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2281), calling for these laws to be rescinded.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2281), calling for these laws to be rescinded.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
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular