lessons learned during the 2011 texas can do better campaign by the border network for human rights

8/6/2019 Lessons Learned During the 2011 Texas Can Do Better Campaign by the Border Network for Human Rights

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lessons-learned-during-the-2011-texas-can-do-better-campaign-by-the-border 1/35

Lessons from the Reform Immigration for Texas Alliance’s

successful campaign to stop the Arizona-style,

anti-immigration agenda in Texas

Report by The Border Network for Human Rights

August 2011

BNHR 2115 Piedras El Paso, Texas 79930 T 915-577-0724 F 915-577-0370 www.bnhr.org

http://www.bnhr.org/

http://www.bnhr.org/



Table of Contents.................................................................................................................................................Introduction 2

.................................................................................................................................... Acknowledgements 3

....................................................................................................................................Executive Summary 4

1. Preparation is key 5

.................................................................................................................................Two years of planning 5

......................................................................................................................................The Arizona threat 6

2. There’s no substitute for community capacity 7......................................................................................................................The difference from Arizona 7

..................................................................The Border Network for Human Rights organizing model 7

3. Make room for non-traditional allies 9

.......................................................................................................................Building a powerful alliance 9

..............................................................................When local law enforcement talks, people listen 10

...................................................................................Faith leaders call bills’ morality into question 11

.........................................................................Students bring intensity and urgency to the debate 12

.............................................................................................Elected officials and business leaders 13

4. Control the conversation 14

................................................................................................................It’s not just about immigration 14

..............................................................................................................................The open secret 15

5. The inside-outside strategy 17

.......................................................................................Texans stand up as RITA engages lawmakers 17

........................................................................................................................................Texas Did Better 19

What Comes Next 20

Appendix: Collected Documents from RITA, Elected Officials, Law Enforcement, Business and............................................................................................................................................Faith Leaders 21

Border Network for Human Rights

The Texas Can Do Better Campaign 1



Introduction

In 2011, Texans faced one of the most aggressive anti-immigrant campaigns in recent history. A dangerous combination

of factors set the stage for a virulent, very political and sometimes racist statewide offensive against immigrant and Latino

families.

First, it was very clear that Arizona-style, state-based, anti-immigrant laws and initiatives permeated and contaminated

state electoral campaigns. For the right-wing and other nativists, the anti-immigrant agenda has proven to be a success-

ful tool to advance their general conservative political agenda, which is larger than immigration. And the Arizona example

offered them the opportunity to exploit the fears and anxieties of voters in local and statewide elections.

Secondly, Texas was deeply impacted by the conservative, fundamentalist and xenophobic wave which materialized in

the Tea Party, an emergent political force that holds the ideals of an old, less diverse and mostly white American society.

The November elections of 2010 brought a historic shift in Texas politics. The Republican Party not only maintained con-

trol of the Texas Senate but won a supermajority in the House (101-49). The elected Tea Party candidates represented a

significant and very vocal sector in this new legislative reality.

Thirdly, the lack of concrete action and leadership of the Obama Administration and Congress to offer a comprehensive

fix to the ill-conceived immigration system created a huge, national vacuum on immigration. This led nativists to push for

irrational and unconstitutional fixes at the local and state levels. The Tea Party argument was simple: If the federal gov-

ernment is not doing anything, we will take on that responsibility. And, of course, they promoted a solution based on the

simplistic idea that immigrants are bad for our society, especially those from the global south, and pushed an attrition-

based legislative agenda. Meanwhile, the President and the leadership in Congress threw immigration reform to the back

burner, specifically after the mid-term elections.

And finally, Texas Republican leadership, led by Gov. Rick Perry, were very confident that a state-based immigration law

would easily pass through the legislature and that it would be faced with insignificant resistance. Democrats were count-

ing their losses. Texans were perceived as conservative enough to accept Arizona-copycat legislation. And, the immi-

grant and Latino communities in Texas were perceived as so ostracized and hopeless that they would not have the en-

ergy or capacity to fight back.

Well… TEXAS DID BETTER!

This report intends to capture, from the perspective of the Border Network for Human Rights, the elements that dramati-

cally led to a historic defeat of the all-but-sure anti-immigrant agenda in the Texas Legislature. This report also recaps

the strategies that brought together an unprecedented statewide effort of immigrant and non-immigrant communities that

told the nation that Arizona’s was not necessarily the only path to follow and that TEXAS COULD DO BETTER.

Fernando Garcia

Executive Director






Acknowledgements

The victory over the xenophobic, anti-immigrant agenda in the 82nd legislative session in Texas would not have been

possible without the organized, engaged communities who made it happen. Communities across Texas, and especially

in El Paso, the Rio Grande Valley, Ft. Worth/Dallas, Austin, Lubbock and Houston, mobilized again and again over several

months. They were the strength, momentum and reason for the campaign. This victory belongs to them.

RITA Executive Committee organizations and individuals provided immeasurable time, resources and leadership to the

campaign. Their vision and dedication were truly invaluable. They include: A Resource In Serving Equality (ARISE), Rio

Grande Valley, Austin Immigrant Rights Coalition, Austin, Border Network for Human Rights, El Paso, Citizens In United

Discourse Against Discrimination (CIUDAD), Lubbock, Coalition for Immigration Reform of Dallas/Ft. Worth & North

Texas, Dallas Peace & Justice Center, Dallas, El Paso del Norte Civil Rights Project, El Paso, Houston Coalition for Immi-

gration Reform, Houston, La Union del Pueblo Entero (LUPE), Rio Grande Valley Movimiento del Valle por los Derechos

Humanos, Rio Grande Valley, National Council of Jewish Women Texas State Public Affairs, Proyecto Inmigrante ICS, Ft.

Worth/Dallas, Texas Organizing Project (TOP), UNITE HERE Local 251, Welcoming Immigrants Network, State Senator

Jose Rodriguez, Texas Senate District 29, Sheriff Richard Wiles, El Paso County, and Ms. Olga Kauffman, San Antonio.

The RITA Executive Committee Advisors are County Judge Veronica Escobar, El Paso County, Mr. Luis Figueroa, Legisla-

tive Attorney, MALDEF, Catholic Charities of Dallas, Dallas.

Texas students displayed some of the most consistent, powerful and convincing advocacy during the Texas Can Do

Better campaign. The students of the Texas DREAM Alliance and University Leadership Initiative in Austin took the lead

among their peers.

The legislative expertise lent by MALDEF’s San Antonio Regional Office, the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, ACLU of

Texas and others allowed this RITA campaign to succeed.

There is no doubt that this was a campaign about moral, not political, issues. And instrumental framing the campaign in

moral, not political, terms was the leadership of pastors and priests around Texas. They include: Father Esteban Jasso of

All Saints Church in Ft. Worth; Mark Gonzales, founder of the U.S. Hispanic Prayer Network; Pastor Lynn Godsey, Texas

Director for Esperanza for America; countless Hispanic evangelical pastors who mobilized to Austin, and numerous

Catholic priests.

There were lawmakers who opened not only their offices, but their hearts to the campaign. Sens. Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa,

Kirk Watson and Wendy Davis each took a lead among their colleagues by saying no to the anti-immigrant agenda

loudly, clearly and early on. Special recognition must go to Sen. Jose Rodriguez who not only led his colleagues in the

Senate but advised RITA as a member of the Executive Committee.

Thousands of people worked tirelessly for months against anti-immigrant bills in Texas, and in fact every page of this

report could easily be filled over and over again with their names and efforts. Therefore this is a limited list of those who

deserve recognition for beating back anti-immigrant proposals in Texas. Every Texan who stood up to say that Texas can

do better had a part in this victory.





Executive Summary

RITA created a comprehensive, multi-prong strategy in which each element of the campaign was equal to the

next. This formula is what propelled the campaign to victory over the anti-immigrant agenda in Texas.

Preparation is key

The Reform Immigration for Texas Alliance was founded nearly two years before the 2011 session, well before the mid-term elections of 2010. Its values, goals and allies were solidified as RITA member organizations participated in planning

meetings, get-out-the-vote campaigns, and other statewide activities that set the stage for the campaign before anyone

knew what legislative proposals to expect.

There is no substitute for community capacity

As RITA organizers were preparing, community organizations across the state were building community capacity by edu-

cating and uniting Texans in their neighborhoods. The power of passionate, organized and educated communities across

the state would only become more evident and more powerful as the legislative fight escalated.

Make room for non-traditional allies

A key to the Texan victory was building a broad coalition that brought non-traditional partners into the process. The delib-

erate inclusion of law enforcement leaders and business owners seriously undermined proponents’ claims that Arizona-

style laws were good for public safety and the economy. The role of religious leaders from various faiths framed the dis-

cussion in moral and ethical terms. The outspoken opposition from hundreds of conservative, Evangelical pastors repre-

senting tens of thousands of believers caught Republicans’ attention. Organizations that have traditionally fought for civil

and human rights were able to lend support and expertise as these sectors took the lead in the public debate.

Control the conversation

RITA was successful in taking control of the conversation on anti-immigrant legislation by framing it early on in terms of

public safety, economic concerns and family values. These three values dominated the conversation despite proponents’

best efforts to slander immigrant communities and push the idea that “immigrants are a criminal threat.” At a moment

when rhetoric intensified, RITA was able to tie proponents of the bill to public statements of racism by the Tea Party and

other advocates of zero-immigration. The GOP leadership, including Gov. Rick Perry, had no option but to publicly andimmediately respond to the caught-on-video comments.

Work from the inside-out and the outside-in

RITA created an environment that allowed lawmakers in both parties to come out against the bills by working with law-

makers inside the Capitol and in their districts. Simultaneously, RITA capitalized on the years-long effort to build community

capacity by mobilizing people to call, write, rally and speak out. RITA rapidly identified and analyzed all bills, along with

their progress through the legislative process. While there were sudden twists and turns, RITA learned to expect unex-

pected political maneuvers. Simple, strong talking points were developed and communicated inside and outside the Capi-

tol for every policy initiative.

With a Republican supermajority and the blessing of Gov. Rick Perry, lawmakers could have easily forced the passage of “sanctuary cities” legislation in the regular or special session. But something stopped the bills in their tracks.





