Kobach Protest Slideshow

On June 15, 2013, Kansans gathered to deliver a message to Secretary of State Kirs Kobach to ask that to stop the hate. Kobach "moonlights" as an attorney for the racist FAIR. This slide show has pictures of the peaceful citizens. Kobach's office is in his house,

Eliseo Medina, SEIU VP, on immigration and civil rights at Netroots Nation

Eliseo Medina, international vice president of the Service Employees International Union, spoke at a panel on “civil rights in the modern era” at the just concluded Netroots Nation convention in Las Vegas.  Medina reviewed the impact of Arizona’s SB 1070.

Eliseo Medina at Netroots Nation: Unite to Defeat anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic movements from Talking Union on Vimeo.

Q&A on Arizona immigration law

Confused by the right-wing's talking points or frustrated by the thin reporting of the national and local menda? Here's a suggestion, take a look at the ACLU's Q &A on the new Arizona immigration law. Here's one.

What is the difference between this law and the federal law?

The Arizona law goes well beyond federal law because it mandates that all local police and sheriffs demand papers from people they stop and believe may be in the country without authorization. Nowhere is such requirement in federal law. This law reverses the presumption of innocence, forcing police officers on the street to demand that people prove they are U.S. citizens or otherwise in the country legally. The racial profiling this law invites with its undefined standard for what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” that someone is in the country unlawfully would violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law and federal civil rights protections.

There are a number of ways in which the Arizona law directly conflicts with federal law regarding the regulation and enforcement of immigration. As a threshold matter, SB 1070 presumes that the citizenship or immigration status of individuals can be determined simply, outside the complex administrative procedures set up under our nation’s immigration laws. It cannot. Moreover, the Arizona law would also impose different state penalties against people for conduct, such as authorization to work in the United States that is directly regulated under federal law. Not only is this unconstitutional under the supremacy cause, but it is also bad policy as the United States cannot have a patchwork of conflicting immigration laws depending on what state you happen to find yourself in.

Read the rest on-line or down as a PDF

Wichita May Day Immigration Reform Rally

Here are a photo slide show and speeches by Kansas NAACP President Kevin Myles and State Representative Delia Garcia

Center for American Progress on the Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law

A good analysis from the Center for American Progress


Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed today what is now the most punitive and sweeping anti-immigrant state law in the nation. This law’s full effects will not be measurable for months to come, but it is already clear that it will be challenged in court because it denies rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. And until the legal issues are settled, the new law will have a detrimental effect on Arizona’s economy, as well as city and state budgets.

The law essentially legalizes racial profiling

• The law puts communities of color in the crosshairs by requiring state and local government workers to determine if a person is illegally in the United States based on a “reasonable suspicion.”
• Legal experts maintain that the law will result in racial profiling, as it does not prohibit police officers from relying on race or ethnicity in deciding who to investigate. Of course all Arizonans don’t all look alike. Like America, Arizona is a diverse state with multiple generations of U.S. citizens. Three out of every 10 Arizonans are Hispanic, 1 out of 10 is American Indian, and 13 percent are foreign born.

The law undercuts the Constitution and imbues local police with federal authority

• Arizona is attempting to grant local police arrest authority for administrative violations of federal immigration law, even though the state police does not even have that authority under federal law.
• The measure does not require the local police to have a search warrant or even suspect that some illegal action has occurred.
• The law criminalizes the solicitation of work even though courts have previously ruled that the solicitation of work is protected speech under the First Amendment.

The law will harm the state and local economies

• The National Employment Law Project pointed out that smaller-scale anti-immigrant ordinances have cost individual localities millions of dollars. The Texas-based Perryman Group calculated that if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 140,324 jobs.
• The Immigration Policy Center noted that, “with Arizona facing a budget deficit of more than $3 billion,” the new law will “further imperil the state’s economic future.”
• Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon and other local leaders anticipate a drop in new business ventures in the state because of the harsh new law. Phoenix Vice Mayor Michael Nowakowski observed: “We’re the laughing stock of the country because of these crazy laws.”

