Last Friday, MLive reported that the Kent County Commission 10 – 7 in favor of a 25 year contract with Live Nation, the near monopoly live concert venue corporation.
The MLive story does provide an overview of how the vote went down, quote several of the commissioners, some who voted for and some who voted against. When it came to the cost of the 25 year contract, there was no clear response, other than there will be an annual fee and an incentive fee based on performance. However, when asked about the total cost of the 25 year contract, there was no transparency.
Another issue was how Live Nation became the company that was considered for the contract. Rick Winn, the Chair of the Convention Arena Authority (CAA), was quoted as saying, Live Nation has “been the major promoter of all acts in the arena for twenty something years.” The MLive article failed to mention that Winn is the President of AHC Hospitality, the DeVos owned company that runs several hotels and other hospitality venues.
However, the most problematic aspect of the MLive article was the fact that the only sources cited regarding the federal lawsuit against Live Nation was a lawyer with Dickinson Wright who works with the CAA and stated it may take 10 years for the federal lawsuit to be decided. The other source cited regarding the federal lawsuit was Live Nation itself, which is deeply problematic, since there are no sources cited that argues in the affirmative for the lawsuit.
If you want to read a summary of the lawsuit, just go to this link. The issues the lawsuit raises are worth listing, but it is worth noting that Live Nation also purchased Ticket Master, which is sort of at the root of the issue:
- Live Nation-Ticketmaster exploits its longtime relationship with Oak View Group, a potential competitor-turned-partner that has described itself as a “hammer” and “protect[or]” for Live Nation.
- Retaliating Against Potential Entrants
- Threatening and Retaliating Against Venues that Work with Rivals
- Locking Out Competition with Exclusionary Contracts
- Blocking Venues from Using Multiple Ticketers
- Restricting Artists’ Access to Venues
- Acquiring Competitors and Competitive Threats
In a 2022 article in The Nation, the writer provides some useful background information on the monopoly nature of Live Nation.
Today Ticketmaster controls even more of the music and entertainment industries than it did then. In 2010, the company merged with Live Nation, which owns concert venues and manages leading artists. This combination of ticketing and promotion enables a very specific kind of market abuse: Live Nation can retaliate against venues that don’t use Ticketmaster. The company can, as analysts from the American Economic Liberties Project described it, condition “the availability of its performers to independent venues on those venues using Ticketmaster’s ticketing services.”
When the merger was being approved, the Department of Justice understood the potential for abuse, and it required Live Nation to enter into a 10-year consent decree not to pressure venues in this manner. But the company, as many predicted, often ignored its own promises, and the DOJ extended the decree by five and a half more years. As it found in 2019, “Live Nation repeatedly and over the course of several years engaged in conduct that, in the Department’s view, violated” the prohibition on “retaliating against concert venues for using another ticketing company.”
That brings us to today. We know that one symptom of excessive market power is technological and innovative backwardness. There’s no reason to improve one’s products when you have the market locked down. It’s telling that as technology has revolutionized everything and brought down costs for services over the past decades, this corner of our economy has remained stagnant and far too profitable for owners. As the American Economic Liberties Project pointed out, “Tickets are expensive, and the added service charges can double the final price. Direct ticket sales for popular concerts are often sold out within minutes, but then they are somehow available secondhand for over 50 percent more than the original price. Simply put, Ticketmaster provides bad service at outrageous prices.”
One would think that MLive would have included some of these concerns and this analysis. Instead, MLive simply cited Live Nation’s dismissive comments about the lawsuit.
So what does this mean for the cost of tickets for events that will be held at the Amphitheater? It is somewhat early to tell, but given the monopolistic nature of Live Nation/Ticketmaster, people should expect prices to be high. This means despite the use of millions in public dollars subsidizing the Amphitheater, there will likely be lots of local residents who will not be able to afford the cost of most concerts. As many of us have been saying all along, the Amphitheater will make money for the already rich, while costing the public millions, which is exactly why Grand Action 2.0 made the Amphitheater a priority in the first place.
In one of his last acts as Grand Rapids City Commissioner, First Ward Commission Jon O’Connor has recommend that F. Douglas Mileski be added to the Grand Rapids Police Civilian Appeal Board.
