|
|
|
|
|
February 12, 2025
Refugees and forced migrants are the harvest of our empire
Two Covert Action articles by James Phillips
https://mailchi.mp/rightsaction/refugees-forced-migrants-are-the-harvest-of-our-empire
|
|
“The waves of immigration from Latin America that arrive at the U.S. border are the harvest of our empire. This means that the policies of the United States toward those and other countries are intimately involved in creating conditions that force people to emigrate from those countries.”
Below: Rights Action share this very timely two-part article by James Phillips, published by Covert Action, about the repetitive, hypocritical and harmful demonizing and scapegoating of forced migrants in the U.S. (and also in Canada, though not address here).
|
|
|
|
Anti-immigrant cartoon from the early 1900s. The immigrants are depicted as rats. [Source: ncronline.org]
|
|
|
Immigration has been a “hot issue” in the United States for a long time. In the 1700s, Benjamin Franklin complained about the influx of German immigrants. In the mid-1800s, there was a strong nativist movement against European immigrants, especially Catholics and Jews. In the 1880s, it was the Chinese immigrants who were targeted and subjected to the Chinese Exclusion Act. They were too different in language and religion to become real Americans, and they took jobs away from others.
In the early 1900s immigrants from southern and eastern Europe were routinely accused of being terrorists and criminals. In the 1940s, Japanese families who had lived for years peacefully in West Coast communities and prospered alongside their U.S.-born neighbors were suddenly the “enemy” to be uprooted to detention camps.
The list of targeted immigrant populations is long. Various excuses were used to legitimize these anti-immigrant actions. Immigrants were dirty, disease-ridden and prone to crime, did not understand democracy, were not Christian, had dark skin. Immigrants would dilute the fabled purity of the white Christian American “race.” They would take jobs away from real American workers. They would overwhelm the capacity of our schools, institutions and social services.
Immigrants were made into objects to fear.
Underlying it were fundamental questions: What is America, but even more, Who is America? Is it a land of uniformity or a land of diversity and immigrants? The United States has always been a land of immigrants who were suspicious of immigrants.
|
|
|
Harvest of Empire
The whole question of immigration was made so much more urgent when the United States began to assemble an empire of colonies in Latin America, following the Monroe Doctrine and the unabashed imperialism personified by President Teddy Roosevelt.
In his book, Harvest of Empire, journalist and activist Juan Gonzalez describes in detail how the policies of the U.S. government over many years created the conditions in these U.S. colonies that encouraged or forced people to leave their countries and migrate to the U.S. from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, among others.
Each one of these has its own story of U.S. involvement. European empires created similar situations in Africa, South and East Asia, and parts of the Caribbean.
In recent decades, the world has seen a “colonization in reverse,” in which people from former colonies emigrate to the centers of empire seeking relief from oppressive conditions at home (underdevelopment, dependency, repression).
Jamaican poet Louise Bennett wrote about Jamaicans emigrating to England after 300 years of English colonization of Jamaica: “Jamaica people colonizing England in reverse.”
|
|
|
The waves of immigration from Latin America that arrive at the U.S. border are the harvest of our empire. This means that the policies of the United States toward those and other countries are intimately involved in creating conditions that force people to emigrate from those countries. For the United States immigration is both a domestic and a foreign policy issue. It is also a humanitarian issue that is politicized.
Politicized and Inhumane
Politicization is not a new phenomenon. It involves turning the migrant, the immigrant, the asylum seeker into a resource, an object, or a commodity to be used for political gain rather than a subject, a self-acting agent. Politicization ignores, trivializes, or uses the migrant’s own agenda to objectify the migrant and the act of migration for a political purpose. Politicization imposes definitions and identities on migrants, and may impute fictitious or distorted motives, characteristics and powers to migrants.
Governments, NGOs, international organizations, social institutions, and even migrants themselves can engage in politicization. Politicization manipulates migrant identities and the dualities of seeing the immigrant as either a victim or a threat, and immigration as either a matter of human rights and humanitarian concern or as a matter of geopolitical gain or loss.
Central to this process is the othering of the migrant, achieved through regimes of racial differentiation, ethnic identity, class distinctions, health status, religion, or the use of legal constructions such as citizenship.
An array of both legitimate and fictional concerns have been employed to separate those considered worthy from those seen as unworthy. In particular, the criminalization of migrants (as lawbreakers) is a widespread tactic that often begins in the migrant’s homeland and continues through every successive step of the migrant’s journey.