The law will be expensive and take cops away form community policing

• The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police firmly opposes the law for fiscal and public safety reasons, noting that fear of government officials will diminish the public’s willingness to cooperate with police in criminal investigations and will “negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner.”
• Local taxpayers will bear the heavy costs of lengthy court litigation.
• The costs to arrest, detain, process, and transport undocumented immigrants out of Arizona will drain local government treasuries. There were an estimated 460,000 undocumented immigrants in Arizona as of January 2009, making up 4 percent of the state’s population. If the federal government were to handle the entire undocumented population, the cost would be approximately $23,482 per person, based on a recent study by the Center for American Progress.

Arizona and other local and state governments are taking action on immigration because Congress has failed to enact comprehensive immigration reform that restores border security, provides a flexible visa program to meet business and family needs, and deals with the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. This is a federal issue and must be handled by Congress immediately before other states start to follow Arizona’s lead.

Reform immigration for America march and rally

Last Sunday, I attended the reform immigration for America march and rally in Washington, D.C.

I was too young to attend the 1963 March on Washington, so I didn't want to miss this one. I was glad to be able to be with a group from Wichita's Sunflower Community Action.


There was a huge crowd, estimates ranged from 200,000 to 500,000,
Reports in the days leading up the march said 50,000 to 100,000 were expected. Another report said that Obama adminsitration would not move on immigration reform if there were not more than 100,000 people.

There appeared to me be a considerable labor presence--from unions with large numbers of immigrant workers. SEIU had a large tent on the mall. A SEIU member told me that Chicago SEIU brought 5 buses. Overall, SEIU says it brought 5,000 members to the rally. There was also big contingents from UFCW, Unite Here, and a few other unions. Arlene Holt Baker, executive VP of the AFL-CIO spoke. She said good things, but she is not the dynamic speaker that Richard Trumka is.

NAACP leader Benjamin Jealous gave one of the first speeches and he was excellent, as was the leader of the Urban League. I was struck by the large number of African Americans on the grounds of the mall.

The involvement of churches and workers centers did a lot to secure a great turnout.

Here's a slide show of the photos I took.

AFL-CIO and Change to Win Issue Immigration Statement

Image via Wikipedia

America's two union federations( the AFL-CIO and Change to Win) have released a common policy statement on comprehensive immigration reform.

Immigration reform is a component of a shared prosperity agenda that focuses on improving productivity and quality; limiting wage competition; strengthening labor standards, especially the freedom of workers to form unions and bargain collectively; and providing social safety nets and high-quality lifelong education and training for workers and their families. To achieve this goal, immigration reform must fully protect U.S. workers, reduce the exploitation of immigrant workers and reduce employers’ incentive to hire undocumented workers rather than U.S. workers. The most effective way to do that is for all workers— immigrant and native-born—to have full and complete access to the protection of labor, health and safety and other laws. Comprehensive immigration reform must complement a strong, well-resourced and effective labor standards enforcement initiative that prioritizes workers’ rights and workplace protections. This approach will ensure that immigration does not depress wages and working conditions or encourage marginal low-wage industries that depend heavily on substandard wages, benefits and working conditions.

This approach to immigration reform has five major interconnected pieces:

1. An independent commission to assess and manage future flows, based on labor market shortages that are determined on the basis of actual need; 2. A secure and effective worker authorization mechanism;
3. Rational operational control of the border;
4. Adjustment of status for the current undocumented population; and
5. Improvement, not expansion, of temporary worker programs, limited to temporary or seasonal, not permanent, jobs.

Leonard Zeskind on Minuteman in KC

I left Wichita about 6 AM Saturday to drive up to Kansas City to attend an all-day conference on immigration and racism and got back to Wichita around 9:00 PM. A very long day, but well worth it. I'll try to find time to write up some observations, but for now I want to bring to your attention an analysis of the recent national Minuteman conference held in Kansas City and the impetus for yesterday's conference.

For those who don't know Zeskind, he is a legendary observer and analyst of the racist, far right.

He recently started a website, which has his writings over the years.

Zeskind promises new articles as part of the Zeskind fortnight, with the Minuteman report being the first.

Zeskind reports that at the Minuteman public rally, attended by over 500.

