Relatore: prof. Giuseppe mosconi introduzione



Scaricare 0.78 Mb.
Pagina17/18
14.11.2018
Dimensione del file0.78 Mb.
1   ...   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18

287 “This nativist sentiment is expressed as a growing distrust of the immigrants already in the country and a strong desire to tighten laws that would keep others out”. “ The Resurgence of Nativism in California? The Case of Proposition 187 and Illegal Immigration”, R. Michael Alvarez Tara L. Butterfield.

288 Ricordiamo come “Operation Gatekeeper” fu una delle tre maggiori operazioni di border enforcement lanciate in questi anni assieme a “Operation Hold the Line”, in Texas, e “Operation Safeguard”, in Arizona.

289 “In that year, California legislators introduced 30 bills concerning legal and illegal immigration, and the state's residents produced two related ballot initiatives. One of these initiatives was Proposition 187. Called by its supporters the Save Our State initiative, this controversial proposition was approved by 59 percent of California voters in November 1994”. “ The Resurgence of Nativism in California? The Case of Proposition 187 and Illegal Immigration”, R. Michael Alvarez Tara L. Butterfield.

290 “Among its major provisions, Proposition 187 would bar undocumented immigrants from attending public schools and receiving non-emergency health care, and it would require school and health clinic personnel to report to the authorities those they suspect are undocumented”. Estratto dal saggio “The new politics of Immigration: Balanced-Budget Conservatism and the Symbolism of Proposition 187”, Kitty Calavita, University of California Irvine, Social Problems, Vol 43, No. 3, August 1996.

291 “Proponents of this initiative argued that California had become a welfare magnet for illegal aliens, who used counterfeit documents to access the U.S. job market and social service agencies at an estimated cost to California taxpayers of more than $5 billion a year. According to their argument, stemming the tide of illegal immigration was needed to halt the spread of disease, eliminate overcrowding in schools, and prevent wage rates from dropping still further as unemployed illegals competed for scarce jobs in a shrinking economy. In essence, the authors of Proposition 187 sought to end illegal immigration by making it unattractive and by eliminating many of the reasons for which immigrants might come to the United States”. The Resurgence of Nativism in California? The Case of Proposition 187 and Illegal Immigration”, R. Michael Alvarez Tara L. Butterfield.

292 Soprattutto nell’House bill spicca la disposizione con la quale si vuole trasformare la permanenza illegale negli Stati Untiti in un reato penale o felony.

293 E’ opinione comune e consolidata che gli immigrati illegali usufruiscano senza averne diritto di servizi sociali pagati con i soldi dei contribuenti. Ciò implica un deterioramento dei servizi stessi e l’aumento esorbitante dei costi delle prestazioni che ricadono interamente sui taxpayers, di fatto peggiorandone le condizioni economiche. Inoltre sono accusati di sottrarre il lavoro ai lavoratori native-born, e più in generale di essere un peso per l’economia.

294 “…Why is this la test round of nativism focused almost single-mindedly on immigrants as a tax-burden, a focus that is unusual, if not unique in the history of U.S. nativism?”, “The new politics of Immigration: Balanced-Budget Conservatism and the Symbolism of Proposition 187”, Kitty Calavita. L’autrice mette in luce come questo argomento sia legato alla particolare congiuntura economica di quegli anni, collegandolo alla crisi del fordismo e alla sicurezza generale che ciò ha portato nella società americana soprattutto per le classi di lavoratori low skilled.

295 “This controversial proposition was approved by 59 percent of California voters in November

1994. The proposition's popularity with voters coupled with California's dreary economy gives rise to the question: were the state's economic condition and the strong appeal of Proposition 187 to voters related”? Gli autori affermano che fu la frustrazione conseguente alla crisi economica la causa principale del passaggio con un margine relativamente alto di Proposition 187.

296 Peter Andreas nel libro “Border Games, Policing the U.S.-Mexico Divide”, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 2000, analizza con grande precisione lo spirito di Proposition 187 e il contesto in cui questa iniziativa si sviluppò. “Economic insecurity combined with a rapidly changing demographic profile to nurture raising nativist fears among California’s disproportionately white, middle-class electorate. The new restrictionist mood was embodied in the passage of Proposition 187by California voter in 1994, which sought to bar illegal immigrants from receiving social services. Proposition 187 was self-consciously designed and promoted as a symbolic gesture to express frustration and send a message to the federal government”, p. 86.

