Latinos fear losing homes

Froma Harrop, a syndicated columnist based at the Providence Journal newspaper, came up with a unique take on the increasing number of mortgage foreclosures – the high percentage of Latinos who are losing their homes.

Her commentary cites a Pew Hispanic Center study that notes one in 10 Latino homeowners have missed a mortgage payment, while 53 percent of foreign-born Latinos feared they would lose their home. It is written better than I (http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_11776525?source=most_emailed) can summarize it, so you ought to give it a read.

I’M JUST WAITING to hear the nativist nitwits who will claim that this is just more evidence of the “criminal” nature of these Latinos being in the United States to begin with – they’re buying homes they can’t afford.

There’s just one point I always feel compelled to make whenever I hear anyone bring up that point when arguing against any kind of government aid to get us through the current economic troubles – a lot of people make these purchases when they’re employed and can afford these things.

As one who once bought a nice car while working, then struggled to make payments when I was laid off, I doubt there are many people who seriously sign up to finance a house if they don’t think there’s a good chance they can make the payments.

I suppose it’s their fault they lost their job, or whatever their source of income was.

-30-

Congressman to do immigration tour

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., has always been known in Chicago political circles for being outspoken on his pet issues. Now, he’s taking seriously the notion of being a leader on the issue of reforming the nation’s immigration laws.

Gutierrez was one of several members of Congress who met with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Thursday to discuss their concerns with immigration raids – particularly one conducted recently in Bellingham, Wash., in which 25 people were detained with the intent of deporting them from the United States.

AND ON FRIDAY, he will be in Providence, R.I., to kick off what will be a national tour, of sorts, to try to encourage people to take seriously the need to alter the laws that determine who can emigrate to the United States with ease, and who will face near-impossible odds in trying to get a visa.

It is the people in the latter category who ultimately tend to decide that slipping through a crack in the border to try to get a better life is easier than putting up with a bureaucracy designed to keep them out.

Gutierrez plans to appear in the suburbs of Atlanta on Saturday, then will venture to places such as Dallas, Detroit, Miami, Milwaukee, Phoenix and San Francisco, just to name a few.

He even plans to slip across the border into Ontario to make appearances. After all, not every person who gets into the United States without a visa comes across the Rio Bravo del Norte/Rio Grande. Many enter Canada, then travel south.

IN WHAT SEEMS like an ironic gesture, there are some people who Gutierrez would prefer not to show up at his events – his literature advises people who are not U.S. citizens and who are lacking a visa to stay away.

After all, in today’s political climate where some people are determined to view these U.S. newcomers as a criminal element rather than people trying to better their lives, perhaps he fears a Gutierrez speech could turn into a brawl.

Or else “la migra” would see it as a chance to do an immigration raid and pick up a few more potential deportees.

In one sense, it is encouraging to see Gutierrez take up the immigration issue as vociferously as he has.

BECAUSE GUTIERREZ IS of Puerto Rican ethnic background, immigration is not an issue for him personally. He is a U.S. citizen by birth, even though many people in this country probably mistakenly lump him in with other Latino ethnicities when it comes to their perspective about who should, and should not, be “legal.”

Gutierrez, whose Illinois congressional district is designed in a cockeyed way so as to incorporate as many Spanish-speaking neighborhoods of Chicago as possible, is the head of the Congress’ Immigration Task Force.

And it was in that role that Gutierrez had the meeting with Napolitano about immigration raids held Tuesday in Washington state.

Thus far, Napolitano has pleased Gutierrez and other members of Congress inclined to do serious immigration law reform – “The Hill” newspaper reported that she told them she is willing to review the policies implemented during the presidency of George W. Bush that encouraged an increase in the number of immigration raids conducted.

WHEN PRESIDENT BARACK Obama originally picked Napolitano to head Homeland Security, there were those who thought that the former Arizona governor would not be sympathetic to the immigration predicament – even though she had previously suggested that federal policies to erect a physical barrier between the United States and Mexico were misguided.

I’m not about to predict at this point how the immigration reform measure will turn out. Ultimately, it is something that will have to be done, just because the existing policies are not working – and the people who think “reform” should amount to little more than increased deportations are just too absurd to be taken seriously.