The misleading term “illegal alien” is part of this criminalization. It is misleading because no human is illegal—illegality is created by specific laws and policies applied selectively to people.
It is misleading because simply being in the U.S. without documents is not, de facto, a crime. It is misleading because many of those who arrive at the U.S. southern border are asylum seekers who, once they declare an intent to apply for asylum, are (according to international law) legally in the United States and cannot be deported back to the counties which they left until they have a hearing before an immigration court to decide their claim.
Typically, asylum seekers must wait months or years for a hearing. There are more than 700,000 asylum cases pending, and only a few hundred immigration judges to hear them. Meanwhile, the laws continue to change. The system is certainly backlogged, if not entirely chaotic and inhumane.
Today, immigration policy in the United States and other countries is shaped by the investment needs of the corporate world and the labor market, by a foreign policy that rewards allies and punishes or embarrasses adversaries, and by national and personal political aspirations and needs.
It is not shaped to any significant degree by strictly humanitarian concerns that would highlight the humanity of migrants and disregard or downplay other considerations. This gives rise to political policies that deeply affect immigration and asylum regimes.
|
|
|
Labels such as “illegal” are broadly applied to rationalize what are often political purposes, while disregarding the legal status or humanity of migrants. Countries whose governments are implicated in corruption and serious violations of human rights are certified to receive foreign aid because they are deemed important political allies and friendly to foreign investment, even as emigration from these countries grows because of inhuman conditions.
Conversely, economic sanctions are applied to countries that are deemed adversaries, resulting in weakening economic conditions that can lead to massive emigration.
It is one of the many contradictions of U.S. policy toward Latin America—sanctions weaken economies and create more emigrants even as “get-tough” policies militarize the U.S. southern border. These are policies that both create and exclude immigrants.
The Elusive “Root Causes”
Gang violence, poverty and corruption are often cited as the root causes of emigration from Central America to the U.S.
But, in fact, these are often symptoms, secondary results of the actions especially of extractive corporations in foreign countries. In a country like Honduras, extractive industries like mining, logging and export agriculture find allies and promoters in government officials who both benefit financially and are also pressured by the U.S. government to allow relatively unregulated corporate activity.
Mining and other projects are carried out without the legally required approval of local communities that suffer environmental degradation and are displaced by a combination of environmental pollution and corporate threats, including the murder of local activists. Governments either actively support these displacements, often sending police or military to aid the corporations, or they simply allow corporations free reign.
Over a generation or two, this widespread displacement and destruction has produced wealth for corporations and a few local elites, and poverty and vulnerability for the children of the displaced who become ready targets for gang recruitment and violence. All sorts of criminal activities thrive in such an environment.
Logging is big industry in parts of Central America, and it often becomes a useful cover for narcotics shipping routes, if the local population can be frightened into silence. Such conditions encourage individuals and families to flee for survival and safety.
If the U.S. government had the will to call U.S. corporations to account for their dealings in foreign countries, at least some of these dire conditions would very likely improve.
Trump and Biden
Neither the Trump nor the Biden-Harris immigration policies has proven effective in reducing immigration and lessening its importance as a political issue. In part, this is because of the complexity of immigration, but it is also a reflection of the failure to make some difficult but necessary political decisions, to hold U.S. corporations and other actors to account.
In his prior term as president, Donald Trump relied heavily on exclusionary and punitive policies to reduce immigration along the U.S. southern border. He made much of building a physical wall and of using the threat and reality of family separation as a deterrent. He emphasized militarization of the border. He also tried to make neighboring countries responsible for dealing with undocumented immigrants, with policies such as requiring immigrants to apply in Mexico for the right to enter the U.S., and promoting a “safe third country policy” that would send asylum seekers from Central America back to other Central American countries that were declared “safe.”
This meant, for example, that a Guatemalan family that arrived in the U.S. seeking asylum from violence and poverty in Guatemala might be deported to Honduras for “resettlement,” despite the fact that Honduras was no safer than Guatemala. Some of these policies had their beginnings in previous U.S. administrations, but they have been adapted and applied with flagrant disregard for both law and humanity.
|
|
|
President Joe Biden made much of addressing the “root causes of immigration,” and emphasizing a different approach based on providing jobs and opportunities, and lessening corruption and gang violence, in areas such as Central America. But these, too, failed to address the problem of holding investors and U.S. corporations to account for their dealings abroad.