297 Negli Stati Uniti, gli anti-immigration advocates usano i media in modo spregiudicato dipingendo uno scenario, soprattutto riferendosi alla situazione del confine, caratterizzato dalla mancanza assoluta di controllo. Inoltre, tra i loro argomenti prediletti vi sono analisi economiche tese a dimostrare come gli immigrati siano un peso per i cittadini aumentando il costo dei servizi di base e abbassando i salari soprattutto per low-skilled jobs.

298 Una grandissima enfasi è posta sul rispetto e il necessario ripristino della rule of law. Ciò stride fortemente con il comportamento in politica estera adottato dagli Stati Uniti, costantemente coinvolti in azioni unilaterali che oltrepassano ogni norma di diritto internazionale, rompendo trattati e convenzioni.

299 “ No public elementary or secondary school shall admit, or permit the attendance of, any child who is not a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, or a person who is otherwise authorized under federal law to be present in the United States”. “Proposition 187: Text of Proposed Law”, dall’archivio della University of Southern California (USC), www.usc.edu.

300 “Commencing January 1, 1995, each school district shall verify the legal status of each child enrolling in the school district for the first time in order to ensure the enrollment or attendance only of citizens, aliens lawfully admitted as permanent residents, or persons who are otherwise authorized to be present in the United States”, “Proposition 187: Text of Proposed Law”

301 “By January 1, 1996, each school district shall have verified the legal status of each child already enrolled and in attendance in the school district in order to ensure the enrollment or attendance only of citizens, aliens lawfully admitted as permanent residents, or persons who are otherwise authorized under federal law to be present in the United States”. “Proposition 187: Text of Proposed Law”

302 “For each child who cannot establish legal status in the United States, each school district shall continue to provide education for a period of ninety days from the date of the notice. Such ninety day period shall be utilized to accomplish an orderly transition to a school in the child's country of origin. Each school district shall fully cooperate in this transition effort to ensure that the educational needs of the child are best served for that period of time”. “Proposition 187: Text of Proposed Law”

303 “No public institution of postsecondary education shall admit, enroll, or permit the attendance of any person who is not a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident in the United States, or a person who is otherwise authorized under federal law to be present in the United States. “Proposition 187: Text of Proposed Law”.

304 Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), “State Superintendent of Public Instruction”, “California Attorney General” ma non ai genitori vista la maggior età degli studenti.

305 Nel sistema scolastico statunitense K-12 sta ad indicare il periodo che va dall’asilo nido, kindergarten, al dodicesimo grado, twelveth grade o più semplicemente “senior highschool”, l’anno che precede un’eventuale entrata nel sistema dei College o Universities.

306 “A person shall not receive any health care services from a publicly-funded health care facility, to which he or she is otherwise entitled until the legal status of that person has been verified as one of the following: a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time”. “Proposition 187: Text of Proposed Law”, dall’archivio della University of Southern California (USC), www.ucs.edu.

307 “If any publicly-funded health care facility in this state from whom a person seeks health care services, other than emergency medical care as required by federal law, determines or reasonably suspects, based upon the information provided to it, that the person is an alien in the United States in violation of federal law, the following procedures shall be followed by the facility: the facility shall not provide the person with services”. “Proposition 187: Text of Proposed Law”.

308 The facility shall also notify the State Director of Health Services, the Attorney General of California, and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status, and shall provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity”. “Proposition 187: Text of Proposed Law”.

309 “Proposition 187 in California”, Philip Martin, University of California Davis, International Migration Review, IMR, vol. xxix, n° 1, 1996.

310 “In order to carry out the intention of the People of California that only citizens of the United States and aliens lawfully admitted to the United States may receive the benefits of public social services and to ensure that all persons employed in the providing of those services shall diligently protect public funds from misuse, the provisions of this section are adopted”. “Proposition 187: Text of Proposed Law”.

311Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. “Proposition 187: Text of Proposed Law”.

312 “Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity”. “Proposition 187: Text of Proposed Law”.

313 “Any person who manufactures, distributes or sells false documents to conceal the true citizenship or resident alien status of another person is guilty of a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for five years or by a fine of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000). “Proposition 187: Text of Proposed Law”.

314 “Shifting Borders: Rhetoric, Immigration, and California's Proposition 187”, Kent A. Ono and John M. Sloop, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 2002.