It could wind up that people like Gutierrez get remembered well by historians several decades for now for being willing to take on a position unpopular with a segment of the population.

-30-

Everybody gets a Bill of Rights these days

Ever since activists pushing for the concept of universal access to health care created a “bill of rights” to say that everybody deserves adequate medical treatment, regardless of health insurance, it seems like everybody uses a parody of the Constitution’s first 10 amendments to bolster their point.

Take the latest group. The California Association for Bilingual Education is holding its annual conference this week, and they prepared a “bill of rights” for people in this country who are trying to learn to speak the English language.

THEY ESTIMATE THAT about 25 percent of schoolchildren (about 1.6 million youths) in their home state do not speak English as their primary language, and they are hoping that their “bill of rights” parody brings more attention to the situation confronting people who are in various stages of trying to learn to speak English.

One of the biggest myths pushed by the nativist crowd when it comes to immigration reform (or just about any issue related to newcomers to this country) is that these “foreigners” don’t want to learn the English language.

They’d have you believing that it is just a matter of time before U.S. society is done in by people speaking Spanish. So the language barrier becomes another reason used by these people to justify hostile reactions, including trying to cut off support for any programs that try to help people with language barriers.

As though they’re going to learn it on their own.

“WE NOW KNOW what we need to do to help these students succeed in school,” said Karling Aguilera-Fort, president of the California association. But, “these elements are now threatened by decisions being made to decimate funding for education.”

Hence, we get the group’s “bill of rights” (which unlike the Constitution’s bill, only has eight provisions), which says that English learners,

-- benefit from a learning environment in which they feel respected, safe and secure,

-- should be treated equitably in terms of time spent meeting their individual needs.

-- benefit from focused instruction from teachers who have specialized training and understanding necessary to effectively teach students whose first language is not English.

-- benefit from curriculum and instructional materials that are academically challenging, possess age-appropriate content, and include subject matter that is at grade level; this includes culturally responsive methodologies and materials.

-- benefit from access to instructional materials that make the necessary accommodations for the varying levels of English proficiency.

-- benefit from being taught in a way that allows them to maintain their native language to be able to transfer and apply knowledge of their native language and culture to the study of English.

-- benefit from attending schools with the resources and expertise necessary to meet their needs, and

-- benefit from the involvement of their parents in their education, this essential ingredient for closing the achievement gap should be fostered.

Now I have met people who deride such English as a Second Language programs by saying they encourage students to assume the schools will teach them in their native languages, thereby removing any incentive to try to learn to speak English.

But reading through this “bill of rights” makes me see one repeated theme – respect. Acknowledging that they already know some things in their native tongue, providing them with proper learning materials and getting parents involved whenever possible.

THAT’S BASICALLY THE way to teach anybody how to do anything.

Showing respect for the students as people (and not assuming they’re stupid because of their language skills) is more likely to get them to pick up on the English language, which will give them an edge on adapting to life in this country. No one seriously disputes that fact.

What this issue often comes down to is that certain people want to be able to disrespect others because of the language barrier, and that simply makes no sense.

Think about it, why should someone else try to learn English from a “teacher” who’s obnoxious or doesn’t show proper respect.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: The California Association for Bilingual Education helped craft this “bill of rights” (http://www.californiareading.com/media/pdf/billofrights.pdf) to try to make people understand what difficulties newcomers to this country are going through when dealing with language.

Heineken wants the Latino market too

This image could soon be overexposed on Spanish-language television across the United States.

What does it say when a brand of beer thought of as a foreign import decides it wants to expand its sales in the United States, specifically by seeking the fastest growing portion of the population – Latinos.

That is the case with Heineken, whose USA subsidiary is kicking off a new advertising campaign in Spanish that is meant to boost sales among the Latinos, who make up about one-sixth of the nation’s population.

THOSE ADS WILL include three television spots to begin airing next month that will feature Nestor Carbonell, an actor whose family came from Cuba, and will attempt to portray the image of Latinos “showing who they are and what they’re made of” by drinking the beer that originated in Amsterdam.

Now serious beer drinkers will claim that Heineken is to German beer something similar to what Taco Bell is to Mexican food – something that only amateurs would mistake for the real thing.