Instead, the Biden administration placed emphasis on investment by U.S. private and corporate investors to create jobs. This policy is fine as long as the corporations and investors that create the jobs are regulated so that local communities are the beneficiaries, not the victims. This would require significant political will. So far, nothing much has changed, either at the border or in the countries from which migrants flee.
In the end, Biden dealt with the political problem of immigration by continuing some of Trump’s exclusionary policies while trying to renew other, more inclusive ones such as promoting some narrow paths to residence and even citizenship for certain groups already in the U.S. By the time the Biden administration had taken office, Trump and his associates had already resurrected and exacerbated the old negative and fearful stereotypes of immigrants as a serious threat to U.S. security.
Biden could not afford to be seen, politically, as “soft” on immigration, meaning more willing to allow migrants and asylum seekers to access ways of entering and remaining in the U.S. Therefore, he agreed to sign a bi-partisan immigration bill that was up for a vote in Congress, a bill that was more restrictive than many wanted. But Republican Members of Congress reneged when Trump (who holds no official political office) opposed the bill. The immigration “crisis” was too important as a political weapon; actually resolving it could not be allowed.
|
|
|
Project 2025: Embarrassing Questions
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump made immigration a central issue, with dire warnings about immigrants. His plans for his second term are already known, at least in broad outline. There are approximately 11 million undocumented people in the United States (not the 25 million of J.D. Vance’s fantasy). There will be a mass round-up of undocumented individuals. Federal and local law enforcement agencies will identify and detain the undocumented in large detention camps or centers. There will be mass deportations. U.S. citizens as individuals and groups that try to resist this will also risk being arrested and detained.
All of this raises questions that reveal the dangers and difficulties in carrying out this project. How exactly will undocumented individuals be identified? Will legally documented people, including U.S. citizens, be swept up in the deportations? Will neighbors inform on their neighbors? Will legally present asylum seekers be deprived of their legal right to remain in the U.S. awaiting a hearing? Will DACA (Dreamers) be detained?
The Trump plan seems to begin with targeting undocumented individuals who have been convicted of criminal offenses or are considered terrorists or are already slated for deportation, but these designations are often slippery. To what extent will all of this depend on profiling? Will people with established families, businesses of their own, and children in school—people who have lived in the U.S. for many years and paid taxes—be detained and deported for having smoked and possessed a small amount of marijuana ten years ago and served jail time for it? (Deportations of such individuals have happened before in individual cases.)
How will the Trump administration convince state and local governments and law enforcement agencies to cooperate with identifying and detaining undocumented individuals, especially in states that have sanctuary or non-cooperation policies? Will families be separated if parents are undocumented while their children are native-born U.S. citizens? If so, what will become of the children when their parents are removed? How will the logistics of such massive detention and deportation be accomplished? The plan calls for large camps to be built, reportedly on land already identified for this purpose in Texas.
There are economic and political considerations. How much will it cost to pay all of the enforcement officers? What if bus and airline companies refuse to participate in transporting people to detention centers or deportation? (That has happened at least once before.) How much will the huge transport bill cost? How much will it cost to build large detention facilities? Who will pay for all this? What will be the economic effect of removing millions of workers from the U.S. economy? Will businesses resist having their cheap labor removed? Will consumers complain about rising prices and shortages due to a lack of workers?
If the Trump administration tries to deport people back to their home countries, will the governments of those countries accept them? How would that affect the economic, political and social stability of those countries? If they refuse to accept an influx of undocumented people, what will the Trump administration do with these detained people? What pressure or retaliation will Trump apply to countries that hesitate or refuse to accept deported individuals? Who will benefit politically and economically from all of this? Who will suffer most?
Finally, how will all this turmoil, force and the inevitable violation of basic rights damage the institutions and values of the United States that has for its entire history been both a refuge for immigrants and a country of immigrants? How will all of this change the moral identity of the United States and its people? Has it already changed?
|
|
|
Attempts to change the United States immigration system faces the serious problem that the current system is a very lucrative business for some powerful interests. Corporations benefit with an influx of cheap labor into the U.S.
Corporations also benefit in countries where they are free to pursue the unregulated extraction of resources at the expense of the lives and communities of local people. Politicians benefit from supporting these corporate interests and by portraying immigration as a threat and themselves as the only ones able to turn back the threat.