1. Preparation is key

Two years of planning

The emergence of the Reform Immigration for Texas Alliance was a game-changer in Texas advocacy. A remarkable fact

in RITA’s story is that the organization was not created for the purpose of working in the legislature. RITA grew out of the

need to build a common voice of different Texas sectors for comprehensive immigration reform. RITA (through the Texas

Human Rights Partnership, which is explained below) worked intensely on developing community-based agendas two

years before the pivotal 82nd Legislative Session began. These organizers built a statewide grassroots capacity through

education and organizing with the goal of bringing the advocacy culture from Austin to other regions across the state.

Therefore, a key to RITA’s later legislative success was that its inception was based not on reaction to lawmakers but ona proactive community agenda and larger vision for Texas’ future.

Meetings to set the community agenda in El Paso, Texas.



October 2010: First RITA planningsession for legislative policy issues

December 2010: RITA Executive Committeeplanning meeting, Texas Can Do Bettercampaign is born

January 11: Session begins and Gov. Perrydeclares “sanctuary cities” an emergency

2009-2010: RITA partners build

relationships while getting out thevote and organizing communities

September 2010: RITA memberorganizations hold regionalcommunity-based planning sessions

Oct 2010 Dec 2010 Jan 2011 Feb March April May June July



Prior to RITA, advocates and community organizations were

operating in independent, regional projects. There was simply no

statewide medium through which these communities could

express their concerns and frustrations in a unified manner. RITA

became the vehicle for these communities to do just that.

For example, as part of a larger civic engagement priority, RITA

and its partners contacted over 60,000 Latino voters across the

state in the fall of 2010, increasing Latino voter turnout across

Texas.

As communities became increasingly educated and organized in

2010, RITA organizers were focused on the potential, looming

threat: the Arizona-style agenda that was starting to spread to

other states.

The Arizona threat

For RITA organizers, 2010 was marked by intense strategy

discussions about how to face the coming legislative session —

particularly on how to shape the narrative. In early 2010, no one

knew what the coming session would bring, or the lawmakers that

would file into the Capitol in January 2011.

But there were signs. The 2010 race for governor between

incumbent Republican Rick Perry and Democratic challenger and

former Houston Mayor Bill White was marked by emotional

debate over “sanctuary cities” in Texas.

Perry claimed, contrary to evidence and common sense, thatcities like Houston were sanctuaries for undocumented

immigrants. Banning the so-called sanctuary cities was one of Perry’s campaign promises.

For Perry, this strategy had two benefits. First, the issue was the pretext to attacking his challenger’s record as mayor of

Houston. Secondly, it was red meat for extremist Tea Party and xenophobic elements in the Republican Party.

RITA organizers saw the coming threat: With Gov. Perry’s blessing, lawmakers would try to bring Arizona’s assault on civil

rights and American values to Texas. When the 2010 elections brought a wave of right-wing Tea Party extremists into the

legislature, RITA was not only ready, but also poised to push back. The relationships RITA would need to create

momentum in communities were well in place when the reality of the coming legislative session became clear.

Out of this reality and established capacity, the Texas Can Do Better campaign was born. Its mission was to educate the

immigrant community and allies on anti-immigrant proposals in the state and facilitate community participation in the

legislative process in Texas.



Gov. Rick Perry said Friday that he plans to make getting rid of sanctuary cities -- whereofficials do not enforce immigration laws -- a priority in the next legislative session.

To do that, he said, he'll make it an emergency item in the 2011 legislative session, saying that

the action would help Texas law enforcement officers better enforce state laws.

"As long as I'm the governor . .. this will not be asanctuary state."

The only Texas city Perry has specifically targeted is Houston, where Democratic guberna-torial candidate Bill White served as mayor.Officials there have said Houston does not have a formal sanctuary-city policy, but a longtime policy does prevent authorities from askingsuspects about their immigration status.

"Perry ought to quit playing politics with law enforcement,..." White said. "No city in thisstate is a sanctuary for criminal activity.

"Like a typical career politician, Rick Perry'strying to grab power, centralize it in Austin and dictate to local law enforcement whether they should be responding to 911 calls and conduct- ing criminal investigations," he said.

“Perry takes aim at Texas' sanctuary cities

for illegal immigrants,”

Forth Worth Star-Telegram, 10/8/2010,http://bit.ly/nUBbON

http://bit.ly/nUBbON

http://bit.ly/nUBbON



2. There’s no substitute for

community capacity

The difference from Arizona

Arizona xenophobes and zero-immigration extremists had already set the tone of the debate when SB 1070 began to get

national attention. In Arizona, human rights advocates reacted. In Texas, we anticipated.

Parallel to RITA and within the RITA structure, the Border Network for Human Rights began the Texas Human Rights

Partnership (THRP), a collaboration intended to establish a statewide organizing model based on human rights

education. The THRP’s hard work on the ground years before the session gave advocates the benefit of a head start.

Communities were educated, organized and prepared when anti-immigrant proposals and statements began to saturate

the Capitol and Texas.

The Border Network for Human Rights organizing model

Effective community mobilization does not happen spontaneously.

We recognized early on, before eyes were on the legislative work, that only a permanent presence in regions across the

state would enable our communities to mobilize a large presence in Austin. The BNHR model for community organizing,

where human rights promoters build regional human rights committees, was the model for the THRP. And RITA was

strengthened on that proven organizing model.

The THRP dedicated significant time and resources in 2009 and 2010 to promoting human rights committees in four key

regions of the state. Human rights promoters in El Paso, the Rio Grande Valley, Austin and Dallas/Ft. Worth were the first

to organize and brought RITA to life with focused and intense rights training. In these four regions, RITA also had strongExecutive Committee members. These members, with strong ties to the community, facilitated alliance building at the

local level.

Human rights promoters met in the four original regions weekly and conducted training sessions throughout 2010 and

2011. The promoters trained community members in Constitutional and human rights issues and taught community

members to become leaders themselves. These community members went on to establish new committees, and on that

framework, RITA grew stronger.




March 2: House committee hearing lastsover 10 hours, RITA members testify untilafter 1 a.m.

Feb 22: 3,000 people rally at Capitolagainst anti-immigrant proposals

June 15: 500 people rally at Capitol againstthe revived “sanctuary cities” bill in thespecial session

June 20: RITA members pack Housecommittee hearing for another 10 hours of

testimony lasting until 1 a.m.



When it came time to go to Austin in January 2011, RITA had the support of a large, diverse, statewide community. Then

something happened. As RITA’s stature and pressure increased in Austin during the special session, RITA grew.

Communities in Lubbock, San Antonio, Houston, Tyler, and Laredo, among others joined the process. But it was the four

original regions and maintained the constant, mobilized effort to resist the anti-immigrant agenda.

The momentum that was set by the four original regions years before pulled the others forward. The lesson here is clear:

A coalition of advocates is not enough. A committed, organized community can do far more.

The February 22 Texas Can Do Better rally was 3,000 strong and would prove to be the biggest demonstration of the82nd legislative session. Discussion of specific bills hadn’t yet begun, yet communities had set the tone for debate with

early action.





3. Make room for non-tradit ional al l ies

Building a powerful alliance

Much of the success RITA had in fighting back against Arizona-style proposals was due to bringing together a diverse

and non-traditional group of allies. RITA’s goal was to shift the focus from the impact to immigrants to the impact on each

and every Texan.

The alliance that presented the case to lawmakers, the media and

the public represented each of the major concerns Texans had about

the proposals: public safety, the economy and Texan values.

On January 6, RITA kicked-off the Texas Can Do Better campaign

with a multi-sector press conference. This first public event,

coordinated with T.R.U.S.T. (Texas Residents United for a Stronger

Texas) Coalition of pro-immigrant advocates, pushed back against

the anti-immigrant agenda. It effectively undermined their efforts, like

those of Rep. Debbie Riddle, who staged a publicity stunt by

camping outside the Capitol to be the first to file anti-immigrant

legislation.

The message at the press conference was heard loud and clear — It

was not the usual suspects and immigrant rights groups in this fight.

RITA was diverse and united on Texan values of public safety, a

strong economy, responsible local government budgets, respect for

family values, and appreciation for the state’s history and traditions.



Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo said that withthe death of the sanctuary cities legislation hewas proud to be a transplant to Texas.

“I am here to say that Texas said no to a band aid approach to fixing immigration. Our immigration system is broken but the answer is not to take precious resources from state and local law enforcement that are already stretched way too thin,” Acevedo said, refer- ring to the fact that local law enforcement hassuffered $1 billion in cuts at the federal level.

“The one thing we did not need to do wastake up those jail bed spaces with what is left,which is basically just economic immigrants,” Acevedo said. “As every law enforcement leader will tell you, it's a fallacy to believe we

have sanctuary cities here in this state. There is no such thing as a sanctuary city.”

“Hinojosa: With death of sanctuary cities,

Texas can lead way on immigration re-form,” Rio Grande Guardian, 7/3/2011

http://bit.ly/ot7WZX

Jan 6: RITA press conference includes representatives fromlaw enforcement, business and religious leaders, as well ascommunity members, civil rights advocates and labor

Feb 17: RITA convenes law enforcementsummit, where department executives

present their principles on immigration

June 20: House committee hearing, largedelegations of pastors and students testify

June 13: 100 Evangelical pastors fromEsperanza for America show up to testify

in the Senate committee hearing.






When local law enforcement talks, people listen

Dallas Sheriff’s Deputy Chief Joe Costa, left, Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo, center, and El Paso Sheriff’s Commander Gomencindo Lopez speak at a June 29 press conference. Each praised lawmakers for the defeat of the bills. “[These

bills] would have had a negative impact on law enforcement agencies,” said Costa. “It would have impacted us financially, administratively and operationally, not to mention that it would have negatively impacted our community and the citizens

we swore to protect.”