[Minuteman founder Chris] Simcox urged, first, an executive order to secure the borders (and build a bigger thicker fence line). Second, he wanted to put several thousand National Guard troops on the border. Both ideas were met with mild applause. When he proposed making English the official language, the crowd was a bit more enthusiastic. But the idea to abolish “birthright citizenship” for the children of “illegal aliens” made the crowd go wild.

And, this Zeskind points out is where the claim that the Minutemen and the anti-immigrant is not racist falls apart.

Any person or organization that advocates turning citizens into non-citizens, or that seeks to abridge the Fourteenth Amendment is, by any fair standard, a racist person or organization. They need not parade around in white sheets or swastika armbands; or spout racist obscenities like a barroom bigot; or make clever statements about the biological or cultural inferiority of certain peoples. They need only touch one hair on the Constitutional Amendment that guaranteed the citizenship rights of freed slaves after the Civil War, and they are ipso facto a racist.

And, there's reason to be worried.

... the Minutemen were well pleased with their performance at the Uptown Theater. Since that meeting they have been pushing hard for legislation in Kansas sponsored by Sen. Peggy Palmer (R. Augusta) entitled the “Kansas Illegal Immigration Relief Act.” A set of publicity ads they produced have been airing over the radio waves in southern Kansas, and they are gearing up for a recruitment drive at gun shows in the bi-state area.

KC Conference on Immigration and Racism

There's an interesting conference next Saturday in Kansas City.

Saturday March 8 9 am- 4 pm
Cristo Rey School 211 West Linwood Kansas City Missouri

Learn the truth about immigration and the rise of groups that target immigrants and people of color and practice the politics of division. Hear ideas on how to fix our broken immigration system and how to stop the hate spread by the Minutemen and FAIR.

Download a flyer
Para un volante en español

Plenaries .
Voices of KC Immigrants
Strategizing & Framing
How to Get Involved

Bilingual Workshop Who’s Stealing Whose Job?

Workshops In Spanish

Your Workplace Rights
Your Immigration Rights

Workshops (selected)

Why Don’t They Just Get Legal?
The Political Climate That Discourages Inclusion
Retreat from Civil Rights
How To Get Involved
The Minutemen & FAIR
Youth Activism & Civil Rights
Immigration Wedge Politics
Immigration History

Cost: $15 or $5 low income Donations needed Lunch included

Spanish translation
Children welcome
Register ! Call 816-235-1470 Email: ancelj@umkc.edu


Sponsors: All Souls Immigration Taskforce, American Immigration Lawyers Association, Cristo Rey School, Cross Border Network, Institute for Labor Studies, Interfaith Worker Justice, Latino Civil Rights Task Force, Missouri Immigrant & Refugee Advocates, New Sanctuary Movement, Sons and Daughters of Immigrants, Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

Latino Studies Conference at KU

This looks like an extremely interesting conference at Kansas University, February 8 -9. I don't think I'll be able to attend, but here are few sessions I would want to catch if I could. That should give you since of the conference.

The Friday morning plenary looks outstanding.

Juan Flores, New York University: "There Is No Americano Dream." Flores is author of From Bomba to Hip Hop: Puerto Rican Culture and Latino Identity and Divided Borders: Essays on Puerto Rican Identity

Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo, University of Southern California: "Migration Nation: Fronteras and Fences." Hondagneu-Sotelo is author of Doméstica: Immigrant Workers Cleaning and Caring in the Shadows of Affluence and Gendered Transitions: Mexican Experiences of Immigration

Emma Pérez, University of Colorado at Boulder: "Nuestra America: A Decolonial Landscape." Perez is author of Gulf Dreams and The Decolonial Imaginary: Writing Chicanas into History

Roberto Suro, Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California: " The Humpty Dumpty Moment." Suro is author of Strangers Among Us: Latino Lives in a Changing America and Watching America’s Door: The Immigration Backlash and the New Policy Debate

Here's one panel I would like to hear.

