the probe with concrete consumer protection actions.
The FTC told Gizmodo that "like so many Americans, we are disturbed by what we have read in the press about Instacart’s alleged pricing practices.”
Groundwork joined Consumer Reports and More Perfect Union in examining Instacart's practice, using the AI pricing software Eversight, of quoting different prices to different shoppers using the company's app, which allows people to order groceries and send a shopper to pick them up.
Some customers at a Safeway in Seattle were charged a price that was 23% higher than other shoppers for Skippy peanut butter, Oscar Mayer turkey, and Wheat Thins crackers. In Washington, DC, customers using the Insacart app saw eggs priced at $3.99, while others who logged on at the exact same time were charged $4.79 for the same brand at the same store.
Instacart has the ability to change prices based on data such as ZIP code or income, though the groups did not find it is currently using that information in its pricing experiments.
Groundwork noted that the scheme is taking place as American families are already struggling to afford groceries, electricity, healthcare, and other essentials.
“At a time when families are being squeezed by the highest grocery costs in a generation, Instacart chose to run AI experiments that are quietly driving prices higher," said Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork. "While the FTC’s investigation is welcome news, it must be followed with meaningful action that ends these exploitative pricing schemes and protects consumers. Instacart must face consequences for their algorithmic price gouging, not just a slap on the wrist.”
In its report, the group called on the FTC to take action under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits “unfair methods of competition," or to bring enforcement cases or initiate rulemaking to officially classify AI-enabled pricing strategies as "unfair and deceptive" strategies.
The progressive think tank Roosevelt Institute applauded Groundwork and its partners for the "major investigation" that pushed the FTC to act.
Instacart's shares dropped by about 7% following the news of the FTC probe.
On Thursday, the agency announced that Instacart would pay $60 million in refunds to settle separate allegations that it falsely advertised "free delivery" while charging a service fee, falsely advertised a "100% satisfaction guarantee" that suggested it would offer full refunds, and failed to disclose terms regarding Instacart+ membership.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No War With Venezuela,' Says Maine US Senate Candidate Graham Platner
"It should not be an option in our government to allow a failing presidency to just start a war because they feel like it's politically expedient," said the progressive running to unseat Republican Sen. Susan Collins.
Dec 18, 2025
The progressive running to unseat Republican US Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is speaking out forcefully against President Donald Trump's march to war with Venezuela, warning of alarming parallels with the invasion of Iraq over two decades ago.
In a video posted to social media on Wednesday night, Graham Platner—a Marine Corps and US Army veteran who served multiple combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan—said it is "terrifying" to witness the US government "yet again trying to lead us into an illegal war that is going to do absolutely nothing for the average American."
"What is happening in Venezuela should not fool you into thinking that we are under attack, that we are under threat from Venezuela," said Platner, who accused the increasingly unpopular Trump administration of falling back on the "most tried and true method of failing governments, which is to go start a war."
"This is why we need to claw back war powers from the executive branch," he added. "It should not be an option in our government to allow a failing presidency to just start a war because they feel like it's politically expedient. That shouldn't even be possible, and the only reason it is possible is that we have allowed it to become possible."
Watch:
Platner's remarks came a day after Trump, who has repeatedly threatened to launch military strikes inside Venezuela, announced a "total and complete" blockade on "sanctioned oil tankers" approaching and leaving the South American nation—a move that was widely condemned as an act of war.
"No war with Venezuela," Platner wrote on social media in response to the president's announcement, expressing a view shared by 63% of US voters, according to one new poll.
Platner's vocal condemnation of Trump's military aggression toward Venezuela and warnings about regime change contrast sharply with his electoral opponents' relative silence on the issue, which has drawn international alarm and outrage.
Maine Gov. Janet Mills, Platner's establishment-backed competition in the Senate primary, told Common Dreams in a statement that "Congress should be exercising its oversight and war powers authority" to constrain Trump. The comments appeared to be Mills' first public statement on the potential military conflict with Venezuela.
"Unsurprisingly, the president's objectives and strategy are unclear as he drives us closer to a costly and unnecessary war," Mills said, adding that, "unlike Susan Collins," she would have supported a recent war powers resolution that nearly every Republican senator voted to block last month.