Law enforcement leaders were extremely effective in challenging proponents’ claims that the sanctuary cities bills were

necessary to keep Texans safe. They clearly explained why such proposals threatened to undermine pubic safety in a

number of ways. Again and again, police chiefs and sheriffs said that the proposals threatened to strain their alreadytight budgets. Houston Police Chief Charles McClelland testified to lawmakers during the special session that he needed

$4 million to implement the proposals. No lawmaker was able to provide a solution for him. The law enforcement

executives also described the years of hard work it took for their departments to make inroads with immigrant and

minority communities. Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez explained that crime rates were falling in her county and that the

cooperation of community members was how her department solved and prevented crime. Valdez posed this question

to lawmakers: Which criminals they would have her release from jail to make room for undocumented immigrant

workers?

The impetus for the intense police involvement in the Texas Can Do Better campaign was the trust established between

Border Network for Human Rights community members and El Paso County Sheriff Richard Wiles. Wiles provided

leadership to law enforcement officers in the rest of the state by convening the Law Enforcement Summit on State-based

Immigration Proposals in Austin early in the Session and authoring a statement of principles (see Appendix) on state-

based immigration policy. As more law enforcement executives signed on, it became clear that police from across the

state were willing to push back against the proposals. And when they spoke, everyone listened.

Through Wiles’ leadership, law enforcement executives presented a strong case against the bills as unfunded mandates

that departments simply could not afford. Many also took lawmakers to task for trying to dictate community policing.

“With all due respect, when something bad happens, the Senate doesn’t answer to the community,” Austin Police Chief

Art Acevedo testified on May 18. “The police chief does.”





Once on board, law enforcement executives were among the

most reliable and permanent allies, who participated repeatedly in

public hearings, rallies and press conferences.

Faith leaders call bills’ morality into question

The role of faith leaders against anti-immigrant bills was early and

constant. Faith leaders were at every RITA press conference and

event throughout the regular and special sessions. Traditional

allies of immigrants in Texas, like the Texas Catholic Conference

and parish priests and hundreds in their congregations held vigil

— literally and figuratively — for months. Representatives from

Methodist and Jewish organizations like the United Methodist

Women’s Conference, Texas Impact, the Welcoming Immigrants

Network and the Texas chapter of the National Council of Jewish

Women gave testimony and mobilized their members to call and

write to lawmakers.

During the special session, the role of religion in the public debate

on immigration was reinvigorated by conservative Christian

Evangelical pastors, part of Esperanza for America in Texas, who

showed up in droves to Senate and House committee hearings. Evangelicals were part of the education process early

on, but they came out in full force during the special session when the stakes were the highest.

Lawmakers, especially in the House, took time to question each pastor about how many congregants he was

representing that day. The numbers quickly added up. It became clear that tens of thousands of members in

conservative churches were being represented by the 100 pastors who had traveled to Austin.

Republicans recognized the risk to their own communities presented by the sanctuary cities bills. The voice of

conservative Christians raised doubts in Republicans’ minds about the feasibility and righteousness of the proposals.

Prayer for immigration reform in the Capitol Rotunda organized by the Black and Brown Caucus, June 13.



Reverend Mauricio Elizondo, a Garland pastor,says the sanctuary cities legislation will increase racial profiling and harassment of all Hispanics in Texas.

He says the Hispanic pastors who have gath-

ered are part of the conservative voting block Perry successfully courted during his guberna-torial campaign, a group he may need if hedecides to run for President.

“...We're conservative, we're fundamentalists,we believe in God, we believe in the sanctity of life. I hope Governor Perry, who I voted for, will not turn his back on us because he will not win,” he said. “Any candidate who will run cannot win without the Hispanic vote.”

“Evangelicals Target Perry Over Immigra-

tion,” KERA Public Media For North Texas6/17/2011, http://bit.ly/rr8Kyp

http://bit.ly/rr8Kyp

http://bit.ly/rr8Kyp



Faith leaders were also instrumental in bringing black congregations

into the process. The new Black and Brown Caucus was formed by

the presidents of the Ft. Worth Chapter of the Southern Christian

Leadership Conference and the League of United Latin American

Citizens (Council 4743) to draw attention to discrimination,

immigration and choices in education reform. The group led a publicprayer for compassionate immigration reform in the Capitol during the

special session.

Students bring intensity and urgency to the debate

Undocumented students and young people, called DREAMers for the

Act that would grant them a path to citizenship, sustained a level of

energy, passion and online engagement that set them apart.

Their presence at rallies and committee hearings was unfailingly

reliable. And they were the driving force that spread news, information

on social networks and online actions such as petitions. Members of

the Texas DREAM Alliance and University Leadership Initiative took

leading roles.

The presence of students drove home the fact that the future of Texas

was at stake. This was made crystal clear after a marathon committee

hearing lasting over 10 hours on June 20. At that hearing, dozens of

students testified one after the other about the struggles and ignorance they faced being undocumented. Afterward,

chair of the committee Republican Rep. Byron Cook told a reporter that the DREAMers’ personal testimonies had given

him pause.

After that hearing, the proposals were never heard from again. Both the Senate and House versions were left pending

and the committee never met again. If the chairman is to be believed, the candor and courage of students willing toshare their stories was instrumental in the victory during the special session.

Students were a constant and energetic presence at Texas Can Do Better rallies.



“I’ve stated on numerous occasions that I have a soft spot for young people, so I am trying tounderstand how what we do may affect them,”committee chair Rep. Byron Cook said Tues-day. “Most of them [who testified] appear to beterrific students, and they go off and they doextremely well in college... And what happensto them? Are they ever going to be able to se-cure a driver’s license or not? Are they going to be gainfully employed here in the U.S. or not?”(A portion of SB9 also mandates that applicantsfor driver’s licenses or IDs prove they are in thecountry legally.)

Asked if he would still support the measuredespite his concerns, Cook demurred.

“I think we are trying to be very thoughtful in thiswhole process. There remain legitimate issueswe are trying to work through,” he said.

“Students, Federal Memo Complicate

‘Sanctuary Cities,’” Texas Tribune,

6/23/2011, http://bit.ly/pmCmOx

http://bit.ly/pmCmOx





Elected officials and business leaders

An example of the role of local elected officials was the work of El Paso County Attorney Jo Anne Bernal, who testified on

behalf El Paso County Commissioner’s Court that the county stood to lose millions if the sanctuary cities bills passed.

This fact is what led to one of the rare public statements by a Republican lawmaker against the bill. El Paso Rep. Dee

Margo told the El Paso Times he would not vote for the bill in the special session due to the financial risk to the county.

Business leaders played a limited but strategic role in the

process. The Texas Association of Business was brought on

board early on by the T.R.U.S.T. Coalition. However, business

interests largely stepped away from the table when lawmakers

divorced mandatory e-verify from the sanctuary cities proposals.

Nonetheless, business owners came back in full force at the end

of the special session. Seeing how the legislation would impact

workers, powerful Republican funders like Bob Perry of Perry

Homes and Charles Butt of H-E-B grocery stores used their

connections to the governor and powerful lobbying firms to push

back against the bills.

The morning after the sanctuary cities bill died in the regular session, RITA organized a “thank you rally.” RITA lined the

entrance to the Senate Chamber and applauded as senators who voted to block the bill walked into the Chamber.

Sens. Jose Rodriguez and Leticia Van De Putte stopped for a photo.



“One Texas Association of Business proposal isto allow “hard-working, tax-paying undocumented workers to earn legal status.” ...That is a markedly different set of concerns than what is expressed in the Republican Party platform.

These differences broke out in the open, withstill unfolding consequences, when anti-sanctuary measures were considered by theLegislature this year. Public declarations of op-

position by homebuilder Bob Perry, a mega-contributor to the governor (no relation) and other Republicans, and by Charles Butt of theH-E-B grocery chain, a big contributor toDemocrats and Republicans, introduced a new level of opposition.

TAB’s position was old news, and the organiza-tion had not been particularly vocal in promoting its moderate immigration stance. The salvo fromPerry and Butt was a dramatic uptick in publicopposition from within the GOP fold.

As has been widely reported, Bob Perry is oneof the single most important contributors to the

governor: With his wife Doylene, according to a report based on public records issued recently by Texans for Public Justice, the homebuilder has contributed over $2.5 million to the gover- nor’s political efforts over the last decade.”

“Immigration, Perry and a Divided GOP,”

Texas Tribune, 7/27/2011

http://bit.ly/peYp93



http://info.tpj.org/reports/PerryJuly2011Update/Perry100kContributorsJuly2011.html






4. Control the conversation

It’s not just about immigration

When the debate over sanctuary cities measures began in the public and the media, RITA was loud, clear and

consistent: It’s not just immigrants who stand to lose something.

The first step was to understand what messages RITA was confronting. The anti-immigrant agenda in Texas led by Gov.

Rick Perry, the Tea Party and others represented a push for a vision of society that runs directly against what most

consider hard-won American values. Beyond issues of immigration, their coalition is willing to get rid of necessarycommunity safety nets with regard to healthcare, education and social welfare. Their coalition also represents a vision of

society that is less tolerant of diversity, putting themselves very close to racism. Ironically, they are also pushing for a

police state even though their coalition is typical vocal about the perils of “big government.” And they are willing to

sacrifice economic development and prosperity in Texas for their own narrow ideological agenda.

The RITA communications strategy was to counter their message. RITA brought the debate out of the immigration

framework to focus on the impacts of their agenda to all Texan sectors. Therefore, RITA deliberately tied the anti-

immigrant proposals to issues of public safety, economic concerns and Texan values of history, family and tradition.

The press conference on January 6 made this clear as traditional civil rights groups, law enforcement executives,

representatives of big business associations, labor unions and religious leaders all spoke with the unified message that

anti-immigrant bills were inherently anti-safety, anti-economy and anti-Texas.

RITA succeeded in the mission of putting Texan face to every concern that the issue raised. Law enforcement pushed

against the threat to public safety. Faith leaders answered questions of family and community values. Business leaders

and students made it clear that the economy was at stake. As these sectors took a leading role, civil and human rights

advocates anchored the debate. RITA was behind it all, providing a vision, a goal and a message.



May 5: Sanctuary cities placed onthe House emergency calendar

May 25: RITA rally to thank senators whoblocked vote on sanctuary cities

May 6: Law enforcement executivestelephone press conference


June 12: “Too Many Hispanics”video goes viral

Jan 6: RITA press conference includes representatives from varioussectors, painting the debate over sanctuary cities in terms of publicsafety, the economy and family values



Tea Party extremists and other zero-immigration advocates at the Texas Capitol on June 11. This group of about 30 applauded when a tea party leader said later that day that there were “too many Hispanics” in the Texas legislature.