Panel #3: Latinos/as in the Midwest (Kansas and Missouri)
3–4:20 p.m.Session IV —Friday, Feb. 8 Malott Room

Moderator: Lourdes Gouveia, University of Nebraska at Omaha

Donald D. Stull, University of Kansas, and Michael J. Broadway, Northern Michigan University: "Meatpacking and Mexicans on the High Plains: From Minority to Majority in Garden City, Kansas"

Lisa Y. Flores, Corinne B. Valdivia, Stephen C. Jeanetta, and Domingo Martinez, University of Missouri-Columbia: "Acculturation and Identity Development Among Latino Newcomers in Three Rural Communities in the Midwest"

Stephen C. Jeanetta, Corinne B. Valdivia, Lisa Y. Flores, and Domingo Martinez, University of Missouri-Columbia: "The Role of Social Capital in Latino Immigrants’ Efforts to Integrate in Rural Communities in the Midwest"

Katherine Acosta, University of Kansas: "New Immigrant Gateways: Latinos in the Heartland "

And another

Panel #1: No Mas Muertes and the New Sanctuary Movement: Humanitarian Immigrants Rights Groups

10:30–11:50 a.m.	Session VI — Saturday, Feb. 9

Moderator: Marta Caminero-Santangelo, University of Kansas

Angela Ferguson, Missouri/Kansas American Immigration Lawyers Association: "Current Immigration Spectrum — The Left, the Right and the Middle"

Jane Juffer, Pennsylvania State University: "The Limits of Tolerance: Latino Immigration and Religion in the U.S."

James Diego Frazier, University of Kansas: "¿Agua? ¿Comida? ¿Atención médica?: Diary of a No Más Muertes Volunteer"

Mónica Russel y Rodríguez, Northwestern University: "Moving and Staying: the Gendered Choreography in the Immigration Movement in Chicago"

US LEAP: a valuable anti-sweatshop group

US LEAP (U.S. Labor Education in the Americas Project), one of the more effective anti-sweatshop, anti-"free trade" groups celebrated in 20th anniversary recently.

Among the speakers at the event was, Gabriela Lemus, executive director of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA).

The AFL-CIO Blog ran a report on her speech which contained a good round-up of the failures of NAFTA. You can find it here.

Here are some highlights

Globalization, immigration and trade policies are intertwined—and you can’t solve one without addressing the other two...

Lemus says the global economy is not working because “there is a huge disconnect between the multinational corporations and consumers, and it is threatening our democracy.”

“Corporations are no longer loyal to one market, and as a result they have no sense of national identity. They are actually becoming so big they are competing with nation states. They don’t respect boundaries, but they expect us to.”

If we really cared about the people of Mexico, we would create jobs there that would allow them to make a decent living. We’re scapegoating immigrants for a problem they didn’t create. We’re attacking the symptom, but not getting at the root causes.

Check out the attractive and informative US LEAP website.

Strangers in our midst

I'm not shocked when the Minutemen and FAIR have an organizing meeting at the Wichita Public Library. I'm not surprised when college Republicans at Wichita State have a fundraiser with anti-immigrant themes.

But I'm disappointed that two forces which normally play a progressive, humane role on immigration issues have been less than stellar.

First, a Catholic school in Wichita has imposed an English-only policy on its students. Not only in the class room, but even on the play grounds. One the people upset is a social worker for the Wichita school district who has been involved in the diocese's Hispanic ministry program.

Bob Viboril. the Catholic school superintendent is quoted as saying

"As people take it away from being a simple disciplinary action, it tends to harden the position of people who want to make everything into a Hispanic-rights issue or those who want to make everything as an excuse to push Hispanics away...I am not on either side."

Not on either side! Not wanting to side with bigots or too over-zealous defenders of the marginal. One of the strongest points of Catholic social teaching in recent years has been the preferential option for the poor. It's sad Catholic leaders seemingly forget this principle.

Kansas Protestants also disappointed. The planned what looked like an interesting conference on Hispanic immigration, but cancelled it when there wasn't enough registration.

Bishops' Conference on the Common Good

Bishops Scott J. Jones of the Kansas Area of The United Methodist Church, Dean E. Wolfe of The Episcopal Diocese of Kansas and Gerald L. Mansholt of the Central States Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America will host an event examining the issues surrounding Hispanic immigration on October 21 from 3:00 to 8:00 p.m. A light supper will be provided, and a free-will offering will be taken.

Report on House Immigration Reform Caucus

The Building Democracy Initiative of the Center for New Community has just released a new report on the House Immigration Reform Caucus which was founded by Tom Tancedro.