Collins, according to the Associated Press, gave opponents of the war powers resolution "the decisive 50th vote to defeat it" when it came up for a vote on November 6.
If passed, the measure would have required Trump to "direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress."
"The power to wage war constitutionally was given to the legislative branch to make sure that this exact kind of scenario did not happen."
Senate opponents of Trump's military aggression toward Venezuela directly and his ongoing, deadly strikes on boats in international waters are not giving up on efforts to rein in the lawless president.
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), an Iraq War veteran who has warned Trump is on the verge of launching "Iraq War 2.0," introduced a resolution on Wednesday aimed at halting the president's campaign of extrajudicial executions in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific.
"The decision to use military force is one that requires serious debate, and the power to declare war unambiguously belongs to Congress under the Constitution,” said Gallego. “As an Iraq War veteran, I know the costs of rushing into an unnecessary war and that the American people will not stand for it.”
Platner echoed that sentiment in his video message on Wednesday.
"The power to wage war constitutionally was given to the legislative branch to make sure that this exact kind of scenario did not happen," said the US Senate candidate. "The only way that we can keep it from happening again is to make sure that the power to wage war returns to the representatives of the people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
China Rips US ‘Warmongers’ as Trump Admin Proposes $11 Billion Taiwan Arms Sale
China's foreign minister warned that US weapons sales to Taipei "will only accelerate the push towards a perilous state of military confrontation across the Taiwan Strait."
Dec 18, 2025
The Chinese government on Thursday condemned the Trump administration's announcement of a proposed $11 billion weapons package for Taiwan, a move that Beijing said violates both the "One China" principle and an agreement in which the US pledged to reduce arms sales to Taipei.
The US State Department said the record $11.154 billion package contains a broad range of weaponry and other military equipment, including Lockheed Martin High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), Lockheed Martin Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) long-range missiles, BAE Systems M109A7 self-propelled howitzers, drones and tactical software, Javelin and TOW missiles, and M2A1 machine guns and other armaments.
"This proposed sale serves US national, economic, and security interests by supporting the recipient’s continuing efforts to modernize its armed forces and to maintain a credible defensive capability," the State Department said in a statement. "The proposed sale will help improve the security of the recipient and assist in maintaining political stability, military balance, and economic progress in the region."
Taiwanese leaders thanked the US for its continued efforts to help the island defend itself.
However, Chen Binhua, spokesperson for China's Taiwan Affairs Office, blasted the proposed sale as “flagrant interference in China’s internal affairs" that "severely undermines China’s sovereignty and security interests and sends erroneous signals to separatist forces."
Chen said that the arms package "gravely violates" the "One China" principle, which, to the US means that the People's Republic of China (PRC) is “the sole legal government of China," but to Beijing means that Taiwan—which it views as a breakaway province—is an inseparable part of the Chinese nation.
While the US acknowledges the PRC's position that there is but one China, Washington does not recognize or accept Beijing's stance. Although it has no formal diplomatic relations with Taipei, the US is obliged under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act to "provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character."
China says this directly contradicts US obligations under the so-called "Three Communiques" with Beijing—especially an August 17, 1982 agreement under which Washington pledged that it would respect PRC sovereignty and that it "intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan."
China has accused the US of violating the August 17 communique with each of its many arms sales to Taiwan.
"We urge the United States to immediately cease its policy of arming Taiwan and to stop condoning and supporting separatist forces advocating Taiwan independence," Chen said Thursday. "We urge the United States to exercise the utmost caution in handling the Taiwan issue.”
Chen added that US "warmongers" and Taiwan's ruling Democratic Progressive Party—which he accused of “stubbornly pursuing independence”—risk turning the island into a "powder keg" and the Taiwanese people into "cannon fodder."
Under pressure from the Trump administration to buy more US arms, Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te last month announced a special $40 billion budget for the purchase of weapons between 2026 and 2033.
The latest proposed US arms sale follows Congress' passage of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorizes up to $1 billion in funding for Taiwan's defense. US President Donald Trump is expected to imminently sign the record $900.6 billion bill into law.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun said Thursday that the US effort to contain China by arming Taiwan is "doomed to fail."
"It will only accelerate the push towards a perilous state of military confrontation across the Taiwan Strait,” he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