But it is a passable brand of cerveza, and it has had some exposure to what could be construed as the Latino market in this country.

Heineken beer products in the United States are distributed by the Heineken USA subsidiary, which also does business by importing Mexican beer brands such as Tecate, Carta Blanca, Dos Equis (XX) and Bohemia to this country.

SO PERHAPS IT is only logical that people involved in the sales of beer brands meant to appeal to Latinos and Latino-wannabes would try to peddle their home base product to those same Latinos.

“Our (Latino) consumer is driven to be a source of inspiration for those around him,” said Marime Riancho, a brand director for Heineken USA. “He has the desire and ability to be great, and he showcases that greatness by the brands he chooses and the choices he makes.”

I’m curious to see how successfully these ads play, particularly since the first round of ads intends to get a bit philosophical about the significance a bottle of Heineken-brand beer can play in the lives of Latinos.

I don’t know that I have ever thought of beer as a troubador, with its bottle as an instrument – which is the dialogue from one of the ads that Carbonell will do in upcoming television spots.

FUTURE ADS WILL try to be more lighthearted, but this is an advertising campaign that is trying to be more than the usual beer ad – a batch of portly guys who get to spend time with “hot chicks” because they drink a particular brand of beer.

But in taking such an approach, Heineken USA is showing that it has a clear grasp of the future market for their product in this country. They wouldn’t be bothering to spend money to produce and air Spanish-language advertisements if they didn’t think there would be a future payoff – increased sales of cerveza.

So I’m willing to praise the company for not being shortsighted, even though personally I don’t think the ads will significantly change my beer-buying practices.

Whenever I feel a need for a beer (which isn’t as often as it used to be back when I was college-aged), I usually try to grab a Tecate – although I’m not always inclined to go along with the lime-and-salt ritual that some people insist upon doing whenever they have something affiliated with Mexican beer.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Heineken wants to sell more of its namesake product (http://www.hispanicprwire.com/news.php?l=in&id=13627&cha=7) to Latinos. But the company’s U.S. subsidiary is about (http://www.heinekenusa.com/pages/agecheck.aspx) more than the original product.

Ethnically aware official to get Commerce appointment

If the administration of President Barack Obama winds up having to give up tight control of the 2010 Census, it could be because oversight of next year’s population count would go to a person with a strong awareness of the fact that not every U.S. resident is an Anglo.

Officials told the Associated Press that Obama is preparing to pick former Washington Gov. Gary Locke to be secretary of the Commerce Department. Locke would be Obama’s third choice for the post, who has to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate before he can have the job.

THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT isn’t the highest profile post in a president’s cabinet, but it historically has been the entity that has oversight of the Census Bureau, which begins each new decade by doing a population count of the entire nation.

But Obama had previously indicated a desire to give greater oversight of the census process to his staff within the White House, including his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.

That move has Republican officials and social conservatives concerned that Emanuel is prepared to play partisan politics with the population figures to try to give Democratic Party officials and candidates an advantage in the upcoming decade’s elections.

Yet a good part of the reason that Obama even considered shifting control of the Census away from the Commerce Department is that Latino activists made it clear to him they feared his pick to run the agency (Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, a Republican) would play his own partisan games to try to hold down the numbers of Latinos who live in this country.

AS IT CURRENTLY stands, many of the conservative activists are pushing the story that the economic troubles currently facing the United States are urging many of those Latino “foreigners” to go back to their home countries.

And there are fully legal ways to hold down the Latino count (mostly by not aggressively counting in ethnic communities where hesitance to cooperate with government authorities might cause some Latinos to ignore the 2010 Census).

So some people might want to come up with a figure that can be used as a statistic indicating that all this rhetoric about the Latino share of the population escalating (some expect it could be as high as 33 percent of the nation’s total population by 2050) is some sort of “liberal” plot.

So it seems like either way, somebody is going to accuse someone else of playing partisan political games with the Census.

THAT IS WHAT makes the potential choice of Locke (whose Anglo-sounding name is a phonetic equivalent to the Chinese name – Lok Ga-fai – his parents gave him at birth) to head up the agency an interesting one.

Obama has tried to claim he wants to run the federal government in a bipartisan political manner – giving say to Republican officials as well as his traditional Democratic Party allies.

