Proposed national park celebrates César E. Chávez and the farmworker movement
Could a national park to recognize Latino icon and civil rights leader César E. Chávez and the Farmworker Movement be established soon?
That is what the César E. Chávez and the Farmworker Movement National Historical Park Act, a bicameral legislation, aims to do.
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Coachella) introduced this week — on César E. Chávez Day — a bill to preserve the nationally significant sites associated with César E. Chávez and the farmworker movement across California and Arizona.
This week, thousands of workers from across the state including farmworkers marched in Delano in Kern County in solidarity with immigrant workers and to denounce the Trump administration's mass deportation policies. The three-mile march commemorated Chavez's 98th birthday.
Chávez empowered Latinos and farmworkers to fight for fair wages, health care coverage, pension benefits, housing improvements, and other protections.
Padilla said establishing the César E. Chávez and the Farmworker Movement National Historical Park 'would pay proper homage to César Chávez's tireless work for the dignity, respect, and equal treatment of workers — priorities facing immense threats under the Trump administration.'
'Our National Park system should memorialize the diverse legacy and culture of all Americans and give farm workers the recognition they deserve,' Padilla said.
According to Padilla's office the legislation would create the César E. Chávez and the Farmworker Movement National Historical Park, which would include the existing the César E. Chávez National Monument, which includes La Nuestra Señora Reina de la Paz in Keene, California. The monument was established by President Barack Obama in 2012.
'I think recognizing the work that Cesar Chavez did, the sacrifices that he made, and the difference that he made in people's lives and farm workers lives, it's something that we should continue to do,' said Teresa Romero, president of United Farm Workers. 'He was a civil rights leader, and because of them, we are here today and continue to fight for farmworkers.'
The National Historical Park would include the following sites upon written agreement from sites owners: Forty Acres in Delano, California, the Santa Rita Center in Phoenix, and McDonnell Hall in San Jose. The Forty Acres site is where the historical 1965 grape strike took place in protest of the anti-immigrant climate against largely Latino communities.
The bill would conduct a National Historic Trail Study for the 'Farmworker Peregrinación National Historic Trail,' the 300-mile march route taken by farm workers between Delano and Sacramento in 1966.
In 2013, the NPS provided the Special Resource Study to Congress that evaluated over 100 sites significant to César Chávez and the farm labor movement in the western United States. The study included five potential management alternatives to protect those sites, and it recommended that Congress establish a National Historical Park that would incorporate nationally significant sites in California and Arizona related to the life of Chávez and the farm labor movement.
Ruiz, a son of farmworkers who grew up in the Coachella Valley, said 'it's vital that we amplify the voices of communities whose stories are too often left unheard.'
The bill, Ruiz said, 'aims to empower the National Park Service to honor and share these important stories, celebrating the diverse and vibrant history of our country.'
Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who is cosponsoring the legislation, said Chávez 'expanded and defended the rights of farm workers through the power of organizing.'
'The designation of the César E. Chávez and the Farmworker Movement National Historical Park recognizes the countless contributions he made which paved the way for better wages and working conditions for millions of farm workers,' said Schiff.
Many Latino, civil rights and labor organizations including UFW are in favor of the national park.
In 2008, Congress enacted bipartisan legislation from the late Arizona Sen. John McCain and former California congresswoman Hilda Solis to direct the NPS to conduct a special resource study of sites significant to Chávez and the farm labor movement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
19 minutes ago
Trump admin live updates: President to announce 'Trump savings accounts' for parents, guardians
The accounts are part of Trump's megabill. 1:40 As the Trump administration continues to ramp up its focus on Los Angeles and threatens to send troops to the city amid anti-ICE protests, the fallout from President Donald Trump and Elon Musk's feud continues. This comes as Republicans in Congress continue to work on agreeing on language for Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill." Meanwhile, U.S.-China trade talks in London this week are expected to take up a series of fresh disputes that have buffeted relations, threatening a fragile truce over tariffs. President Donald Trump will host a roundtable Monday to formally announce the provision in his massive funding bill called the "Trump savings accounts," which will allow parents and guardians to invest funds in the financial markets on behalf of children, a White House official confirms to ABC News. The savings account would be applicable to children born between January 1, 2025, and January 1, 2029. The government would deposit $1,000 into a tax-deferred, low-cost index fund account that will track the overall stock market for each newborn. Additional contributions can go up to $5,000 annually. When the children reach adulthood, they are able to take out the money to cover things like college or a down payment on a home. "The passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill will literally change the lives of working, middle class families across America by delivering the largest tax cuts in history, increasing the child tax credit, AND by creating this incredible new "Trump Account" program, which will put the lives of young Americans on the right financial path," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to ABC News. Multiple CEO's from companies, such as Dell Technologies, will appear with Trump to announce billions of dollars in collective investments into "Trump Accounts" for the children of their employees, according to the official. The event comes as the White House works to highlight Trump's so-called "One, Big, Beautiful Bill," as the Senate works through attempting to pass the budget bill and amid explosive criticism from Elon Musk last week. --ABC News' Lalee Ibssa