According to his Linkedin page, Mileski states that he is an:
Experienced Owner with a demonstrated history of working in the real estate industry. Skilled in Arbitration, Real Property, Construction Law, Real Estate Transactions, and Corporate Law. Strong entrepreneurship professional with a Bachelor of Arts and a law degree (J.D.) from Michigan State University.
Like Commissioner O’Connor, Mileski is a bar/restaurant owner and a supporter of the GRPD. A post on Mileski’s Facebook page for June 16, 2020, when the Grand Rapids City Commission was getting lots of pressure from the community to reduce the funding of the GRPD, he wrote:
City Commission discussed defunding GRPD today. This commissioner lays out the goal. The office of Oversight and Accountability is a REAL problem. It is not like an Internal Affairs office. It is more like the PC police. Any commissioner or Mayor that supports a NINE MILLION DOLLAR budget cut to GRPD needs to be voted out of, or recalled from, office.
Another indication of where Mileski stands on critical issues has to do with he comment in May of 2020, while addressing the Stay at Home policy that Gov. Whitmer put in place. Here Mileski states:
The selfishness and submissiveness of those that virtue signal that the stay at home order has anything to do with science or concern for society is appalling. We are all grown ups capable of assessing risk. F*** the nanny state and stop being fascist in threatening our livelihoods when we disagree. Stay home if you feel safer but do not presume that it is ok to quarantine the healthy. In this country, you govern with the consent of the governed. You do not rule. Good night.
It is interesting to note, that just two days after Mileski wrote these comments, I attended a rally held in downtown Grand Rapids in defiance of the Stay at Home order, a rally held by the American Patriot Council. Several members of the American Patriot Council were involved in the January 6th, 2021 insurrection in DC.
Adding Mileski to the Grand Rapids Police Civilian Appeal Board is significant, especially when you consider the current composition of the board. The Grand Rapids Police Civilian Appeal Board is currently made up of 8 members (still 1 vacancy), with 4 white men, 1 white female, 1 multi-racial female, 1 African American female and 1 African American male.
With Mileski, there are now two overtly pro-cop members of the Grand Rapids Police Civilian Appeal Board, Mileski and Dean Pacific. Pacific received $12,500 from the GRPD union, while running for the First Ward Commissioner seat in the November Election and made it part of his strategy to attack his opponent because they supported defunding the GRPD. .
The fact that Commissioner O’Connor recommended Mileski comes as no surprise. O’Conner has endorse pro-GRPD policies every year he has sat on the City Commission, he sits on the Public Safety Committee, which allows him to use his pro-cop leverage, and he has received $7,000 from the Grand Rapids Police Officer’s Association during various campaigns for City Commission.
Corporate Crime vs Street Crime: How Grand Rapids news distorts and racializes crime
Last week, all four daily news agencies in Grand Rapids – MLive, WOODTV8, WZZM13 and WXMI 17 – reported on a story about a former CEO who was sentenced to prison and ordered to pay nearly $6 million in restitution to investors he defrauded.
However, in all four of the local daily news outlets, there wasn’t the same outrage over what the former CEO did as compared to those who engage in street level crime. This double standard is common in news reporting and has been for decades, both in terms of class and race.
There have been few stories of corporate or white collar crimes in the local news in 2024. Comparatively, street level crime inundates the local news coverage. On top of the frequency of street level crime, the local news agencies often use the images of suspects, with WOODTV8 being the leader in using images of crime suspects. In the above graphic is a collection of images from WOODTV8 crime coverage that I have collected for 2024. As you can see most of them are Black and Brown suspects. The same use of images does not apply to corporate crime, since there were no images of the ex-CEO in any of the 4 local news stories I monitored, despite the fact that he had defrauded investors $6 million.
On the matter of class difference between street and corporate crime, the local news is not only dominated by street crime coverage, they don’t use the same kind of narratives when reporting on street level crime as opposed to corporate crime.
In Marie Gottschalk’s book, “Race, Power, and Punishment: Crime in the Streets and Crime in the Suites”, she highlights several ways in which this double standard exists.
- Even when legal and extralegal variables are held constant, white-collar offenders tend to be less likely to be sentenced and receive shorter sentences than street crime offenders.
- Social status may have an impact on sentencing decisions, as white-collar offenders who commit crimes usually committed by the upper-class are less likely to be sentenced to prison than white-collar offenders who commit crimes usually committed by the lower-class.
- Scandals that expose the crimes of white-collar and the economic elite, such as Enron, result in higher sentences for white-collar offenders.