Foreign governments benefit when immigrants send back remittances (money) to folks at home. In the past few years, Hondurans in the U.S. have sent back to families in Honduras an average of four billion dollars each year, a sum that represents nearly 20% of the Honduran national income.
The U.S. government has been contracting with private prison companies to hold undocumented immigrants in detention in prison-like conditions while the immigrants await a hearing or deportation. Such companies are paid thousands of dollars per year for each detainee.
|
|
|
|
ICE facility in Arizona. Many such facilities are run by private companies. [Source: usatoday.com]
|
|
|
The companies have an economic interest in holding as many detainees as possible in as cheap (i.e., shabby) conditions as possible. This practice has been criticized and condemned by international human rights agencies, and groups of U.S. citizens have made efforts to end the use of private prisons for undocumented immigrant detention.
Beyond the legal and quasi-legal sphere, other interests benefit from a large flow of immigrants. Private “guides” (coyotes) charge thousands of dollars with the promise of guiding individuals and families safely into the United States. Families often sell anything they have or even go into debt to finance this “safe” guidance, only to be abandoned along the way by the coyote who absconds with the fee.
Criminal gangs and powerful drug cartels also threaten and prey on vulnerable immigrants, forcing them to carry drugs into the U.S. or risk the kidnapping or death of family members.
Adding insult to injury, politicians such as Donald Trump use reports of this to blame the victims by portraying the immigrants themselves as the drug traffickers or simply as attracting criminal gang activity.
|
|
|
In addition, immigration is a foreign policy propaganda tool. The U.S. uses immigration as a propaganda weapon against its “enemies,” countries like Venezuela and Nicaragua.
In the past few years, U.S. agencies have engaged in an active campaign to lure Nicaraguans to the U.S. with promises of legal documentation and work. One purpose is to increase the flow of emigration out of Nicaragua and to claim that the emigration is due to oppressive conditions created by the Nicaraguan government.
Nicaragua has had a policy of allowing migrants from other countries to pass through Nicaragua on their way north, a practice that was grossly mis-characterized by U.S. officials as “human trafficking.”
This accusation may seem hypocritical if one considers the many ways in which the U.S. uses immigration and immigrants for its own economic and political purposes, its own form of human trafficking. Economic sanctions against Venezuela and Nicaragua are meant not only to weaken the economies of these countries, but also to promote emigration that can be portrayed as people fleeing oppressive regimes when, in reality, many people are leaving because U.S. sanctions have worsened economic prospects in their countries.
Changing the current immigration system also faces the intractable problem of imperial addiction. For more than a century, the United States has become dependent on acquiring and controlling an array of countries, mostly in Latin America, as sources of wealth and resources. This “colonial” system is deeply entwined with an image of what the U.S. standard of living and “spread of democracy” should be.
|
|
|
Resources of Heart and Mind
Some claim that making the U.S. immigration system more humane and less punitive will only serve to encourage more people to immigrate to the U.S. This argument seems to assume that people make decisions about migrating based on how receptive or exclusionary U.S. policy appears. In fact, people decide to emigrate for a variety of reasons, and do not always have the luxury of waiting for the U.S. to be receptive.
Emigrating is so much of a life and survival act for many that, for most immigrants, both the dangers of the journey and uncertainty about how they will be received seem preferable to remaining in an untenable situation at home. It is often difficult for those who have never been in such a situation to understand this logic of survival.
Creating sustainable and self-reliant conditions at home is a better and more direct way to influence migrants to decide to remain at home.
U.S. citizens have various ways to affect the immigration system and make it more humane, and even to help reduce the need for emigration. Many people are involved in groups that provide direct material and other assistance to both documented and undocumented immigrants, without differentiating. The assistance ranges from providing shelter and necessities to enabling legal defense for immigrants, especially asylum seekers. Individuals and groups can also counter the most offensive stereotypes of immigrants by emphasizing the positive contributions of immigrants to local communities where they live.
|
|
|
|
Many immigrants to the U.S. have been on a journey filled with hardships. [Source: foxnews.com]
|
|
|
U.S. citizens can also encourage and support actions in Congress for change, including how immigrants are treated and legally processed when they arrive, guarantees for their rights, ways for the U.S. to assist governments in reducing corporate influence and corruption over foreign governments, and even attempts to call attention to the fundamental imperial or colonial ideology that underlies much of the immigration “problem.”