The Hill
37 minutes ago
- The Hill
Congress should think again about foreign investor tax: UK ambassador to US
British Ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson is appealing to Congress to think again about the proposed new retaliatory tax on certain foreign investment in the US. 'I think that there's something wrong in principle that you should punish a country's businesses and individuals in America because you don't like what their governments are doing at home,' Mandelson said of Section 899 of the House's 'big, beautiful bill' to implement Trump's agenda. Section 899 would create a retaliatory tax on nationals of countries that impose 'unfair foreign taxes' on American businesses. 'If you've got an argument with their governments, then take it out on the governments. Don't take it out on the businesses and the individuals,' he added. Mandelson also believes that this new foreign investor tax is 'counterproductive' for the United States. 'If you're creating such a risk or potential uncertainty tax on businesses here, then many will think twice about investing further in the United States. I would ask Congress to think again about 899,' he said. According to Mandelson, both Congress and the Trump administration should resolve these matters by negotiation, and 'not by means of a legislative bludgeon', where he says the 'innocent are being punished because it's felt that revenge is due against a country and it's taken out on businesses and individuals here in the US.' He added that Section 899 also sets a 'very difficult precedent,' and it's better resolved by 'government to government negotiation and by discretionary means, not statutory ones.' The provision has stoked concerns on Wall Street over whether foreign investors would pull out of U.S. investments over fears of retribution from Trump.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
These Presidential Breakups From History Have a Lesson for Elon Musk
This week, the vaunted political marriage between President Donald Trump and multipreneur Elon Musk blew up in spectacular fashion, as both men — once a seemingly unstoppable force — traded barbs on their respective social media platforms. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election,' Musk posted on X. 'Elon was wearing thin, I asked him to leave,' Trump retorted on Truth Social. The blowup devolved into Musk saying Trump is in the Epstein files and the president's minions calling on him to deport Musk, a South African immigrant and naturalized citizen of the United States. Not since the Bennifer breakup — the first or second one, reader's choice — has a relationship's demise attracted such rapturous attention, especially in politics. But we have been here before. Presidents have long enjoyed symbiotic relationships with captains of industry and media. This isn't the first time such a relationship came to a bitter end. If history offers any insight, it's that these breakups always end better for the president than the mogul. Elon Musk is the richest man in the world, but the presidency comes with greater power and prestige. Just ask Nicholas Biddle. Biddle was a wealthy and influential Philadelphia financier who served as president of the Second Bank of the United States from 1823 until its closure in the 1830s. Born into a prominent family, he parlayed inherited wealth and social connections to become a central figure in America's early financial system. Under his leadership, the bank became a powerful and stabilizing force in the national economy, controlling credit and regulating state banks. Most historians today regard it as a successful precursor to the national banking system that emerged many decades later. Biddle was also the perfect embodiment of the nation's monied class. He viewed 'men with no property to assess and no character to lose' as social inferiors — so it was no surprise that he would eventually come to blows with President Andrew Jackson, an avowed populist. But for the better part of 1830 and 1831, Biddle put on a charm offensive. Even as he lined up support in Congress for the bank's re-charter, he attempted to ingratiate himself with the president, who in turn fired off vague smoke signals indicating that he was open to a dialogue. Jackson met with Biddle repeatedly and expressed no strong opposition to the bank — at least not publicly. Biddle, in turn, wrote flattering letters to and about the president and attempted to work closely with Jackson's key allies, including Senator Thomas Hart Benton and Vice President Martin Van Buren. More than a few people in the know were surprised that the bank president and populist chief executive seemed to have struck up a decent rapport. Until things inevitably turned sideways. When Jackson ultimately stuck to his populist guns and vetoed the bank's re-charter, Biddle, who was genuinely surprised by the move, undertook a furious and public effort to overturn the decision. He told Senator Henry Clay, an ally, that Jackson's message announcing the veto was 'really a manifesto of anarchy, such as Marat or Robespierre might have issued to the mob of Faubourg.' Jackson escalated the conflict in 1833 when he ordered that all federal government deposits be removed from the bank and placed in selected state banks. His goal was to drain the bank of its influence and effectively dismantle it before its charter expired in 1836. The ensuing debate was public and polarizing. Jackson announced his policy in a series of fiery public statements and annual messages to Congress, framing it as a defense of the common people against a 'monied aristocracy.' Biddle, meanwhile, defended the bank in editorials, letters and congressional testimony. Newspapers across the country took sides, and the issue became a litmus test of political loyalty: You were either with Jackson and democratic populism or with Biddle and financial conservatism. Biddle, who boasted that he had 'been for years in the daily exercise of more personal authority than any President habitually enjoys,' soon found his life in a downward spiral. His reputation, once that of a brilliant financial statesman and intellectual, was left in ruins as the bank's closure generated financial problems for its shareholders. Although