315 “Proponents of this initiative argued that California had become a welfare magnet for illegal aliens, who used counterfeit documents to access the U.S. job market and social service agencies at an estimated cost to California taxpayers of more than $5 billion a year..[..].. In essence, the authors of Proposition 187 sought to end illegal immigration by making it unattractive and by eliminating many of the reasons for which immigrants might come to the United States”. The Resurgence of Nativism in California? The Case of Proposition 187 and Illegal Immigration”, R. Michael Alvarez, Tara L. Butterfield.

316 “Illegal Aliens. Ineligibility for Public Services. Verification and Reporting. Initiative Statute.” Riportato nell’Appendice al libro “Shifting Borders: Rhetoric, Immigration, and California's Proposition 187”, Kent A. Ono, John m.Sloop, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 2002.

317 Ibidem.

318 “While scholars were divided about the saliency of racism in explaining white voter behavior, the data on social contact pointed to the importance of race as one of the decisive elements. Other factors also became evident, including the nature of the political campaigns surrounding consideration of the proposal, and the ideological predisposition of voters. Factors such as “scapegoating”, often cited as common sense wisdom by liberal activists, were noticeably absent as explanatory factors”. Questo estratto dal saggio “Consideration for the Road Ahead”, Leonard Zeskind, Center for New Community, 2005, www.newcomm.org, www.buildingdemocracy.org, affronta una questione importantissima: si argomenta infatti che fu semplicemente la volontà di trovare un capro espiatorio per la crisi, più che l’effettiva preoccupazione per la propria situazione economica, la ragione del passaggio di Proposition 187.

319 “The Medi-Cal Program” è un programma di assistenza sanitaria per famiglie povere con figli a carico, per anziani e disabili. Garantisce un’ampia gamma di prestazioni finanziate dallo Stato della California e dal Governo Federale. Generalmente gli immigrati senza documenti possono beneficiare solo dell’assistenza in casi di emergenza ma in California c’è la possibilità per essi di usufruire di ulteriori servizi finanziati esclusivamente con fondi Statali (l’assistenza alle donne in stato di gravidanza, agli anziani e ai disabili). Proposition 187 avrebbe abolito tutti questi benefici.

320 “Shifting Borders: Rhetoric, Immigration, and California's Proposition 187”, Kent A. Ono, John m.Sloop, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 2002.

321 “Proposotion 187 in California”, Philip Martin, University of California Davis, International Migration Review, IMR, vol. xxix, n° 1, 1996.

322 “(Clinton) Urged California voters to reject Proposition 187 and allow the federal government to keep working on what we are doing, stiffening the Border Patrol, stiffening the sanctions on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, stiffening our ability to get illegal immigrants out of the workforce, increasing our ability to deport people who have committed crimes who are illegal immigrants”. Alcuni analisiti politici avrebbero associate questa ferma opposizione del presidente Clinton a Proposition 187, con la sua scarsa popolarità in California. “Proposotion 187 in California”, Philip Martin, University of California Davis, International Migration Review, IMR, vol. xxix, n° 1, 1996.

323 Si veda il quarto capitolo di questa tesi dedicato all’approccio Prevention Through Deterrence e alle operations lanciate durante gli anni Novanta.

324 Si veda il primo capitolo di questa tesi, p. 5.

325 “The Senate Office of Research (SOR) develops public-policy initiatives for the California State Senate. It conducts strategic policy planning and evaluates policy initiatives from sources both inside and outside government. This bipartisan office of public-policy specialists assists members, committees and commissions of the Senate in bringing ideas to enactment, improving government effectiveness and providing the public with an understanding of state issues”. Dal website www.sen.ca.gov.

326 “Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 187”. Pat Dingsdale, President of California State PTA (Parents and Teachers Association), Michael B. Hill, Howard R.Owens. Commento riportato nel libro “Shifting Borders: Rhetoric, Immigration, and California's Proposition 187”, Kent A. Ono, John M. Sloop, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 2002.

327 A prescindere…legale. “Regardless of income or legal status”. “Analysis by the Legislative Analyst”, riportata nel libro “Shifting Borders: Rhetoric, Immigration, and California's Proposition 187”.

328 “Analysis by the Legislative Analyst”, riportata nel libro “Shifting Borders: Rhetoric, Immigration, and California's Proposition 187”.