It's called Nativism in the House. Read it on-line or down-load the PDF.

• The overwhelming majority of Caucus members are from the furthest, hardest edge of the Republican Party’s rightwing; only eight are Democrats. Although they often invoke the supposed interests of native-born wage earners, these representatives generally have stiff anti-labor voting records. Many also oppose a woman’s right to choose, and vote regularly against civil rights and civil liberties concerns.
• The report finds that the Caucus is ideologically-driven, and might more accurately fit an “ultra-nationalist” model typically associated with far-right European parties such as Jean-Marie Le Pen’s National Front in France, the Vlaams Belang in Belgium, or the Swiss Peoples Party.
• Although it is often assumed that nativist politics are the result of economic resentment, these congressmen and women are not elected from districts with a common economic or demographic character. They come from suburban, middle class California districts with a significant minority of Hispanic residents. In the South, Mid-South, and West they are elected from districts with a measurable percentage of rural, blue collar white voters, and very small numbers of Hispanics.
• Notwithstanding the Caucus’ political character, its members have received campaign contributions from a surprisingly wide range of sources, including AT&T, the American Medical Association, and Home Depot. All told, 2600 PACs, most of whom are not considered anti-immigrant, have contributed to the HIRC’s campaign coffers. In addition, Caucus members receive funding from nativist sources such as the Minuteman PAC as well as from ultra-conservative sources such as the Eagle Forum and the Club for Growth.
• • The election of Rep. Brian Bilbray as the Caucus’ chairman is likely to cement the already symbiotic relationship between fringe anti-immigrant advocacy groups and Caucus members. Rep. Bilbray is himself a former lobbyist for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a controversial anti-immigrant organization that holds questionable ties to white nationalist and nativist groups. At the same time, the former HIRC director has gone to work at FAIR as a Government Relations Associate.
• Most recently, Caucus members have begun to actively promote legislation aimed at gutting the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. As of the time of this report’s printing, 90 members of the House of Representatives signed on as co-sponsors to legislation aimed at nullifying the Fourteenth Amendment’s “birthright” provision. If passed, this type of legislation would certainly provoke a constitutional crisis.

Fact checking Brent Castillo on immigration

Brent Castillo is the Wichita Eagle's designated right-wing Christian columnist. He can be counted on to regurgitate the talking points, snipe at liberals, and distort the facts.

Take his latest column "it's not anti-immigrant to want to secure the border."

Here are some pronouncement by Castillo and the facts as shown by polls which can be found here.

CASTILLO: President Bush and a handful of Republican senators joined the Democrats in pushing for the failed legislation. But an outpouring of negative response from their constituents persuaded many who were waffling, such as our own Sen. Sam Brownback, to vote it down.

It was the right thing to do.

FACT: Castillo apparently is unable or unwilling to distinguish between the number of phone calls generated by a rapid anti-immigrant minority and the views of the majority.

A June 22-24 CNN poll asked "Do you oppose the Senate immigration bill MOSTLY because you think it goes too far toward helping illegal immigrants, or MOSTLY because it does not go far enough toward helping illegal immigrants?"


They found that only 28 percent opposed the bill because it went to far. In contrast, 30 percent supported the bill and 15 percent opposed it because it didn't go far enough.


CASTILLO: The majority of Americans want to see our southern border under control before they're willing to talk about roads to legalization.

FACT: LA Times/Bloomberg poll "When it comes to dealing with illegal immigration, do you favor an approach that focuses only on tougher enforcement of immigration laws, or an approach that includes both tougher enforcement of immigration laws and also creates a guest worker program that allows undocumented workers to work legally in the U.S. on temporary visas." Only Tougher Enforcement 40 percent; Guest worker program too 55 percent

CASTILLO:A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll from June asked: "Compared to other problems facing the country, how big a problem is illegal immigration?"

Eighty-six percent said illegal immigration was one of the most important problems facing our country.

FACT: Only 31 percent said that illegal immigration is one of the most important problems facing the country.

CASTILLO: A Quinnipiac University poll from late last year asked if, in regard to a border fence and increased security, "additional measures are needed from Congress to deal with illegal immigrants entering the country, or do you think this is enough for now?