he had long enjoyed the status of a cultured gentleman — financial engineer, patron to artists and writers — he grew politically toxic and isolated. After the bank's collapse, Biddle was sued for fraud and mismanagement. He was arrested on related charges in 1841 but never convicted. Still, the litigation and disgrace consumed his remaining years. Although he had once been wealthy, his fortune dwindled, and he died in 1844 at the age of 58, a broken man — largely forgotten and discredited in the eyes of the public. Jackson, of course, went on to serve two terms in office. His decision to kill the bank and remove the reserves threw the country into a massive financial panic — but that problem, as well as the blame for it, fell to his successor, Van Buren. Another case in point: William Randolph Hearst, the newspaper publisher, early movie mogul and two-term member of Congress. In the late 1890s and early 1900s, Theodore Roosevelt and Hearst shared a mutually beneficial, if uneasy, relationship. Hearst's newspapers, particularly the New York Journal, were strong proponents of the Spanish-American War, and through its sensationalist accounts of that conflict — critics derided it as 'Yellow Journalism' — his media empire made a national hero of TR, whose famous charge at San Juan Hill might never have been famous at all if not for Hearst. Though they overlapped ideologically on issues like trust-busting and anti-corruption — and, of course, a muscular foreign policy — their alliance was more tactical than personal. Roosevelt reportedly found Hearst vulgar and untrustworthy, while Hearst saw Roosevelt as an ambitious politician, lacking gravitas. Their mutually beneficial relationship crumbled when Hearst grew too big for his britches. The media mogul, who served two terms in Congress and made unsuccessful runs for mayor of New York City and governor of New York, complained that Roosevelt was 'a creation of newspaper notoriety.' He had made Roosevelt a famous man and assumed he could use that power to replace him in the White House. A bumbled run for the presidency in 1904 disabused Hearst of that illusion, but his acid relationship with Roosevelt only grew worse. The split became unmistakable after Hearst published inflammatory articles and editorials suggesting that President William McKinley's assassination was the inevitable result of capitalist corruption — a line of rhetoric that Roosevelt, deeply loyal to McKinley's legacy, found abhorrent. 'Wide and equitable distribution of wealth is essential to a nation's prosperous growth and intellectual development,' Hearst argued. 'And that distribution is brought about by the labor union more than any other agency of our civilization.' Roosevelt, in turn, called Hearst a 'swollen-headed liar' and accused his newspapers of fueling anarchist violence. Though Hearst's newspaper empire once dominated American public discourse, its credibility and power began to erode in the years after his split with Roosevelt, as yellow journalism fell into public disrepute. Moreover, his strident opposition to U.S. entry into World War I and later sympathy for fascist regimes in the 1930s cost him public and political goodwill. The 1930s saw his business empire drowning in debt. While he didn't exactly die in penury or obscurity, he spent his remaining years relatively quietly, in sharply diminished material circumstances. Finally, there is the case of Joseph Kennedy. Born to a well-connected Irish-American family in Boston, Kennedy parlayed early success in banking into lucrative ventures in shipbuilding, real estate, Hollywood film production and the stock market, where he made (and managed to preserve) a fortune by anticipating the 1929 crash. By the early 1930s, Kennedy was one of the richest men in America and increasingly influential in Democratic politics. He supported Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1932 campaign and was rewarded with a series of key appointments, ironically, as the first chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 1934. FDR saw Kennedy as the ideal regulator — someone who knew Wall Street's tricks and could, therefore, police it. Their relationship, cordial but pragmatic, reflected a mutual recognition of each other's political instincts and usefulness. When FDR appointed Kennedy to serve as U.S. ambassador to Britain — the first Irish Catholic to occupy the position — Kennedy began to envision himself as FDR's successor in the White House. That, of course, was not to be. While stationed in London, Kennedy grew deeply pessimistic about Britain's chances against Nazi Germany and became a leading voice for American isolationism, repeatedly breaking with the administration and warning against U.S. entry into another European war. His public statements, including a notorious comment in 1940 that 'democracy is finished in England,' outraged British officials and embarrassed the Roosevelt administration. FDR, who was moving steadily toward intervention and aid to the Allies, saw Kennedy's defeatism and political freelancing as liabilities. So, too, was Kennedy's virulent antisemitism, which placed him out of step with the increasingly liberal Democratic party. Their relationship collapsed entirely in 1940, when the White House compelled Kennedy to resign. FDR, who had once valued Kennedy's political acumen and fundraising prowess, now viewed him as a demagogue with alarming wealth and influence. As the American public rallied behind the president after the Japanese attack on Pearl Habor, Kennedy's future in public life dimmed. He turned his ambitions toward helping his oldest son, Joe Jr., achieve what he no longer could: the presidency. And when Joe Jr. perished in the war, his focus turned to another son, John F. Kennedy. To be sure, Musk has a lot going for him. He owns one of the most powerful media platforms in the country. He is the wealthiest man in the world. His companies have been singularly successful and provide him clout with foreign governments in need of anything from satellite capabilities to fight a war, to rockets able to reach space. But he's not the president — particularly this president, who has arrogated to himself unprecedented powers. Much like the rich men who came before him, Musk may soon learn that there is no breaking with the White House and coming out whole. It hasn't worked before, and if history is any guide, it seems unlikely to work today.