- Access to resources may help high-status white-collar offenders bypass criminal justice interventions such as the usage of legal loopholes.
These are also many of the same conclusions that the watchdog group, Corporate Crime Reporter has been documenting for several decades.
In terms of social cost, according to the FBI, corporate crime costs the US $300 billion a year.
The double standards I have pointed out not only have devastating social consequences, but psychological consequences as well. The news media’s constant use of Black and Brown crime suspect images perpetuates the belief that Black and Brown people engage in more crime, which is not accurate. When it comes to sentencing, Black and Brown people are disproportionately put in jail or prison for the reasons that Marie Gottschalk cites in her book mentioned above.
Lastly, what is considered criminal in US law also skews how we understand crime and violence. For instance, paying people poverty-level wages is not illegal, but like most of the corporate pollution that exists is not a crime. I would argue that these are forms of structural violence, which are unfortunately normalized in US society.
Palestine Solidarity Information, Analysis, Local Actions and Events for the week of December 8th
It has been 14 months since the Israeli government began their most recent assault on Gaza and the West Bank. The retaliation for the October 7 Hamas attack in Israel, has escalated to what the international community has called genocide, therefore, GRIID will be providing weekly links to information and analysis that we think can better inform us of what is happening, along with the role that the US government is playing. We will also provide information on local events and actions that people can get involved in. All of this information is to provide people with the capacity of what Noam Chomsky refers to as, intellectual self-defense.
Information
‘Genocide’ vs. ‘Bigger Genocide’ in Gaza: Time to Decolonize Our Minds
Israel and the West’s War on Itself
DOCUMENTS CONTRADICT GOOGLE’S CLAIMS ABOUT ITS PROJECT NIMBUS CONTRACT WITH ISRAEL
These Billionaires Subsidize the Israeli Military Through a US Nonprofit
‘This Is Genocide,’ Amnesty International Says of Israel’s Death Machine in Gaza
Israel attacks north Gaza hospital for fifth time
THE WHITE HOUSE GAVE ISRAEL COORDINATES TO SAVE AN AMERICAN’S FAMILY. THEN ISRAEL BOMBED THEM AGAIN
Analysis & History
“You Feel Like You Are Subhuman”: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza
Image used in this post is from the Amnesty International Report
We need people to be part of Rapid Response to ICE work here in Kent County, as requested by the undocumented immigrant community
After the first Trump Administration began in 2017, Grand Rapids did have a an organized GR Rapid Response to ICE group, that could respond to calls from people in the undocumented community and mobilize people in an attempt to prevent ICE from arresting and detaining people.
GR Rapid Response to ICE always worked in conjunction with Movimiento Cosecha GR, since they wanted to make sure that the ally work, often referred to the defensive aspect of immigrant justice work, was making sure that what we were doing was aligned with what the undocumented community wanted. To read a summary of this work between 2017 and 2019, read the article linked here.
Now, with the threat of mass deportations by the incoming Trump Administration, GR Rapid Response to ICE is getting organized again. GR Rapids Response to ICE will be working directly and under the guidance of Movimiento Cosecha GR to make sure we are always following the leader of the undocumented community.
The goals are to have a new google number that the undocumented community can call when they suspect ICE is at their home, their place of work, the children’s school or anywhere else in the community. Calls will then be taken by any of the 5 people who are on the google number, so that someone can take the message. Once a message is taken, someone will send an alert out through multiple platforms to mobilize people with the intent of preventing ICE from taking anyone.
When people are mobilized to prevent ICE from taking people, we will also need people who can document what is happening and possibly livestream the intervention against ICE.
If we are unable to prevent ICE from taking people, then the second primarily component of GR Rapid Response to ICE will be to begin the Mutual Aid component. The Mutual Aid component of Rapid Response to ICE involved providing food, clothing, medical care, transportation or financial assistance to the families impacted by ICE violence. What we know from previous experience is the person or persons taken by ICE are disproportionately income earners, which means that many immigrant families will no longer have an income source. This is why Mutual Aid is so important as the second strategy.
In preparation for the incoming Trump Administration and the threat of mass deportation, there will be a GR Rapid Response to ICE training on Saturday, December 14 beginning at noon. The training will take place at La Nueva Esperanza church located at 1005 Evergreen Street SE, in Grand Rapids, Michigan. People who plan on attending should plan on 2 hours for the training. For details of this training go to this link. For future trainings, please check the Facebook page of Movimiento Cosecha GR https://www.facebook.com/cosechagr.