FACT: The same poll showed that 65 percent favored a guest worker "would allow illegal immigrants to register for temporary legal status and employment." 69 percent were in favor of allow[ing] illegal immigrants to register into a guest worker program, should that program offer them the ability to work toward citizenship over a period of several years.

CASTILLO: The majority of Americans want to see our southern border under control before they're willing to talk about roads to legalization.

FACT: This is a right-wing anti-immigrant talking point. I couldn't find a poll question that asked anything of the sort.

A May CNN poll asked people whether they would favor a number of measures dealing with immigration.

Building a 700 mile fence 45 percent favored, 53 percent opposed.

Creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay in this country and apply for U.S. citizenship if they had a job and paid back taxes 80 percent favored, 19 percent opposed.

CASTILLO: "our border crisis goes unresolved even though a majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, want the problem addressed."

FACT: It is not only a border crisis. It is a crisis of 10-12 million undocumented and exploited workers in the United States. It is a crisis in which major sectors of the American economy are complicit. It is a crisis of exploitation and poverty in Mexico and Central America.

CASTILLO: We need to have an open and honest discussion about what's best for our country.

FACT: Consistently misrepresenting what the polls show about American opinion on immigration is no way to begin an honest discussion. Starting your column with dishonest swipes at the Democratic leadership in the Congress, while ignoring the obstructionist tactics of the Republicans does not show a desire for dialogue.

Long may it wave

Seems everyone is all excited about a new version of the American national anthem--because the lyrics are sung in Spanish. President Bush has denounced it. "I think the national anthem ought to be sung in English, and I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English." Michelle Malkin denounces Bush for having a Spanish language web-site.

Liberal/communitarian sociologist Amitai Etzioni in a TPM Cafe post ("No Affirmative Action for National Anthem" argues that "it has been a long and productive tradition for ethnic groups to sing both the national anthem and that of their country of origin, to celebrate both the 4th of July and --"their" independence day, and--to display both the American and "their' flag. To have ethnic specific NATIONAL anthems, instead of a shared one (which may be modified) cuts into the bone."

According to a Los AngelesHispanic dee-jay intervied on NPR , even Latinos don't like it, he said by a 60-40 margin.

Now I'm a Norman Thomas (wash it, don't burn it) and Todd Gitlin (Intellectuals and the Flag) type of leftist, but I don't see wait the fuss is all about.

After all, there is the Negro National Anthem and "How High the Moon" is the bebop national anthem.

What's wrong with a Spanish version of the SSB, when most of us don't know the English version very well

nearly two-thirds of Americans ... do not know the lyrics of the national anthem's first stanza, according to a recent Harris survey of 2,200 Americans. The song includes four stanzas, but only the first is usually sung.

What's more, of those who claimed to know all the words, only 39 percent knew what follows "whose broad stripes and bright stars," which is "through the perilous fight." One-third answered, "were so gallantly streaming," while a fifth said, "gave proof through the night." Both phrases appear later in the first stanza.
[For a source on the Harris poll, click here--March 29, 2009

Many people feel that the martial spirit of the SSB doesn't reflect the real spirit of America and feel that we deserve better music in our national anthem. Some would prefer "America the Beautiful" or "This Land is My Land." But that's a question for another day. Today, people are talking about whether the SSB should be English only.

It's easy to forget that a century ago, America was multi-lingual and that a lot of cultural diversity was wiped out in the Americanization campaigns that accompanied America's entry into World War I. I had a sneaking suspicion that this Spanish translation of the Star Spangled Banner was not so unique, so I did a little internet searching. Remember that the SSB wasn't even adopted as the official national anthem until 1931.

YIDDISH

Here are the lyrics of the "Star-Spangled Banner" in Yiddish (albeit not in the original Hebrew characters), in a translation of Ber Grin's, which can be found in _In dinst fun folk; almanakh fun yidishn folks-ordn_, New York: Book League of the Jewish People's Fraternal Order I.W.O., 1947, p. 112.

  

Star spengld bener



fun Frensis Skat Ki



O zog! konstu zen in likht fun sof nakht,

Vos mir hobn bagrist in demer-shayn mit freyd?