The open secretCivil and human rights advocates could plainly see the racial and xenophobic intent in anti-immigrant bills. But not all

were so perceptive. Furthermore, many lawmakers disingenuously claimed that these laws did not have the potential to

institutionalize racial profiling.

The special session presented fresh and greater challenges to RITA partners and, in response, RITA turned up the

volume on the safety, values and economy issues, but added

something else — something that everyone already knew but was

missing from the discussion. RITA organizers added to the

narrative the fact that the bills were anti-Latino.

In 2010, Perry said Arizona-style legislation wouldn’t be right for

Texas. These words would come back to haunt him and his

sanctuary-cities agenda as Tea Partiers and other extremists would

continually invoke Arizona, showing up with shirts reading “we are

all Arizona” and repeatedly praising the Arizona law when testifying

for the sanctuary cities bills.

During the Senate hearing in the special session, Republican Sen.

Florence Shapiro took a moment before the public testimony to tell



“The reason we can’t get [Arizona-style] legislation passed in Texas is that we have 37, um no, 36 Hispanic legislators. All of the statesthat have passed legislation have a handful and I mean, literally, some of them have no

Hispanic legislators. ... So, um, that’s part of our problem and we need to, um, changethose numbers. That’s about all I have to say.Please come out to testify tomorrow and helpus spread this message. Thank you”

Zero-immigration advocate RebeccaForest at an tea party in Austin, 6/11/

2011, a RITA member caught the com-

ments on video and posted it online. Itwent viral soon after, http://bit.ly/prVfeH

http://bit.ly/prVfeH

http://bit.ly/prVfeH



those present that the law was unlike Arizona’s and that if passed it

“wouldn’t make headlines” as an Arizona-style measure.

This message was completely lost on supporters of the bill, who

just moments later told senators that they believed the Arizona-

style measure was right for Texas.

But perhaps the biggest victory in linking anti-immigrant proposals

to racism was the widely watched video of a Texas zero-

immigration advocate standing on the Capitol steps telling a Tea

Party rally that there were “too many Hispanic” lawmakers in Texas.

The video was taken by a RITA member and uploaded to YouTube

on the morning of Monday, June 13, the same day as the Senate

committee hearing. Once shared on Facebook and Twitter, the

video quickly went viral and was picked up by Texas political

bloggers. The wider media soon followed and the Texas

Democratic Party released a statement condemning the remarks.Republican leadership had no choice but to comment. By Monday

night, the Governor, Lieutenant Governor and House Speaker had

all released statements condemning the remarks.

However, the “too many Hispanics” video would not go away. The

video, its subject and its message were all rebuked by lawmakers

on the Senate floor and in the House committee hearing, mocked

by bloggers and maligned by activists.

A week later, at the annual conference the National Association of

Latino Elected Officials in San Antonio, Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer

called out the video and its subject by name. And just moments

before Gov. Perry was set to give his speech, San Antonio Mayor

Julian Castro blasted the governor and his agenda as the most

“anti-Latino” in a generation. "That was me basically saying, `Look, you're not going to do all these things and act as

though everything's fine,'" Castro told a reporter days later.

Gov. Perry took the stage moments after Castro’s comments and gave a speech that didn’t include the word

“immigration” and was widely described in the media as awkward and ill-received.

The effect of the video was also evident in the House committee hearing on June 20, when lawmakers questioned the

bill’s supporters about the video and their personal attitudes about Latinos. The anti-immigrants had to play defense.

Those questioned were obligated to defend the remarks — an untenable position. Some even fumbled the question,

saying for example that preference should be given to “pure Americans” or that they didn’t know whether or not they

“thought that all Hispanics were illegal immigrants.”



In one weekend rally, a leading proponent of the bill blamed the Legislature's inaction onthe issue on the number of Hispanics whoserve there.

“If you want to know why we can't pass [Arizona-style] legislation in Texas, it's be-cause we have 37, no, 36 Hispanics in theLegislature. So, that's part of our problem, and we need to change those numbers,” said Rebecca Forest, a co-founder of the Immigra-tion Reform Coalition of Texas. “We need todo something about that in fact.”

Her remarks drew condemnation from thestate's top three elected officials, all of whomsupport the sanctuary cities legislation as a needed tool for law enforcement.

“The governor certainly does not agree with

such misguided and unproductive comments,” Perry spokeswoman Catherine Fra- zier said.

House Speaker Joe Straus, R-San Antonio,called Forest's statements “divisive and intol-erant” and said they “have no place in our (Republican) party or in the Texas House of Representatives, where our Hispanic members bring a diverse and valuable perspectiveto the legislative process, just as our Hispaniccitizens do in our state.”

“Anti-Hispanic remarks draw condemna-

tion,” San Antonio Express-News,

6/14/2011, http://bit.ly/oR4W9J

http://bit.ly/oR4W9J

http://bit.ly/oR4W9J



5. The inside-outside strategy

Texans stand up as RITA engages lawmakers

RITA engaged lawmakers from two directions: inside their district and

Capitol offices and outside with large mobilizations of Texans writing,

calling and rallying.

The key to implementing an inside strategy was assigning a role to

staff to develop relationships with key lawmakers and their offices,

gather intelligence, educate partners on legislative processes,

coordinate testimonials at hearings and generally have a physical

presence in the Capitol building. This role broke with traditional

advocacy structures that Austin-based organizations had built where

they managed legislator relationships. Assigning this role allowed

RITA partners to insert their principles directly with lawmakers. For

example, Proyecto Inmigrante of Ft. Worth and the Austin Immigrant

Rights Coalition established close relationships with their Senators

that would facilitate access throughout the legislative session.

Early on RITA also sought relationships with advocacy organizations

to coordinate strategy. The regional office of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF)

provided in-depth knowledge to the legislative process and helped facilitate the inside strategy. The ACLU of Texas and

the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition lent advocacy expertise.

National organizations also provided support. Groups like National Council of La Raza (NCLR) and the Reform

Immigration for America campaign activated their networks at key moments. At the height of the campaign, the Service

Employees International Union (SEIU) added to the communications and political strategy.

The Texas Can Do Better campaign’s inside strategy targeted both Republicans and Democrats in the legislature. RITA’s

goal was to educate lawmakers about the potential impacts of the proposals before they reached Gov. Perry’s desk. The



March 11: Last day to file bills.Over 80 anti-immigrant bills filed

April 8: Strategy session with Senators.Democrats’ “Dear Colleague” letter is introduced

May 21: “Dear Colleague” letter signed byall Democratic Senators is released

June 13: RITA delivers thousands of letters against anti-immigrant bills toGOP Senators’ offices

March 18: RITA teams from 4 regions of the stateask Democrats to unite against anti-immigrant bills


“Texas Gov. Rick Perry just called a special session of the Texas legislature and has re-cently made threats in the media that hewould push Arizona-style "papers, please" bills through if he called a special session.It now seems that Perry will make good on his threat, which amounts to playing politicswith Texans' security just to scapegoat hard-working immigrant communities in Texas....

Sign the petition -- Tell Texas lawmakers that no matter their party, Arizona-style legislation is anti-immigrant, anti-American, unconstitu-tional and bad for all Texans.”

RITA online petition, although the billswere defeated, the petition continued to

gain signatures from around the country

through July 28, http://bit.ly/kzFmEx

http://bit.ly/kzFmEx




House was a challenge for RITA because within its supermajority of Republican lawmakers there was a vocal anti-

immigrant and Tea Party presence. However, the Senate was different. The balance of power, where Republicans did not

have a 2/3rds majority, created an environment where Senators had to reach across the aisle. The rule states that 2/3rds

of the body must vote to hear a bill out of order. If all Democrats and some Republicans voted not to hear the sanctuary

cities bills, the legislation would stall and die.

With this goal in mind, RITA engaged lawmakers inside the Capitol to promote understanding about the dangers of an

anti-immigrant agenda in Texas and to unify a bloc of Senators around basic values of safety, economy and family.

Instrumental to this strategy was Sen. Jose Rodriguez of El Paso, who is a member of RITA’s Executive Committee. Sen.

Rodriguez decided to poll his colleagues at Democratic Caucus meetings. He asked the Democrats whether or not they

would vote to block sanctuary cities bills. While Sen. Rodriguez worked with his fellow lawmakers, RITA delegations

pushed for meetings with Democratic and Republican Senators and their staffers to build support. It’s important to note

that these efforts were underway well before any intense debate had started on the Senate floor or in the media. RITA

created an expectation of urgency before the issue was urgent to many inside the Capitol.

This effort was brought closer to fruition when on April 8, RITA convened the immigration policy analysts from Senate

offices to bring forward the concerns of Texans on the anti-immigrant agenda and to educate them on the potential

impacts. It was on this day that Sen. Rodriguez introduced his “dear colleague” letter on immigration. His letter urged a

unified Democratic Caucus against anti-immigrant proposals and highlighted the concerns of public safety, the economy

and family values first expressed by RITA.

Not forgetting the importance of Republican support, RITA reached out to strategic Republican Senators to ask for their

support in upholding RITA’s Texan values. While there were glimmers of hope for bi-partisan opposition, most

Republicans ultimately chose to publicly support anti-immigrant measures.

As RITA worked inside lawmakers’ offices, organizers across the state rallied communities. The intense work of the past

two years in building community capacity and relationships would pay off in a huge way.

The first blow from communities came on February 22, when 3,000 people marched on the Capitol and declared that

“Texas could do better.” It was the largest demonstration of the regular and special sessions.

Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez, left, Deputy Chief Joe Costa, center, and Pastor Richard Martinez of Arlington, right,deliver 1,070 letters from constituents opposed to the Arizona-style bills to Dallas-area Sen. John Carona’s office.





From the start of the regular session to the end of the special session, community members flooded lawmaker’s offices

with hundreds of thousands of phone calls, emails, letters, post cards and petition signatures.