On Tuesday morning, MLive posted an article by journalist Brian McVicar, entitled, With billions in assets, should DeVos and Van Andel families qualify for big tax incentive?
The article was deeply problematic from the get go, providing lots of space to GR City Officials and the development spokesperson hired to manage the DeVos/Van Andel development project, which will build 3 towers on the Fulton & Market lot on the south end of downtown Grand Rapids.
The article does provide some local oppositional voices, like Kent County Commissioner Ivan Diaz and the group Together West Michigan. Diaz was questioning then logic in providing the DeVos/Vandel project with such a large amount of tax breaks, while Together West Michigan wanted to see the billionaire families give more money to the City’s Affordable Housing Fund.
When the article first appeared on MLive at 8:31am on Tuesday, December 3rd, the journalist had failed to mention the most substantial opposition effort, which was led by the Grand Rapids Area Tenant Union (GRATU). I sent Brian McVicar a message that said, “Brian, regarding your 12/3 article, you did not include the Grand Rapids Area Tenent Union opposition to this project, which has been the primary group involved. GRATU has generated over 1000 letters to GR City officials opposing the $565 million in tax incentives and other issues related to the project, which you can find here.”
The link I included was a GRATU Action Alert, which had sent over 1,000 letters to Grand Rapids City officials, with the following three demands:
- No to the $565 million in tax breaks to two billionaire families.
- Truly affordable rental fees for the nearly 600 apartments there were part of the 3 tower plan.
- Instead of the DeVos/Van Andel families providing a mere $425,000 annually to the GR Affordable Housing Fund over a 20 year period, should give $5 million a year for the next 20 years.
The MLive journalist Brian McVicar wrote back in the morning saying, “Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Jeff. My apologies for failing to include this. I will update the story and let readers know that the Grand Rapids Area Tenant Union has also opposed the project’s subsidy request.”
Apparently, McVicar didn’t read the GRATU Action Alert, since it didn’t just mention the “subsidy request.”
I checked the MLive piece several times and at 3:17pm on Tuesday, I send another message to McVicar saying, “Brian, I just checked the article and did not see any updates referencing the GRATU opposition letters. Am I missing something?” McVicar’s responded back at 4:38pm by saying, “Nope, you’re definitely not missing anything. I’m tied up right now with the story on today’s commission meeting but will update my story as soon as I’m able.”
McVicars did finally update the article at 5:37pm, but only included this sentence: “The Grand Rapids Area Tenant Union had also spoken out against the project.” This weak update, just 90 minutes before the City voted to approve the massive tax breaks and other aspects of the project, was not only unacceptable, it was insulting.
Imagine if local news agencies had reported on the three GRATU demands that were included in their Action Alert. Imagine if they reported that over 1,000 letters were sent to GR City officials from community members expressing their opposition. It is my belief that if they larger public knew there was a more organized effort that addressed several facets of the DeVos/Van Andel development project, even more people would have decided to oppose the project.
This example is reason #83 for why we need independent media in this city and why we need to develop Movement Media (media that comes out of the movements for systemic change) in Grand Rapids. Clearly, we cannot rely on the commercial news agencies in this city, as they simply parrot the dominant narratives from those in power.
No one really knows if the incoming Trump Administration will be able to actually be able to implement a mass deportation campaign in this country.
The logistics and the cost of such an endeavor will be extremely difficult. However, what will be even more difficult for any government effort to engage in mass deportation will be how much resistance there will be. Imagine if there were thousands of faith communities, schools, non-profits and other institutions that publicly declared their opposition to the threat of mass deportation and their willingness to offer Sanctuary.
I know what kind of commitment and risk it takes to declare your community as a sanctuary for those whom the government deems as “illegal.” In 1986, the community I was living in, Koinonia House, declared itself a sanctuary for Central American political refugees that were fleeing the US sponsored counter-insurgency wars.
One major aspect of becoming a Sanctuary was the need for those seeking to declare themselves a Sanctuary to obtain support from the community, especially in the form of letters. Such letters were a sign that Koinonia House would indeed be trusted with doing the work and it signaled to the federal authorities that those who signed the letters stood with the members of the Grand Rapids Sanctuary. After soliciting letters, Koinonia House received nearly two dozen endorsements from churches, community organizations, university groups, individuals and parents with whom we had developed a relationship with.