To that end, Representative Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) introduced Resolution 943 into the U.S. House, a resolution to abrogate and reject the Monroe Doctrine that has been the basis for much of U.S. policy in Latin America. This calls for a major change of mind and heart, but it comes with a list of specific measures that Congress can take. It is perhaps doubtful that the new Congress incoming in January 2025 will consider, much less pass, this resolution or, if passed, will implement its recommendations. But the very fact that it is there, in public, and boldly stated, gives us all a place to stand, a program to demand.
In some colleges and universities, faculty members, student groups, groups of scholars, and some administrators are working to defend undocumented students from detention and deportation. They can call upon several features of university culture to assist them. The university itself as an institution has long had a quasi-sacred aura about it. Many major U.S. universities were founded by religious denominations, often beginning as schools of ministry, and there is a cultural taboo against government interference in the life of the university, including a taboo on police or military presence on university campuses—a taboo that is quite often violated.
Universities and colleges are legally bound to confidentiality in not publicly disclosing the identity or presence of individual students registered in classes. There is a tendency among faculty not to ask which students might be undocumented.
Although none of these safeguards is fully reliable, together they suggest that it should be difficult for government agents to enter campuses to identify and detain undocumented students. But universities are also businesses that are vulnerable to government pressure.
Non-participation is an old and widely used form of resistance to inhumane conditions and policies. It can take many forms. It is one of what anthropologist James Scott called “weapons of the weak.” Non-participation can mean withdrawing support from some part of a large, powerful and oppressive or illegal situation or regime.
Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi and a large group of villagers in India provided one of the classic examples of non-participation—the so-called Great Salt March. The British colonial rulers of India imposed a tax on salt, a necessary item of diet. The tax helped to fund continued British rule.
As one way to weaken imperial rule and promote Indian independence, Gandhi led a march of several hundred miles to the sea where people made salt from sea water, bypassing the need to buy salt and pay the salt tax. This act was illegal, and people risked arrest and beatings. But non-participation does not have to be illegal or particularly risky.
Today, some local and state police and law enforcement agencies in the United States have been instructed or have decided not to cooperate with federal agents in identifying and detaining immigrants. Non-participation of this sort would certainly make mass round-ups and deportation of immigrants more difficult.
Sanctuary Movement
The so-called Sanctuary Movement of the early 1980s provides an important example for today. In the early 1980s, Central America was immersed in several deadly conflicts.
In Nicaragua, the Reagan administration had promoted the Contra War that claimed 30,000 lives.
In Honduras, those who controlled the government—the military and wealthy entrepreneurs—reacted to the Nicaraguan revolution of 1979 by enforcing the most oppressive measures of a national security state.
In El Salvador, the government and the military waged war against the FMLN guerrilla movement and anyone they thought supported it, including especially priests and other leaders of the Catholic Church.
In Guatemala, the military in the early 1980s engaged in a genocide against the Mayan population (more than half the country’s population).
People fled the violence, many finding their way to the U.S. with no time or ability to procure legal documents. This tide of immigrants was an embarrassment to the Reagan administration that had promoted the conflicts that forced the immigrants to flee Central America.
As individuals and groups in the U.S. began to offer material assistance and safety to the undocumented Central Americans, the Reagan administration resorted to mass deportations, coupled with legal punishments for those who helped immigrants. People were arrested for providing shelter to immigrants, for transporting immigrants to safe houses, for helping them cross the border. As more U.S. citizens began to assist, the penalties for assisting were increased.
|
|
|
|
Chicago activists protest U.S. involvement in the Salvadoran Civil War in March 1989. [Source: inthesetimes.com]
|
|
|
Ancient Judaism demanded that the stranger and those in need be welcomed. In ancient Greece and some other parts of the Mediterranean world, sacred temples, groves of trees, or other places were held to be places of sanctuary for anyone fleeing—slaves, people accused of crimes or of unpopular political opinions, others. In Medieval Europe, certain churches and abbeys were considered places of sanctuary for those fleeing persecution from the king or civil authorities. Sanctuary became one aspect of the tension between the powers of church and state. Throughout much of its history, sanctuary was bound to the idea of divine protection.
Starting in places like Tucson, Arizona, church congregations began to revive the ancient concept of sanctuary. In the U.S. in the 1980s, churches and religious congregations contemplating sanctuary for the newly arrived immigrants faced the prospect of legal liability, facing criminal proceedings, revocation of their tax-exempt status, or other expensive penalties? Church councils debated this risk against their duty to protect the church and its pastors from harm. It was an ethical and moral question.
|
|
|
Maybe the scene of police or military entering a house of worship to drag out immigrants would be too embarrassing, and would dissuade the authorities from breaching sanctuary, especially if it seemed to violate First Amendment religious freedoms. Would local law enforcement authorities refuse to participate in such a removal?