When the stakes were the highest during the special session, RITA was able to mobilize 500 people to a June 15 rally

and collect thousands more petition signatures both online and in person around the state. The signed petitions were

boxed and branded with the NO SB9 and Texas Can Do Better logos and delivered to lawmaker’s Capitol offices.

The sheer dedication of people willing to drive up to 12 hours overnight to rally for an hour or give three minutes of

testimony is a testament to effectiveness of organizing and building community capacity around a community agenda.

Texas Did Better

On June 29, the special session ended and no anti-immigrant bills passed in Texas.

By the end of this 82nd legislative session, two political situations had changed. On one hand, there was a unified

Democratic bloc against anti-immigrant bills. And on the other, there was a divided, confused and doubtful Republican

caucus.

These two new elements played an important role in defeating the

larger anti-immigrant and nativist agenda in the state.

Although lawmakers were able to attach restrictive driver’s license

provisions to an unrelated budget bill during the special session, in

the end, none of the more than 80 anti-immigrant proposals

(especially the Arizona-style “sanctuary cities” bills) passed.



“It's the blame game. Gov. Rick Perry has released a statement blaming Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, for the death of sanc-tuary cities, which the governor added to thespecial session call. House Speaker JoeStraus has his own statement blaming thefull Senate. And this morning, Senate Re- publicans and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst cameto Duncan's —and their own — defense, releasing a statement turning the blame around on the House.”

“The Sanctuary Cities Blame Game,”

Texas Tribune, 6/29/2011, http://bit.ly/rfZms0





What Comes NextIn 2011, Texas communities were able to defeat the anti-immigrant agenda in the legislature twice — in both the regular

and special sessions. By all measures, this was a historic victory for our communities. But we acknowledge that anti-

immigrant and nativist forces will not be quiet and will continue to push their fear-based ideological agenda. They couldincrease their reach as the U.S. slips further into economic crisis. In fact, they are likely reviewing their own lessons from

this campaign. They have made it clear that they are already working on reinventing themselves and are planning to

come back with a vengeance. They are gearing up for the next battles, both in the 2012 elections and in the 83rd legisla-

tive session in 2013. Therefore, RITA is already planning the next steps of this long struggle in Texas. The following are

the areas for further development to strengthen RITA’s capacity and reach well as the community’s capacity for response,

participation and involvement.

Expanding our non-traditional alliance and strengthening RITA’s structure statewide

A crucial next step for RITA is to bring more sectors, more communities and more regions into the organization. While

there was some representation from the LGBTQ, African, African American, Asian American and student communities

during the campaign, RITA is committed to bringing each of these communities into RITA in a more formal way and with

leadership roles in the alliance. The established structure of RITA must also be strengthened. RITA has a strong Executive

Committee that sets its priorities and implements identified strategies. There also over 100 entities that are part of the

RITA network and take part in many of its actions and activities. Nonetheless, there is an opportunity for expanding RITA

by further facilitating and encouraging the involvement of organizations and individuals across Texas.

Continuing the statewide organizing process

The key to building and capitalizing on the success of the Texas Can Do Better campaign is to keep up the organizing

strategies. While RITA’s organizing efforts, through the Texas Human Rights Partnership, are well-established in the four

original regions, this needs to grow across the state. Communities in Lubbock, San Antonio, Houston, Tyler, and Laredo

are ripe and ready for the implementation of our human rights organizing model. There are potential human rights

promotors in each of these regions who were first brought on board during the campaign. Supporting these new

promotors to grow their community capacity will now be the focus of the THRP. Launching a major civic engagement and immigrant integration campaign

If something was clear to RITA members after the Texas Can Do Better campaign, it was the need for a substantial

statewide civic engagement and immigrant integration campaign. It was especially clear that immigrants of all nationali-

ties, and especially Latinos, have not historically been engaged in the Texas political process. It is RITA’s aim to imple-

ment campaigns for and beyond the 2012 elections to increase the political participation of all immigrants and to sub-

stantially increase the immigrant and Latino vote. In addition, RITA aims to create the mechanisms to make elected offi-

cials and government accountable to communities. The success of the Texas Can Do Better campaign must be turned

into civic action. The work RITA put into building relationships and community capacity during get-out-the-vote and other

civic engagement activities in 2009 and 2010 will continue and be taken to a new level.

Functional and realistic immigration reform in the U.S.RITA’s ultimate goal is achieving real, rational, functional immigration reform at the federal level. RITA is truly seeking solu-

tions to the problems with immigration in the U.S. and an understanding of the root of these anti-immigrant events in

Texas and other states. We understand that the attempts to establish anti-immigrant immigration state policies is a result

of the lack of action by both the current Obama administration and Congress to fix our immigration system. RITA will

continue to work on promoting immigration reform that respects the contributions of immigrants, respects human rights,

strengthens the economy, supports workers and unifies families.





Appendix:

Collected Documents from RITA, Elected Officials,

Law Enforcement, Business and Faith Leaders







Who Is RITA?A List of Our Partners Around The State

Adriana Cadena,RITA Coordinator

Executive Committee Members

A Resource In Serving Equality(ARISE), Rio Grande Valley Ramona Casas, [email protected],

956-309-9467

Austin Immigrant Rights Coalition,Austin Esther Reyes, Coordinator,

[email protected],

512-476-2472

Border Network for Human Rights,El Paso Fernando Garcia, Executive Director,

[email protected],

915-204-0337

Catholic Charities of Dallas, Dallas Catarina Torres, Missions/Social Con-

cerns Coordinator,

[email protected].

org, 214-520-6590 X124

Citizens In United DiscourseAgainst Discrimination (CIUDAD) Daniel Sanchez, Presdent,

[email protected],

806-544-6301

Coalition for Immigration Reformof Dallas/Ft. Worth & North Texas Maria Robles, Director of Legislative

Af airs, [email protected], 817-727-0379

Dallas Peace & Justice Center,Dallas Kelli Obazee, Executive Director,

[email protected], 214-823-7793

El Paso del Norte Civil RightsProject, El Paso Chris Benoit,

[email protected]

915-532-3799

Houston Coalition for

Immgration Reform, Houston Joel Goza, [email protected],

281-658-9435

La Union del Pueblo Entero (LUPE),Rio Grande Valley Martha Sanchez, Organizer,


Movimiento del Valle por losDerechos Humanos, Rio GrandeValley Maria Cordero,


National Council of Jewish WomenTexas State Public Af airs Marlene Cohen, Co-Chair,

[email protected],

214-284-6033

Proyecto Inmigrante ICS,Ft. Worth/Dallas Douglas Interiano, Executive Director,

douglas.interiano@proyectoinmigrante

.org,

972-743-0246

Texas Organizing Project (TOP) Allison Brim, Dallas County Lead Or-

ganizer, [email protected],

214-455-9115

UNITE HERE Local 251 William Gonzalez, Secretary Treasurer,

[email protected],

646-831-3368

Welcoming Immigrants Network Dean Reed,


State Senator Jose Rodriguez, TexasSenate District 29

Sherif Richard Wiles, El Paso County

Ms. Olga Kauf man, San Antonio

Advisors ToExecutive Committee:

County Judge Veronica Escobar, ElPaso County

Mr. Luis Figueroa, Legislative Attor-ney, MALDEF

Catarina Torres, Missions/SocialConcerns Coordinator,CatholicCharities of Dallas, Dallas

RITA List of Supporters

*The following organizationssupport RITA (Partial)

1. Alianza Mexicana por una Re-forma Migratoria, Houston

2. All Saints Catholic Church, Ft.Worth

3. American Gateways, Austin4. Annunciation House, El Paso5. ARISE, Alamo6. Arlington LULAC Council #4353

Arlington7. ASEGARD, Dallas8. Asociacion de Guatemaltecos en

Texas, Austin9. Assistant City Manager StevePena, City of Alton, Alton

10. Austin City CouncilmemberMike Martinez, Austin

11. Austin Immigrant Rights Coali-tion, Austin

12. AYUDA, El Paso13. Baldo’s Garage, Rio Grande

Valley14. Border Network for Human

Rights, El Paso15. Call To Action-RGV, McAllen16. CARECEN, Houston

17. Casa Durango, Dallas18. Casa de Proyecto Libertad,

Harlingen19. Casa del Inmigrante, Ft. Worth20. Casa Marianella, Austin21. Catholic Charities of Dallas22. Catholic Charities of San Anto-

nio23. CC. Vida Comunio de Santi-

dad, Rio Grande Valley

mailto:[email protected]
























































24. Centro Civico Monseñor Ro-mero, Dallas

25. Centro de Mujeres de la Es-peranza, El Paso

26. Centro de Recursos Cen-troamericanos (CRECEN), Hous-ton

27. City of Alton, Alton28. Coalicion Internacional deMexicanos en le Exterior, Dallas

29. Coalition for Immigration Re-form of Dallas/Fort Worth andNorth Texas

30. CodePink Austin, Austin31. Dalia’s Beauty Salon, Rio

Grande Valley32. Dallas RITA Network, Dallas33. DMRS – Diocese of Migrant

and Refugee Services, El Paso34. East Austin Voter Mobilization,

Austin

35. El Acero Concrete, Rio GrandeValley

36. El Buen Samaritano, Austin37. Eleganza Beauty Salon, Rio

Grande Valley

38. English at Work, Austin39. Equal Voice Network, Rio

Grande Valley40. Esperanza for America, Texas41. FIEL, Houston42. Fundacion Ada Cuadros, Dallas43. Grassroots Leadership, Austin44. Greater Waco Youth Law Pro-

ject, Waco45. Hernandez Paints, Rio Grande

Valley46. Hidalgo County Texas Demo-

cratic Women, McAllen47. Houston Coalition for Immi-

gration Reform, Houston48. Immigration Law Oces of

Paul Parsons, P.C., Austin49. J. Reyes Tire Service, Rio

Grande Valley50. Jovenes Fronterizos por un

Mismo Sueno, El Paso51. Junior’s Supermarket, Rio

Grande Valley52. La Union del Pueblo En-

tero(LUPE), San Juan53. Las Americas, El Paso54. Latina Mami, Austin55. Lolis Styling Center, Rio