The Central American Sanctuary Movement had two main goals. First, was the commitment to offer a safe place for people to live who were fleeing political violence. The second part of the work was to try to influence public opinion and eventually change the national policy around US support for the counter-insurgency wars in Central America.
We never fully knew how much we were under surveillance, but within the first month of offering Sanctuary to the Guatemalans that had arrived, two FBI agents showed up one day at our door. Not knowing who they were, the Guatemalans let them in. I was upstairs doing some work, when one of the Guatemalans came to get me. The FBI agents introduced themselves and then said, “So, what’s going on here?” I responded by saying, “Since you are FBI, we have to assume that you know exactly what is going on here. However, if you don’t have a warrant, then I’m going to have to ask you to leave.” Right at that moment there were several friends who had stopped by, so we invited them in and told said in a loud voice that the FBI agents were here to harass and intimidate us. Fortunately, the FBI agents left. This was a clear lesson about the importance of being public about the Sanctuary work and how being public and visible could prevent us from being arrested and the Guatemalans from being deported.
During the first Trump Administration, a church in Wyoming, Michigan, Joy Like a River, declared itself a sanctuary in 2018. This was certainly welcomed news, but it was also the only church to declare itself a sanctuary, out of roughly 800 churches that exist in the Grand Rapids area.
With the incoming Trump Administration’s threat of mass deportation, we will need lots of churches willing to be a sanctuary, whether or not they publicly declare themselves one or not. It certainly sends a message to the immigrant community about how serious congregations and other institutions are when it comes to what they are willing to do and willing to risk to support those most vulnerable to deportation.
When churches declare themselves a sanctuary, they are making a commitment to provide safe haven for undocumented immigrants. This doesn’t mean that undocumented immigrants have to stay in the church, it just means that the church community is taking on that responsibility. Members of the congregation can house people however they are able to, but the congregation is making a commitment to providing safe haven for those seeking sanctuary. Here are some toolkits for churches that are interested in being a Sanctuary Church:
- https://pda.pcusa.org/site_media/media/uploads/pda/pdfs/toolkit_for_churches_accompanying_asylum_seekers_2024%5B56%5D.pdf
- https://www.uua.org/files/documents/starkcharles/0810_road_new_sanctuary.pdf
- https://neumc-email.brtapp.com/files/fileshare/sanctuary+movement+toolkit+(umc).pdf
- https://www.interfaithimmigration.org/resources/toolkits/
In addition to churches, schools can also be sanctuaries, which means that they do not allow ICE on the school premises and will not cooperate with any law enforcement agency that is targeting undocumented immigrants or their children. The GR Rapid Response to Ice group put together this useful Sanctuary toolkit for schools during the first Trump Administration, in English and in Spanish.
Non-profits and even businesses can take a put stance against ICE, by announcing their solidarity with undocumented immigrants and posting some sort of signage in a window or near the entrance to their building that says – We welcome immigrants here, but no ICE agents or cops can enter.
Imagine what kind of message this sends the immigrant community, where churches, schools, non-profits, local businesses and other institutions take a public stance to be safe spaces for immigrants and to publicly declare that they will not cooperate with ICE or any other law enforcement agencies that is seeking to arrest, detain and deport immigrants. This is the kind of solidarity we need. This is one way we can resist the Trump Administration’s threat of mass deportation.
Michigan Democrats continue to ignore immigrant demands despite promises to pass the Drive Safe bills
As the immigrant community prepares for the threat of mass deportation coming from the incoming Trump Administration, the Democratic Party doesn’t appear to have kept their promise to pass the Drive Safe legislation to allow undocumented immigrants the opportunity to obtain a driver’s license.
On Tuesday, the group We the People held a rally on the steps of the State Capitol in Lansing to once again demand that the State Legislature pass the Drive Safe bills. MLive reported on this action, which included comments from the affected community.
We the People, a coalition of civil society groups and Movimiento Cosecha have been pushing to get the Drive Safe bills passed for numerous years, especially since the beginning of 2023, when Democrats gain full control of the State Legislature. And despite the promises from Democrats that they would pass the Drive Safe bills, Democrats have not even held a hearing on the matter in the House or the Senate.