Di shtrayfn, di shtern -- in flaker fun shlakht

Fun di shuts-vent mir hobn mit bang in blik bagleyt.



Un der blits fun raket, un der knal fun kanon

Durkh der nakht gerufn hobn zey: es lebt di fon.

O zog! di fon mit di shtern iz zi nokh tsehelt

Iber land fun fraye un iber heym fun held?



Afn breg, durkh neplen fun yam fartunklt,

Vu dem soynes makhne iz fartayet in shrek,

Vos iz es, in bloz fun laykhtn vintl fartunken,

Ot halb-farborgn, ot af a helft antplekt?

Es iz di fon mit di shtern, o, af lang zey tsehelt

Iber land fun fraye un der heym fun held.



O, azoy vet es tomed zayn, ven frayer mentsh mit gever in hant

Bashitsn vet zayn libe heym kegn farlend fun krig un zayn shnit!

Gebentsht mit zig un frid, zol dos land

Loybn di kraft, vos hot undz als folk farhit!



Undzer kamf iz a gerekhter -- undzer iz der nitsokhn,

Zol zayn undzer gebot: "In got iz undzer bitokhn!"

Un di fon mit di shtern, in zig vet zi zayn tsehelt

Iber land fun fraye un der heym fun held!

[Update:This is from discussion list of Mendele, a web forum for Yiddish literature and language.Thanks A.L.]

Another Yiddish version can be found here. and which appears below. It was published by the Educational Alliance in 1943 on the 100th anniversary of the death of Francis Scott Keys.
[Thanks A.L.]




SAMOAN

Aue! se'i e vaai, le malama o ataata mai

Na sisi a'e ma le mimita, i le sesega mai o le vaveao

O ai e ona tosi ma fetu, o alu a'e i taimi vevesi tu

I luga o 'Olo mata'utia, ma loto toa tausa'afia

O Roketi mumu fa'aafi, o pomu ma fana ma aloi afi

E fa'amaonia i le po atoa, le fu'a o lo'o tu maninoa

Aue! ia tumau le fe'ilafi mai, ma agiagia pea

I eleele o Sa'olotoga, ma Nofoaga o le au totoa.



A SPANISH version prepared in 1919 by the U.S. Bureau of Education.


It has also been translated into NAVAJO and applauded when sung in public.

In 2002, the Cherokee National Youth Choir sang their English and Cherokee version of the Banner in a performance at the Department of the Interior! The Cherokee nation has actually revised the SSB into their own United Cherokee national anthem which can be heard here. This is the only version I've come across that actually falls under Etizoni's edict against separate ethnic national anthems.

In 1923, an article in the Scientific Monthly complained that when brought into a class to be taught "Americanism" Finnish immigrants wouldn't sing the Star Spangled Banner. Incidentally, the Finns are criticized for their radicalism and described as "Orientals."

In the early 1940s at the height of war-time unity, Metropolitan Opera Chorus & National Broadcasting Company Symphony Orchestra, conducted by Arturo Toscanini performed the Internationale sung in Russian, followed by the US anthem. MP3
There was controversy when Jose Feliciano sang the SSB in 1968 and when Jimi Hendrix turned an instrumental version into an anti-war protest at Woodstock, but those passed.
Translating the Star Spangled Banner into other languages--whether Spanish, Navajo, or Yiddish-- is not un-patriotic. It is part of the process of self-Americanization.

Update: Norm Geras discusses the controversy on Norm's blog. I like his conclusion.

Whether or not US citizens should all learn English and know how to sing the national anthem in English, it's perfectly OK to have a Spanish version. It's the land of the free, isn't it? So people can sing the thing every which way they want. And having a Spanish version is a way for Spanish-speaking US citizens to embrace the anthem to their bosoms. It may not be the only way, but it's a way.

Joshua Rosenau on the anthem (O'zog, kenstu sehn, wenn bagin licht dervacht) at Thoughts from Kansas.

Update March 29, 2009 A couple of minor spelling and grammatical changes made. In the qu ote about Harris poll, an ellipsis was added to make it clearer. A source for the Harris Poll has been added. I don't think it was the original source, but a reference is belatedly provided.