Grande Valley56. LULAC, El Paso57. LULAC Council 102, Dallas58. Materiales la Huna, Rio Grande

Valley

59. MiFamilia Vota Civic Participa-tion, Houston

60. Microland Electronics Corpora-tion, Austin

61. Ministerios la Vida Verdadera,Rio Grande Valley

62. Mothers Against Discrimina-

tion and Racism in Educationand Society (M.A.D.R.E.S.),Austin63. Mujer Obrera, El Paso64. National Council of Jewish

Women Texas State Public Af-fairs Co-chairs

65. Nicaraguenses InmigrantesCentralizados en Austin (NICA),Austin

66. OCA Greater Houston Chapter,Houston

67. Paso Del Norte Civil RightsProject, El Paso

68. Pastor Alfred Krebs, Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, Austin

69. Pax Christi Austin70. Peace and Justice Committee,

McAllen71. Peace and Justice Ministry, El

Paso72. Peña’s Car Wash, Rio Grande

Valley73. People Organized in Defense

of Earth and her Resources (PO-DER), Austin

74. Primera Iglesia Bautista LasMalpas, Rio Grande Valley

75. Proyecto Azteca, San Juan76. Proyecto Juan Diego, Browns-

ville77. RGV-BARCA, McAllen78. Richard’s Pharmacy, Rio

Grande Valley79. Rodriguez Rentals, Rio Grande

Valley80. Roman Catholic Dioceses of

Dallas, Dallas81. S.D.S. Sacón, Rio Grande Valley

82. Santa Barbara Parish, Austin83. SEIU Local 1 Justice for Jani-

tors, Houston84. Snow Snacks, Rio Grande Val-

ley85. South Texas Civil Rights Pro- ject (STCRP), San Juan

86. South Texas ImmigrationCouncil (STIC), McAllen

87. Southwest Key, Austin88. Southwest Workers Union, Ed-

inburg

89. St. Andrew’s PresbyterianChurch, Austin

90. St. Ignatius Parish, Austin91. St. Pius Community Church, El

Paso92. START Center, San Benito93. Taqueria Don Felipe, Rio

Grande Valley94. Taqueria Lara, Rio Grande Val-ley

95. Texans for Peace, Austin96. Texans United for Families,

Austin97. Texas Criminal Justice Coali-

tion, Austin98. Texas Organizing Project

(TOP), Texas99. Texas State Representative

Eddie Rodriguez (District 51),Austin

100. Texas State Representative

Elliott Naishtat (District 49),Austin

101. Texas State RepresentativeMarisa Marquez (District 77), ElPaso

102. Texas State RepresentativeNaomi Gonzalez (District 76), ElPaso

103. Texas State RepresentativeRoberto Alonzo (District 104),Dallas

104. Texas State Senator JoseRodriguez, (District 29), El Paso

105. Texas/Oklahoma/New Mex-

ico Chapter of the American Im-migration Lawyers

Association106. The Austin Center for Peace

and Justice, Austin107. Trabajadores Fronterizos, El

Paso108. Travis County Commissioner

Margaret J. Gomez, Austin109. UNITE HERE Local 251, Texas110. University Leadership Initia-

tive (ULI), Austin111. Valley Movement for Human

Rights, Brownsville

112. Vasquez Min Store, RioGrande Valley

113. Voces Unidas por los Inmi-grantes, Garland

114. Welcoming Immigrants Net-work, Texas

115. Womens Intercultural Center,Anthony

116. Workers Defense Project,Austin



Timeline Of The Texas Can Do Better Campaign

Fall 2010: RITA and its partners contact over 60,000 Latino voters across the state to encourage

them to vote.

October 2010: RITA Texas Legislature Planning Session.

December 2010: RITA Texas Legislature Planning Session – Texas Can Do Better Campaign born

January 6, 2011: RITA kicks off the Texas Can Do Better campaign with a multi-sector press con-

ference. This is the first public event to push back against anti-immigrant bills. The Speaker’s Con-

ference Room was packed with longtime allies and unlikely allies; for example, civil rights groups

complemented law enforcement executives and representatives of big business associations

spoke with the same message as labor unions. The day ends with private meetings with immigra-

tion policy analysts for the Lt. Governor, Speaker of the House, as well as other key House and

Senate members.

January 11: 82nd Legislative Session Begins. Gov. Perry announces his emergency agenda, in-

cluding abolishing so-called sanctuary cities.

February 16: Versions of the sanctuary cities bills are filed in the House and the Senate

February 17: RITA coordinates a Law Enforcement Summit in the Capitol Building in Austin. Par-

ticipants include El Paso County Sheriff Richard Wiles, Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez,

Austin Chief of Police Art Acevedo, San Antonio Police Chief William McManus, Travis County Chief

Deputy Jim Sylvester and McAllen Police Chief Victor Rodriguez. More than 55 immigration policy

aides to Senate and House members plus the Lt. Governor’s analyst are present to hear their

presentations. Law Enforcement executives articulate their professional concerns about the disas-

trous effects that proposed immigration legislation could have on security and public safety in

Texas communities. The press conference preceding the Summit was very well covered and left a

statewide impression on the public’s mind. The Texas Law Enforcement Statement of Principles

on state-based immigration policy is released.

February 22: More than 3,000 people from across the State gather in Austin for “A Day of Action

for Immigrant Integration and Community Security.” At the Day of Action, participants marched,

rallied, and conducted over 180 visits to Texas Legislators at the State Capitol. More than 30

teams visit offices and compile more than 100 reports on legislative visits. Simultaneously, the

grassroots base voice their concerns with In-District meetings with legislators and their staff.



March 2: Sanctuary cities bill is heard along with a long list of other anti-immigrant bills in the

House State Affairs Committee. RITA partners from 5 different regions traveled to participate. The

hearing room was packed and the vast majority opposed the bills. Those opposing the bills include

law enforcement, immigration legal groups, students, labor union, as well as business and com-

munity based groups. RITA members were some of the last to leave when the hearing ended at

1AM.

March 11: Last Day to File Bills. More than 80 anti-immigration bills filed.

March 18: RITA reaches out to Latino artists. Ozomatli frontman Raul Pacheco joins RITA at a

Town Hall Meeting with Latino Artists to denounce the anti-immigrant proposals in the Texas Legis-

lature. Pacheco and other artists were joined by about 100 community members from El Paso and

Ft. Worth and Austin.

April 8:. Sen. Rodriguez introduces the ‘dear colleague’ letter. The letter urged a unified Demo-

cratic Caucus against anti-immigrant proposals. RITA also meets with 5 Republican Senators.

May 5: Sanctuary cities placed on the emergency calendar for the House of Representatives.

May 6: RITA’s law enforcement allies hold a telephonic press conference where 8 newspaper re-

porters heard the reaction to the ‘sanctuary cities’ bill being set for a floor vote in the House of

Representatives. Chiefs from Arlington and McAllen joined the El Paso County Sheriff to respond

publicly.

May 10: The House passes sanctuary cities after Republican leadership cuts off debate and

blocks discussion of amendments. RITA also meets with four Democratic Senators after an ag-

gressive round of automatic phone calls.

May 18: Senate Transportation and Homeland Security holds a public hearing on sanctuary cities.

After much debate and many testimonials opposing the bill, especially from RITA partner organiza-

tions, the committee made an unexpected move. Sen. Williams accepted a motion by Sen. Hino-

josa to abandon the “sanctuary cities” language in HB12 and replace it with the language of SB9,

which had not moved in the House. The committee votes in favor of the move and passes the bill. The sanctuary cities bill dies for the first time.

May 20: Sen. Williams again convened the Transportation and Homeland Security Committee.

This time, he had relatively little opposition in the hearing room and asked the Republicans to

abandon the language switch and vote the HB12 sanctuary cities out of committee. They did.



Republican tactics to force controversial legislation through had very negative repercussions in the

House as well as the Senate. The perceived trickery came on the heels of Senate Republicans

forcing through a budget bill. These tactics strengthened the resolve of the Democrats.

May 23: RITA holds a press conference in the Senate Press Room announcing that all 12 SenateDemocrats had united and signed Sen. Rodriguez’s “dear colleague” letter.

May 24: The Senate’s last piece of business nearing midnight was sanctuary cities. Sen. Williams

asked the Senate to suspend the rules so that his bill could be debated. All 12 Democrats voted

against suspension of the rules and the sanctuary cities bill died the second time.

May 25: A joyous day for RITA partner organizations, who gathered outside of the Senate Cham-

ber with signs and flags to congratulate Senators for their vote to block the sanctuary cities bill.

Many Democratic Senators came out of the floor to greet us and celebrate the victory together.

The visuals that day can still be seen in online media sources.

May 30: The end of the regular session.

May 31: Governor Perry calls a special session. Initially only fiscal matters were added to the

agenda for the special session.

June 2: Senator Williams introduces Senate Bill 9, breaking his promise that he would not combine

secure communities and sanctuary cities proposals. The bill also includes driver’s license restric-

tions.

June 6: Gov. Perry adds immigration to the agenda of the special session. His agenda includes:

eliminating so called sanctuary cities, institutionalizing the controversial Secure Communities or S-

Comm federal program, and codifying driver’s license restrictions.

June 13: SB9 is heard in the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee. The hear-

ing begins at 9 a.m. and ends at 7 p.m. after almost 100 people give testimony. Only and handful

of people testify and support of the bill. Those opposing the bill include executives from local law

enforcement departments, representatives of business groups, evangelical pastors and leaders of

religious communities, directors of victim abuse shelters, legal clinics, civil rights organizations and

community based organizations. The 9 Senators on the committee were joined by Sens. Rodriguez

and Gallegos who also participated in the hearing. At the end of the hearing, the committee mem-

bers voted and the Bill passed 5 to 4 along party lines with Republicans supporting the measure.

June 14: SB 9 gets placed on the calendar for a Senate floor debate. The Senate begins debate



on the Bill at 4 p.m. where Democratic Senators asked questions of Sen. Williams. The Senate

took a one hour break beginning at 7 p.m. to consider amendments. After amendments were de-

bated, Individual Senators took turns making their final arguments against the bills. The speeches

were passionate and personal and marked a moment when the xenophobic roots of SB9 were

brought to light. The bill went to vote and passed 19 – 12 along party lines with Republicans sup-

porting it.