The MLive article also include an interesting comment from State Representative Rachel Hood (D), who has a few weeks before they end their term in office. The MLive reporter wrote that Rep. Hood, “has said there was previously enough support among Democrats to pass the bills in the House but a few members broke support after the election.”
One question we should be asking is why? Why have some Democrats broke support after the election. It would seem to this writer that during the Lame Duck session, while Democrats still have control, they could pass the Drive Safe bills and keep their promise to immigrants throughout the state. All of this sounds very similar to the Michigan Democratic Party’s failure to adopt 9 bills during the Lame Duck period, bills that would benefit renters. GRIID reported on this matter in a November 14th article entitled, The Rent is Too Damn High Coalition gives Michigan Democrats a 30 Day Notice on passing bills that would benefit tenants.
In that article I wrote:
There were a few tenant activists that met with Rep. Kristian Grant (Grand Rapids), since she chairs the Housing Committee. One of the persons who met with Grant told me that she felt that it was only be possible to pass 2 or three of the nine bills that were introduced over the past 12 months. Part of the problem, according to Rep. Grant, was that there were several Democratic Party lawmakers that were not showing up legislative session, specifically the ones who lost in the November 5th Election.
During the information session at the church, one of the Lansing tenant organizers share a story about Rep. Joe Tate, who had called one of the Rental Property Owner Associations and apologize that these bills had been introduced, but that he did not intend to pass them. Lastly, there was also some discussion from other organizers, which stated that they had heard that Gov. Whitmer did not want to sign any of these bills into law, since it could negatively impact her ability to run for President in 2028.
The Democrat’s unwillingness to have a spine is infuriating to lots of people and especially to those most affected, like the immigrant community. Despite the Democratic Party’s lack of courage, Movimiento Cosecha is going to continue to fight for driver’s licenses.
On Thursday, December 5th Movimiento Cosecha will be going to the Lansing State Capitol to continue to demand that the Democrats pass the Drive Safe bills during the Lame Duck session. Details of their action can be found at this Facebook event link.
If you are unable to come to Lansing with Movimiento Cosecha on Thursday, please contact your state officials to demand that they pass the Drive Safe bills, which will allow undocumented immigrants the opportunity to obtain driver’s license, which will put them at less risk of deportation. If you care about the well being of immigrants, then take action now!
In today’s West Michigan Far Right Watch there are two examples I want to look at, both of which involve organizations that have consistently embraced far right principles and practices.
When I use the term Far Right, I mean any group that engages in structural or systemic harm, harm that is disproportionately directed at the most vulnerable communities in West Michigan – BIPOC communities, immigrants, working class families, LGBTQ+ communities, dissidents, etc.
The first group I want to look at is the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce, a group that GRIID has written about a great deal in recent years.
In the GR Chamber’s news section of their website, posted on November 19th of this year, they use the heading, Lame Duck Bills Inch Forward. As we all know, the Michigan State Legislator is now in its Lame Duck period, which began after the November 5th election. After the beginning of 2025, the Democrats will no longer have control of the state legislation, but they could pass numerous bills right now if they chose to.
The Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce lists six bills on their website, two of which they support, while the other 7 bills they oppose. The only bill they support are the Earned Sick Time and Tipped Credit bills, known as House Bill 6057) and House Bill 6056). The GR Chamber of Commerce supports these two House Bills because they would amend earlier versions which were more worker friendly and put more pressure on businesses. The GR Chamber of Commerce always supports the business class, so naturally they would endorse these two bills.
Here are the 7 bills they oppose, followed by a brief description:
- Senate Bill 1079 – this bill has to do with worker compensation.
- Senate Bill 1022 – this bill will amend the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) and remove the regulatory compliance exemption for businesses. The GR Chamber of Commerce hates when businesses are regulated.
- Senate Bill 740 and Senate Bill 740 – these bills would allow for an apprentice to journey/master plumber or electrical licensee regardless of how long they are on the job.
- Senate Bill 660 – this bill authorizes local governments to adopt a stormwater management utility fee similar to municipal water and sewage bills. It’s essentially a rain tax on impermeable properties targeting businesses and property owners for rainwater runoff.
- Senate Bills 963-965 & House Bill 5594 – these bills will modify the Youth Employment Standards Act and increase penalties for businesses that violate the Act. I guess the GR Chamber opposes regulations that will impose penalties on businesses that exploit youth workers.
The second example of Far Right thinking comes to us from the Acton Institute, specifically an article that appeared the day before Thanksgiving entitled, How Trade Saved the Pilgrims, and the U.S.