It is possible that, in a gesture to Republican officials, he could wind up “giving back” control of the Census. The Commerce Department could wind up assuming its traditional oversight duties of the population count.

If that happens, the Census would be under the control of a man who is aware of immigration and the influence it has had in this country – even if it will not be in the hands of a Latino (as Obama originally intended, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson – his mother was Mexican – would have received the appointment).

LOCKE, THE FIRST person of Chinese ethnicity to be elected as a governor in the United States – is a native-born U.S. citizen, but was born to parents who emigrated from China. In fact, his political biography boasts of living in public housing complexes in Seattle as a young child, giving his family the story of having worked its way up through the system to achieve its success.

He served two terms as Washington governor, and his critics will cite allegations that he was involved in foreign contributions to then-President Bill Clinton. While fined by state regulators for being involved with out-of-state fundraising events, Locke was cleared of allegations that he took campaign contributions from members of a Buddhist church.

But since leaving electoral politics in 2005, he has been a Seattle-based attorney who has worked on legal issues related to governmental relations and China.

This is a person who has an appreciation of dealings with other countries of the world, and of the fact that people from those countries can have a positive influence on the society of the United States.

WHILE SOME LATINO activists will express dismay that another Latino official did not get the post (to boost the Latino total in the Obama Cabinet to three), this could very well be the next best thing. It has the advantage of adding yet more to the diversity of the Obama Administration.

Now it may be premature to think that Locke has the appointment nailed down. After all, we once thought Richardson had the job for sure. Then, that the choice of Gregg would settle the matter once and for all.

There could be some unknown factor that yet brings down Locke (and I’m sure there are Republican partisans who are eager to find any trivial tidbit that can be used to embarrass Locke, and by extension, Obama).

But if the old cliché, “the third time’s the charm,” has any truth, it would result in Latinos getting something of a plus if Locke ultimately becomes the government official who has some say in setting policy for international trade.

-30-

Denver’s failure to find Latino “name” not a controversy

When officials in Dallas last year deliberately ignored a majority interest in renaming a prominent street for United Farm Workers founder Cesar Chavez, it triggered something in Latino activists elsewhere because it was seen as such a blatant snub.

Yet I can only hope that a situation that arose last week in Denver does not cause a similar outcry.

AT STAKE IS the brand-new Denver Justice Center, which is going to have an outdoor plaza that local officials hope becomes a popular gathering spot.

And thought has been put into coming up with a name for the plaza, so as to both pay tribute to somebody and give the spot some character.

But whether the name of someone who is easily identified as a Latino (unlike someone like New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, whom many people have to be reminded is half Mexican, his mother’s side of the family) ought to be among the finalists is threatening to become a controversy.

Yet when one thinks about it rationally, this would be a stupid issue to get worked up over.

CITY OFFICIALS WENT to the trouble of creating a 12-member task force to come up with a name for the plaza. Four of those people were of ethnic backgrounds that can be traced back to Latin American nations.

Yet when that task force came up with a list of possibilities, there weren’t any people being considered for the honor who are Latino.

That caused the Latino members of the Denver City Council to stall the process, which has City Council President Jeanne Robb upset – because her preference for a name now cannot be advanced.

In short, the issue of a name for the plaza is on hold, and is threatening to cause a rift between Latino and Anglo.

SOME MIGHT EVEN go so far as to compare the situation in Dallas, where Chavez Boulevard never became a reality, and Latino activists there remain upset at what they see is a refusal by an Anglo political majority to accept the fact that the Latino population is growing and is going to demand respect and recognition in the same way that Anglos have long received.

Both may be Southwestern U.S. cities in places that were once part of Mexico (and previously, New Spain) and they may have growing Latino populations.

But the Dallas situation was one where a poll of area residents showed evidence of strong support for “Chavez Boulevard,” and local politicos were willing to ignore that for a non-Latino name.

I can’t help but think that getting worked up over the Denver situation borders on stupidity.

NOW I AM not opposed to activists stirring up trouble. In fact, there are times when the only way to make one’s point is to ram one’s opposition down the figurative throat of the majority in charge.