329 Ad esempio, i figli di una madre a cui venga negata l’assistenza durante il periodo di gravidanza, sono maggiormente esposti a malattie o a irregolarità nella crescita. Essi, essendo cittadini americani in quanto nati negli Stati Uniti, hanno però pieno diritto all’health care, e quindi è nell’interesse di tutti che possano nascere e crescere in modo sano. Se ciò non si verifica, e le limitazioni di Proposition 187 pregiudicano questa possibilità, essi dovranno ricorrere ad ulteriori prestazioni sanitarie che andrebbero a costituire un peso per i contribuenti. Il concetto molto semplice alla base di questo tipo di argomentazioni è il sempre attuale “prevenire è meglio che curare”; soprattutto quando si parla di larghe porzioni di popolazione in contesti urbani, è chiaro come si debbano mettere in atto tutte le misure necessario per garantire degli standard minimi di decenza. L’assistenza sanitaria di base è un diritto che non può essere rifiutato, soprattutto ai membri più deboli di una comunità.

330 National Health Law Program. Possiamo intuire la volontà di creare un forte contrasto con la normativa federale in materia, al fine di sottolineare come lo stato della California, con Proposition 187, stesse esprimendo un desiderio autonomo di autoregolazione.

331 “Analysis by the Legislative Analyst”, riportata nel libro “Shifting Borders: Rhetoric, Immigration, and California's Proposition 187”.

332 “School districts could incur large costs in 1995 in order to meet the measure’s deadline of January 1, 1996 to verify all students and their parents. These one-time costs could range anywhere from tens of millions of dollars to in excess of 100$ million”. Shifting Borders: Rhetoric, Immigration, and California's Proposition 187”, Kent A. Ono, John M. Sloop, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 2002, p.175.

333 Nel 1982 la decisione della Corte Suprema nel caso “Plyler vs. Doe” proibì alle scuole pubbliche di negare l’istruzione a studenti immigrati illegalmente. Un bambino senza documenti secondo la Corte, ha diritto ad un’educazione pubblica e gratuita tanto quanto un cittadino Americano o un “permanent resident”.

334 “Equal Protection Clause”, Quattordicesimo Emendamento, U.S. Constitution, www.house.gov.

335 “The Elusive Quest for Equality, 150 years of Chicana/Chicano Education”, dal paragrafo “An Extended Form of School Segregation: California’s Proposition 187”, Dolores Delgado Bernal, José F. Moreno Editor, Harvard College, 1999.

336 La dead-line per il primo controllo era prevista entro l’1 Gennaio 1996.

337 “The Elusive Quest for Equality, 150 years of Chicana/Chicano Education”, dal paragrafo “An Extended Form of School Segregation: California’s Proposition 187”, Dolores Delgado Bernal, José F. Moreno Editor, Harvard College, 1999.

338 “Approved by voters in 1994, the proposition would have denied health care, education and welfare benefits to illegal immigrants. Almost immediately, Judge Mariana Pfaelzer granted its opponents' request for a restraining order, which prevented it from taking effect.”. Dall’articolo apparso sul sito della CNN intitolato “Most of California Prop. 187 Ruled Uncostitutional”, March 19, 1998, www.cnn.com. Non riuscì però ad opporsi alle disposizioni che creavano nuovi reati penali per la fabbricazione e l’uso di documenti falsi e quelle che riguardavano le limitazioni dell’accesso all’educazione superiore.

339 “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”, article VI, U.S. Constitution, www.house.gov.

340 “California’s Proposition 187 and It’s Lessons”, Stanley Mailman, New York Law Journal, January 3, 1995.

341 “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. Amendment XIV , Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. Section 1, www.house.gov.

342 Dichiarazione riportata nell’articolo “California’s Proposition 187 and It’s Lessons”, Stanley Mailman.

343 Nel 1998 il Giudice Pfaelzer sancì l’incostituzionalità di Proposition 187, dichiarandola in contrasto con la “Spremacy Clause”. “Expanding her summary judgment ruling of November 20, 1995, U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued a final judgment, on March 13 in the challenge to the anti-immigrant Proposition 187, confirming the federal government's exclusive authority over immigration and declaring the measure unconstitutional..[..]..The final judgment declares that the benefits denial, classification, verification, notification and reporting provisions of the measure are unenforceable. Pursuant to the judgment, then, those provisions of 187 relating to the denial of elementary, secondary and higher education, health and social services were all found unconstitutional”. Dall’articolo “Federal Judge Issues Final Ruling on Prop. 187 Measure Unconstitutional”, Wednesday, March 18, 1998, ACLU News, www.aclu-sc.org.



1   ...   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18


©astratto.info 2017
invia messaggio

    Pagina principale