Declaring sanctuary for immigrants in the early 1980s was, indeed, a leap of faith for both the immigrants and their protectors. The motives of those who offered sanctuary seemed to include the demands of their religious faith, the demands of simple humanity, and the political need to resist what seemed to be a repressive situation and the authorities who had created it.
The Sanctuary Movement of the early 1980s began as individual acts but soon developed some coordination and planning. This was important to offer support to those contemplating assisting the immigrants. Since the 1980s, churches and religious congregations in different parts of the U.S. have occasionally offered sanctuary to individuals and families.
Is some adaptation of the Sanctuary Movement of the 1980s a model or an option going forward?
The Necessary Defense
In Sanctuary: A Resource Guide for Understanding and Participating in the Central American Refugee Struggle (New York: HarperCollins, 1985), the volume’s editor, Gary MacEoin, writes:
In Burlington, Vermont, 16 November 1984, a jury unanimously acquitted twenty-six citizens of trespass charges. They had admitted refusing to leave Senator Robert Stafford’s office. But, they argued, the U.S. government is violating international law in Central America, the President has lied about why he is supporting a covert war in Nicaragua, and they as citizens had exhausted all less confrontational means to get elected officials to correct the situation. The defendants thus successfully invoked the time-honored, though seldom applied “necessity defense” doctrine: a minor law (here, trespassing) yields to a major imperative (prevention of war crimes and of violating the U.S. Constitution).
The necessity defense is a legal doctrine, a statement of priorities, and a moral judgment. It may be a useful legal protection for those who challenge some of the worst aspects of the coming attack on immigrants. As a statement of priorities, it demands clarity about what is at stake in the lives of human beings. It also invites others to see more clearly, as the Vermont jury apparently did. As a moral judgment, the necessity defense brings us to the heart of our current situation.
What is demanded of us is to discern clearly and to promote the greater good amid all the imperial debris, distractions, and temptations that the coming years will bring. This is a time to remember the necessity defense and for community discernment and action.
These are only a few of the resources that may become important in the coming struggle to protect both immigrants and the rest of us from dehumanization.
(James Phillips ([email protected]) is a cultural and political anthropologist with forty years as a student of Central America. Author of articles and book chapters on Honduras and Nicaragua. Most recent book: Extracting Honduras: Resource Exploitation, Displacement, and Forced Migration (Lexington Books, 2022).
Also, kindly let us know at [email protected]. For publication of CAM articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected].
|
|
|
Rights Action (U.S. & Canada)
Since 1995, Rights Action funds land, justice, human rights and democracy struggles, environment, community development and emergency relief projects in Guatemala and Honduras. Rights Action works to denounce and to hold accountable the U.S. and Canadian governments, multi-national companies, investors and banks (World Bank, etc.) that help cause and profit from exploitation and poverty, repression and human rights violations, environmental harms, corruption and impunity in Honduras and Guatemala. For more information about the main community defense struggles Rights Action has funded and been involved with since 1995, write to: [email protected].
TESTIMONIO Canadian Mining in the Aftermath of Genocides in Guatemala
Edited by Catherine Nolin (UNBC) & Grahame Russell (Rights Action)
(Between The Lines, 2021)
Follow work of other solidarity/NGO groups
|
|
|
Tax-Deductible Donations (Canada & U.S.)
To support land and environmental defenders, and human rights, justice and democracy defense struggles in Honduras and Guatemala, make check to "Rights Action" and mail to:
- U.S.: Box 50887, Washington DC, 20091-0887
- Canada: Box 82858, RPO Cabbagetown Toronto, ON, M5A 3Y2
Credit-Card Donations: https://rightsaction.org/donate/
Direct deposits, write to: [email protected]
Donations of securities, write to: [email protected]
*******
Please share and re-post this information
*******
More info: [email protected], www.rightsaction.org
e-Newsletter: https://rightsaction.org/subscribe
Previous e-Newsletters: https://rightsaction.org/emails
https://www.facebook.com/RightsAction.org
https://twitter.com/RightsAction
https://www.instagram.com/rightsaction
https://www.youtube.com/user/rightsaction
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