June 20: House State Affairs Committee had a hearing on SB9 as well as a House version of

sanctuary cities — HB9. At this hearing approximately 100 testimonies were given with the vast

majority opposing the bills. Those that gave testimony in opposition were law enforcement execu-

tives, conservative evangelical pastors and other religious leaders, civil rights groups, community

based groups, immigration legal clinics and attorneys, students and business interests. The

Committee adjourned at about 1 a.m. after almost 9 hours of testimony. When the Committee ad-

journed for the day, they left both bills pending. It was around this time when important Republican

donors from the business community began to lobby the legislators not to pass the immigration

bills. The House State Affairs Committee postponed their follow up meeting again and again, until

it became impossible to pass a bill to the House for a floor vote. The Committee never met again.

Sanctuary cities bills died for the third time.

June 29: On this day, leaders from law enforcement, religious, business, civil rights, and commu-

nity based groups came out during a press conference in the Speaker’s Committee Room to an-

nounce their thoughts on successfully pushing back on the anti-immigrant agenda.



Immigration Demands A National Solution

Immigration is a federal policy issue that can no longer wait to be

addressed. Any attempts at the local or state level are only piece-

meal approaches that will fail to provide comprehensive solutions.

We cannot be misled by extreme xenophobic rhetoric. Our Americais greater. Our values are about embracing innovation and diversity,

and recognizing the contributions of every sector of our society.

Congress must act now to fix the broken immigration system.

Under the Obama administration, removals reached a record high in

2009 to 387,790. The increase was due to a 19 percent rise in de-portation of criminal illegal immigrants. However, the majority of

immigrants removed continued to be non-criminals.

Ray Perryman, the leading economist of Texas, estimated that if all

undocumented people were to leave Texas, the state would lose

$69.3 billion dollars in annual spending and 403,000 jobs. Just the

income loss in Texas would amount to an $807 de facto annual tax,per person, to pay for the effects of these policies, or $2,400 to

$4,000 per Texas family of a typical size.

Our Security Depends on Community Security

Communities are essential to security. Local law enforcement activi-ties should focus on criminal activities, not enforcing civil violations

of the federal law. Mandating local police to enforce the federal im-

migration code strains the resources of local governments and al-

ienates a huge sector of our society, especially in the Latino com-

munity. In order to achieve national security and border security, wemust incorporate Texas’ immigrant communities and Latinos as part

of the solution. Alienating any sector of our community from law

enforcement is not good for Texas and is not good for our security.

Effective crime prevention and crime solving requires trust and is

undermined by fear.

El Paso is the safest city in the country, primarily due to the trust

between law enforcement and the community. Trust between immi-

grant communities and local/state law enforcement is especially

important in preventing terrorism and drug violence by keeping open

channels of communication and information gathering.

Numerous studies by independent researchers and government

entities consistently show that immigrants are less likely to commit

crimes or be incarcerated than the native-born population. In fact,

although the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. dou-

bled to about 12 million between 1994 and 2005, the U.S. violent

crime rate declined by 34.2% and the property crime rate fell by26.4%.

A Strong Economy, A Strong Texas

Our Texas economy is strong because of the efforts all of us havemade, minorities, Latinos and non-Latinos, as business owners,

employers, workers and taxpayers. Texas policies, including those

dealing with immigration, must continue to reaffirm our reputation as

a business-friendly state. With a budget deficit close to $25 billion,

we cannot afford divisive state legislation that will turn away key

economic partners, such as Mexico, and impose unsustainable

costs on our state and municipal governments. A 2006 financial analysis by the Texas Comptroller found that un-documented immigrants contributed $17.7 billion to Texas’ gross

state produce in 2005, creating $1.58 billion in state revenues,

which exceeded the $1.16 billion in state services they received.

Texas blazes its own path, Not Arizona’s. According to research by

an Arizona-based firm, Elliott D. Pollack and Company, Arizonalikely to lose $253 million from conference cancellations and book-

ing declines. And added to this is the estimated $17 mill ion of lost

tax revenue that accompanies the losses in tourism spending and

employment.

Latinos are also entrepreneurial. 60% of all small businesses inTexas are owned by Hispanics.

Respect Texas Family Values

Strong families mean strong communities. Keeping families together

remains an important Texas value that helps children excel in school

and prosper as adults. Any policies that seek to restrict access toeducation to our students are detrimental and will undermine the

nucleus of our society. As Texans, we must live up to our best val-

ues, not be led astray by our worst fears.

It’s a core constitutional protection that if children are born here,

they are Americans. Destroying that principle would be a dangerousmistake that would threaten the freedom of all of us.

Close to 50% of undocumented families today arrived legally on

tourist visas. They exist as mixed immigration families with somechildren who are undocumented and others that are US citizens.

They are strong advocates for the education and want their childrento have access to higher education and opportunities that have

been historically denied to them.

A RAND study showed that a 30-year-old Mexican immigrant

woman who graduates from college will pay $5,300 more in taxes

and cost $3,900 less in government expenses each year than ifhe had dropped out of high school. This amounts to an annual fiscal

benefit of over $9,000 every year, money that can be used to pay for

the education of others.

Texas Way of Life

Texas has historically been composed of diverse cultures embracingthe American Dream. Immigrants and immigration are part of our

legacy as a nation and as a state. As a beacon of opportunity, we

Texans must ensure that our laws and policies embody a humane

approach to this reality, reflecting our commitment to uphold the

promise of liberty and justice for all.

Our state’s future depends on maximizing all of our assets, including

the labor, knowledge, and energy of every Texan who contributes to

our common goals of building strong families, strong communities,

and a strong economy. ✪

A Statement of Texan PrinciplesTo Guide Lawmakers on Sensible Immigration Policy By RITA



INVESTOR NEWSLETTER ISSUE N°3 FALL 2007

By: El Paso County Sheriff Richard Wiles

San Antonio Police Chief William McManusDallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez McAllen Police Chief Victor Rodriguez United ISD Police Department Chief Ray Garner San Juan Chief of Police Juan Gonzalez Hidalgo County Sheriff Lupe Trevino

Austin Police Chief Art AcevedoCameron County Sheriff Omar LucioBexar County Sheriff Amadeo Ortiz Brownsville Police Chief Carlos GarciaSan Patricio County Sheriff Leroy Moody

As executives of our departments, we do the

work of serving and protecting the public

while complying with our Constitution as well

as the laws that our State Legislature man-

dates.

Given that this 82nd Legislative Session in

Texas, with more impetus than previous ses-

sions, is currently considering immigration law

enforcement measures at the state level we of-

fer the following set of considerations.

First, immigration is a federal policy issue and

demands a national solution. Any attempts at

the local or state level are only piecemeal ap-

proaches that will fail to provide comprehen-

sive solutions. We cannot be misled by ex-

treme rhetoric. Our Texas is greater. Our val-

ues are about embracing innovation and diver-

sity, and recognizing the contributions of every

sector of our society.

Second, Texas’ security depends on commu-

nity involvement and partnerships which are

the cornerstone of our community policing

plans. We believe that local law enforcement

should be focused on criminal activities, not onenforcing civil violations of federal law. Man-

dating local police to enforce the federal im-

migration code alienates a significant and

growing sector of our society, especially in the

Latino community. In order to achieve national

security and border security, we must incorpo-

rate Texas’ immigrant communities as part of

the solution. Alienating any sector of our

community from law enforcement is not good

for Texas and is not good for our security.

Third, our departments have worked hard at

building partnerships across various sectors of

our society. We are concerned that some legis-lation now being considered will lead to racial

profiling and create distrust between law en-

forcement and ethnic communities. That hard

won trust we currently have would be nega-

tively affected, ultimately jeopardizing public

safety.

Fourth, Texas law enforcement is already feel-

ing the negative impacts of the economic

downturn. Any state laws that put us on the path of enforcing federal immigration laws

will create an additional unfunded mandate on

law enforcement departments, as well as be a

tax burden for our municipalities and counties

during budget deficit years.

Fifth, we know proposed anti-immigrant legis-

lation will negatively affect others as well. The

burdens imposed by many of these proposals

will further strain personnel shortages thus im-

pacting our response time to emergencies. The

proposals run counter to traditional concepts of

community policing. In the partnership be-

tween law enforcement agencies and the com-

munities they serve, the public’s involvement

in reporting and contributing to the solving of

crimes is of primary importance. Members of

our communities will be less likely to come

forward as witness—or worse—report offend-

ers who have victimized them in various ways.

Our work is best done when allies across all

sectors of society continue to be active partners

and help us to provide the public with the level

of safety they expect from their government.

Statement By Law Enforcement Executives

On State-Based Immigration Policy




May 21, 2011

Dear Colleague:

We are writing to you today to ask you to fully

consider the impact of proposed legislation that

aims to target certain demographics of the Texas

population. We have concerns about racially pro-

filing our citizens under the guise of cracking

down on so-called “sanctuary cities.” There is a

tremendous risk that such legislation would inad-

vertently target legal citizens of Texas, solely be-

cause they fall within a certain ethnic demo-graphic. As we are all well aware, racial profiling

is illegal in Texas.

Numerous law enforcement leaders, including

sheriffs and police chiefs from our state’s largest

cities, have been united in their opposition to so-

called “sanctuary city” bills. If passed and signed

into law, not only will law enforcement officials

be limited in their ability to regulate their indi-

vidual officers, but enforcement of the law will

likely lead to lawsuits against police departments

and sheriff’s departments should legal residents

be detained. This will strain the budgets of local

governments during a time when many of our

cities and counties are having a difficult time

making ends meet.

Law enforcement officials have invested consid-

erable time and effort building partnerships withthe Latino and immigrant community. This type

of legislation will likely undermine that trust, and

immigrants will be afraid to report crimes such as

domestic abuse, resulting in tragedies and less

safe communities.

Many in the business community, including the

Texas Association of Business, also have con-

cerns regarding the impact such legislation may

have on our state’s economy. In Arizona, similar

legislation has negatively affected the economy

of that state. According to the Center for Ameri-

can Progress, four months after the passage of SB

1070 in Arizona, cancelations of conventions

alone cost Arizona $45 million.