The Acton Institute believes that Capitalism is the most humane economic system in history, thus the Acton writer in this post goes out of the way to convince the readers that the white European settlers engaged in trade with Indigenous people, which helped both parties and was the foundation of creating the United State of America.
At one point in the revisionist history post, the Acton writer states:
“The mutually beneficial trade had a greater impact beyond avoiding conflict with the Wampanoags. It convinced others back home that trade could make North American colonies economically viable. This led to the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony which, British author Nick Bunker explained, sought to expand this “business model” on a larger scale, beginning with the founding of New Boston in 1630. The more trade-friendly colony soon had three-times as many members as the older Plymouth colony.”
It is instructive that all scholarly sources cited in this article are not only affirming the claim that trade between Pilgrims and Indigenous people was good, but all of those sources cited are non-Indigenous people. However, the most egregious omission in the Acton Institute article is the complete failure to acknowledge the genocide that had begun at the hands of the Pilgrims against the several of the Indigenous nations in what is now the New England states.
Regarding the Thanksgiving story, Native author/activist Nick Estes in his book, Our History is the Future:
Thanksgiving is the quintessential origin story a settler nation tells itself: “peace” was achieved between Natives and settlers at Plymouth, Massachusetts, where Mayflower pilgrims established a colony in 1620, over roast turkey and yams. To consummate the wanton slaughter of some 700 Pequots, in 1637 the governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, William Bradford, proclaimed that Thanksgiving Day be celebrated “in honor of the bloody victory, thanking God that the battle had been won.” Peace on stolen land is borne of genocide.
Another important source on what happened between the Pilgrims and the Indigenous nations in the Northeast part of what is now the US, is from Indigenous scholar Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, in her book, “All The Real Indians Died Off”, And 20 Other Myths About Native Americans.
You can see why I chose these 2 examples for this edition of West Michigan Far Right Watch, since one of them opposes even the mildest legislative reforms that would benefit working class families, and the other example that completely omits the genocidal acts committed by the Pilgrims, all to justify the beginning of trade policy and capitalism in the 17th Century.
We need to understand the history of US immigration policy if we are going to resist the Trump threat of mass deportation
The incoming Trump administration’s threat to engage in mass deportation is the first time a US President has threatened to deport all undocumented people. However, it is important that we understand that deportation has been a long standing strategy used by numerous US administrations for more than 100 years.
Deportations tend tp happen when the US economy is failing most working class people, like during the period right before and right after the 1929 global depression. Deportations have also used xenophobia and racial discrimination as a justification for forcibly removing people from the country.
After the US adopted the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico, there was an increase of people from Mexico fleeing economic hardship. The Clinton Administration was the first US president to aggressively militarize the US/Mexican border, which did not necessarily prevent people from entering, but it did force immigrants to cross the border in more remote area, often at great risk.
US economic and military policy towards Mexico and Central America caused massive displacement of many people from those countries, many of which came to the US. There was been an increase of people from the south coming to the US since the 1992 NAFTA agreement, and along with that every administration since – George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden – have used deportation as a strategy. Barack Obama was often referred to as the “Deporter in Chief”, while the first Trump Administration and the Biden Administration continued that trend.
It is true that the rhetoric from the first Trump Administration and the incoming Trump Administration is vile, but he is not the first US President to refer to undocumented immigrants as “illegal”, nor is he the first US President to use fear and xenophobia to get regular Americans to hate immigrants.
I have taught classes on US immigration policy for several years and I am willing to continue to offer educational session with community groups, churches, non-profits and any other group that wants to have a more robust understanding of the history of US immigration policy over the past 250 years.
I am offering to do the following for organizations, community groups, non-profits and faith communities that want to learn more about the history of US immigration policy. At this link is a Popular Education tool that I use with those who are interested in learning more. These slides are visuals that are accompanied by sections of numerous books that can assist us in developing a more critical analysis of US immigration policy.
I can offer the following educational opportunities:
- A three hour workshop on the history of US immigration policy
- A three session class on the history of US immigration policy
- An 8 week class on the history of US immigration policy
If you are part of a non-profit, a faith community, a grassroots group or any other organization that wants to learn more about the history of US immigration policy, then please reach out to me and we can talk about what would work best for your group. You can contact me at sjeff987@gmail.com.
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 