We agree that more must be done to address un-

documented immigration, and that as a body, we

must urge the federal government to do so im-

mediately. However, during a time when we face

a multibillion dollar budget shortfall, which is

likely to result in drastic changes to public educa-

tion, thousands of jobs lost in the private and

public sectors, and higher health care costs, we

should not spend our limited time passing poli-

cies that will do more harm than good.

We cannot afford this type of divisive legislationand the resulting long-term unsustainable costs to

our state and our communities. It is time that we

stand together for the benefit of our state.

Sincerely,

Senator Mario Gallegos, Jr. (District 6), Senator

Wendy Davis (District 10), Senator Rodney Ellis

(District 13), Senator Kirk Watson (District 14),

Senator John Whitmire (District 15), Senator

Carlos Uresti (District 19, Senator Juan “Chuy”

Hinojosa (District 20), Senator Judith Zaffirini

(District 21), Senator Royce West (District 23),

Senator Leticia Van de Putte (District 26), Sena-

tor Eddie Lucio, Jr. (District 27), Senator José

Rodríguez (District 29)

Texas Senate Democrats’ “Dear Colleague” Letter




As Texas religious leaders, we unite our voices to call on our Legislature for a new and gracious tone in our state’s immi-gration debate. We encourage lawmakers to focus on healingTexas communities and affirming the rights and inherentworth of every person.

Our nation’s immigration system is flawed and results in suf-fering not only within our borders, but also throughout the restof the world. Our faith traditions have called strenuously andtirelessly for Congress to reform our federal immigration sys-tem, and we will continue to do so.

We recognize and support the right of the United States to protect and secure our border and enforce our immigration

laws. We support the work of lawmakers and law enforce-ment officials in protecting all people in Texas. However,when working to maintain and improve public safety, our Texas Legislators should be cautious when considering poli-cies that could detract from safety and risk the inadvertentdeprivation of the civil and constitutional rights of citizens andlawful permanent residents.

We urge Texas legislators to provide guidance and leadershipto our state by rejecting policies that could encourage dis-crimination, co-opt local law enforcement, or scapegoat im-migrants.

As policymakers and leaders, Texas legislators have the opportunity and responsibility to guide our whole community

into a future of compassion, gratitude, and mutual respect. Byaffirming the dignity of every person, including those whomigrate, lawmakers can help the people of Texas move fromfear to respect. And only with respect can we work with allAmericans to build a truly just national immigration system.

Signed,

Daniel Cardinal DiNardo, Archbishop of Galveston/Houston Most Rev. Daniel E. Flores, Bishop of the Diocese of Browns-ville

Most Rev. David Fellhauer, Bishop of the Diocese of Victoria Most Rev. Curtis J. Guillory, Bishop of the Diocese of Beau-mont

Most Rev. Joe S. Vasquez, Bishop of the Diocese of Austin Most Rev. Placido Rodriguez, C.M.F., Bishop of the Diocese of Lubbock Most Rev. Oscar Cantu, S.T.L., Auxiliary Bishop of the Arch-diocese of San Antonio

Most Rev. Janes Tamayo, Bishop of the Diocese of Laredo Most Rev. Kevin J. Farrell, Bishop of the Diocese of Dallas Most Rev. Michael D. Pfeifer, O.M.I., Bishop of the Diocese of San Angelo

Most Rev. Michael Mulvey, Bishop of the Diocese of CorpusChristi

Most Rev. Armando Ochoa, Bishop of the Diocese of El Paso Most Rev. Kevin Vann, Bishop of the Diocese of Fort Worth Most Rev. Gustavo Garcia-Siller, Archbishop of the Archdio-cese of San Antonio

Most Rev. Mark J. Seitz, Auxillary Bishop of Diocese of Dallas Most Rev. Patrick J. Zurek, Bishop of the Diocese of Amarillo Bishop Max D. Whitfield, New Mexico Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church

Bishop W. Earl Bledsoe, North Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church

Bishop James Dorff, Southwest Texas and Rio Grande Annual Conferences of the United Methodist Church

Bishop J. Michael Lowry, Central Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church

Bishop Janice Huie, Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church Bishop Michael Rinehart, TX-LA Gulf Coast Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

Bishop Ray Tiemann, Southwestern Texas Synod of the Evan- gelical Lutheran Church in America Bishop Kevin S. Kanouse, Northern Texas-Northern LouisianaSynod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in AmericaThe Rt. Rev. C. Andrew Doyle, Bishop of the Episcopal Dio-cese of TexasThe Rev. Dani Loving Cartwright, Regional Minister & Presi-dent, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the Southwest

Rev. Douglas Anders, Conference Minister, South Central Conference of the United Church of Christ Susan Y. Paynter, Director Texas Baptist Christian Life Com-mission

Dr. Jesús Romero, Director of the Immigration Service and Aid Center of the Baptist General Convention of Texas and Baptist University of the Américas Pastor Nestor Menjivar, Iglesia Bautista Principe de Paz of Austin Dr. Javier Elizondo, Executive Vice President and Provost, Baptist University of the Americas, San Antonio Patty Lane, Director of Intercultural Ministries, Texas Baptists Elder Hilary Shuford, Executive Presbyter, Mission Presby-tery, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), San Antonio

Rev. Robert W. Mueller, Chair of General Council, Mission Presbytery Rabbi Neal Katz, Congregation Beth El, Tyler Rabbi Barry H.D. Block, Senior Rabbi, Temple Beth-El, San Antonio Rabbi Ralph Mecklenburger, Beth-El Congregation, Fort Worth

Rabbi Neil Blumofe, Senior Rabbi, Congregation Agudas Achim, Austin

Rabbi Rachel Kobrin, Congregation Agudas Achim, Austin Rabbi Steven Folbert, Congregation Beth Israel, Austin Dr. Yusuf Z. Kavakci, Imam & Founding Dean, Suffa IslamicSeminary, Islamic Association of North Texas

Imam Moujahed Bakhach, Islamic Association of Tarrant County

Imam Islam Mossaad, North Austin Muslim Community Cen-ter

Interfaith Leaders’ Statement,

From Texas Impact




A Biblical Basis on Immigration Reform

As people of faith we are called to ground our conduct and treatment of others in our reading and understanding of scripture and what God, as revealed through scripture and through Jesus Christ, instructs and teaches us to be andto do. As such, our views on immigration are to be grounded and reared in Biblical Revelation. As we examinewhat the bible says about immigration, we quickly encounter that the seeds for the establishment of Israel and allChristianity begin with the following statement:

The Lord had said to Abram, “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land Iwill show you.” Genesis 12:1

The people we come to know in the scripture as Israel, and we as a Christian people, begin our history by God or-daining immigration. It was God’s call to migration and immigration that changed human history.

God called one man to leave the known for the unknown, hence, to be immigrants – aliens in a strange land. Abra-ham’s motivation was God’s call to build a great nation of promise and blessing (Genesis 12: 2-3). It is a promise of something better – a better life, a better future and it motivates sojourns into the desert in search of a better tomor-row.

This is one of many immigration stories found in scripture. It creates an understanding, a call from God to never forget this history and requires of God’s followers specific treatment of those called strangers, aliens, and immi-grants. God instructs us, His people, “to love those who are aliens for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt” and totreat strangers by providing a place of rest, food and hospitality (Genesis 18:4, 5; Deuteronomy 10:19).

This model of hospitality and treatment informs the development of a biblical policy of care for the stranger. It is a policy grounded in the actual experiences of God’s people who traveled to strange lands and who were oftenabused and exploited, as was the case of the people of Israel during the time of Moses. These experiences taughtand required God’s followers that care and treatment of the immigrant needs to inform our activities in this day.The Scripture clearly says,

When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with youmust be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens inEgypt. I am the Lord your God. Leviticus 19:33, 34

Do not mistreat the alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt. Do not oppress analien; you yourselves know what it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt. Exodus

23:9

Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the fatherless or the widow.Deuteronomy 27:19

Throughout the Old Testament, lack of fidelity to a true worship of God as expressed in the ignoring of these pre-cepts of fairness and justice were reasons for God’s judgment against His people and their impending tragedy.

In the New Testament, this theme of the treatment of aliens and strangers or immigrants is continued. We find early




in the narrative that our Savior was an immigrant forced to flee to Egypt. It is this history and experience of beingan immigrant people that inform the words of Jesus throughout the gospels and which are clearly expressed in Mat-thew 25:37. The passage teaches to us about how we should treat others and it states, “For I was hungry and yougave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you invited mein. I needed clothes and you clothed me. I was sick and you looked after me; I was in prison and you came to visitme”.

It is a call from Christ to all of us that are His followers to treat the alien, the stranger the immigrant with fairness, justice and hospitality. It is a call grounded in years of history and personal experience.

It is the same call to the care of others that God expects throughout the Biblical narratives from His people. It is a

call grounded in what God seeks from His children and it is to be expressed in their works today (Matthew 25:40).

As a faith-based organization, Esperanza is called to live and act in the requirements articulated in scripture. These principles or calls to service are clear and definitive. They require demonstrations and actions that show concern for the immigrant by showing hospitality, providing shelter and care.

It is our Christian responsibility to care for those that live among us today. Given this understanding:

• Esperanza believes we must secure our borders and that Border Security remain a fed-eral responsibility.

• Esperanza believes we should provide comprehensive reform that provides a legal anddignified way to be a part of our country.

• Esperanza believes we should not inflict inhumane and unreasonable demands on thosehere today simply to rectify our policy failures of the past.

• Esperanza believes it is unchristian to criminalize acts of mercy and compassion. Wecall on U.S. Senators to step up to the challenge in crafting a bill that would merit thesupport of the Evangelical faith community.

• Esperanza calls on our Evangelical brothers and sisters to denounce unchristian policyreform that ignores millions within our borders and millions more who would legallyapply if there were means to do so. We ask for all Christians to stand for reform thatreflects the values expressed in our history as followers of Christ.

Pastor Lynn G. Godsey

Texas Director

Esperanza For America

214-562-1500

[email protected]

f i


http://www.esperanzaforamerica.com/