After all, one person used the KMGH-TV website’s comment section (a Denver-based ABC affiliate) to say about this issue, “the place will be filled with Rodriguez, Lopez, Gonzalez and Martinez. Isn’t that good enough?”

There’s no rationalizing with such nativist nitwits, and I don’t particularly mind if their feelings get hurt.

But I don’t see the slight in Denver – largely because there does appear to have been significant Latino input in trying to come up with a name for the plaza.

I DON’T KNOW exactly why the list of finalists under consideration for the name did not include a Latino or two. But I’m assuming that the Latinos on the task force were listened to, and had their views taken under consideration.

At least I have not heard any evidence to indicate otherwise.

So if there isn’t some sort of proof of a political snub, I don’t see the legitimate reason to get worked up over this.

I don’t expect every single street in a southwestern U.S. city to have a clearly identifiable Spanish-sounding name. It doesn’t even have to have some name identified with one of the native tribes that once populated the area (many of whom thought of Mexicans as being just as hostile as Americans when it came to dealing with their interests).

WHAT THE SOUTHWESTERN U.S. has become is a place where native, Spanish and English cultures mixed into a unique blend that comprises the modern-day region.

While there are some people who seem to think the Anglo influence ought to prevail over all others, they are just as ridiculous as those who would want to start eradicating anything English-sounding in favor of a Spanish name.

And that is just stirring up resentment for resentment’s sake. It does not advance the cause of any individual.

-30-

There’s little middle ground when it comes to immigration

We as a nation do not perceive the issue of immigration and the need for reform in the same way.

Take a recent attack on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., which is trying to make Reid appear to be out-of-touch with the populace. The Federation for American Immigration Reform is trying to do so by citing the thoughts of residents of Nevada.

REID IS THE leader of the U.S. Senate as a whole. Yet the group that opposes the interests of many non-Anglo newcomers to this country wants to portray the issue as him being out of touch with the people of his home state – as though he has no obligation to take into account the thoughts of people in other parts of the country.

The group says that Nevada suffers from having newcomers encouraged in having a new life in this country. Even though it fails to take into account the fact that Nevada itself is no longer some “cowboy” paradise, and is taking on characteristics that show its land was once part of Mexico – and before that, New Spain.

Specifically, the anti-immigration activist group is critical of Reid for not being supportive of reauthorizing a flawed program meant to allow companies to verify the Social Security numbers of potential employees, and removing measures as part of the stimulus package that would have sought to prevent non-citizens from getting jobs.

They say he’s favoring all these foreigners, rather than the people of his home state.

BUT PART OF it could be that he realizes that even Nevada has non-citizens living there (particularly Latinos).

The most recent Census Bureau figures had the foreign-born Nevada population at 18.5 percent, with 24.3 percent of Nevada residents being Latino (which means many of those “foreigners” are actually U.S.-born. Also, 26.7 percent of Nevada residents speak a language at home other than English.

Those figures could only have grown since they were computed in 2000.

But it also is encouraging because I can remember some of the concern when Reid became leader of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate that his political beliefs were a bit too conservative to make him qualified to lead the Democratic caucus.

SOME DEMOCRATS AND people of liberal political persuasions still think that way about Reid.

But it would appear that he also has the conservatives worked up. I would take this survey (which is meant to be a negative against Reid) as evidence that he is making an effort to understand the greater problem of immigration – and not react in negative ways to the fastest-growing segment of our nation’s population.

So when I read the study’s figure that Reid’s policies toward immigration reform are costing his home state’s residents $630 million annually, I can’t help but giggle that anyone felt a need to put a dollar figure on an absurd political premise.

I also find the statistic in the study (conducted by the Zogby Group) that Nevada voters oppose “amnesty” by 54.5 percent to 33.9 percent. In and of itself, use of the word “amnesty” shows that this study is meant to be loaded against people who want to make a new life in this country.

ALL TOO OFTEN, “amnesty” becomes the code word used by xenophobes to try to justify their ridiculous thoughts on immigration.

They want to believe that providing anything in the way of support for these people amounts to improper behavior – as though the only way to truly treat non-U.S. citizens is to boot them out of the country.

These people will argue that such policies are in place in other countries. And they’d be right. But that is all the more reason for the United States to show a moral superiority by not pushing such trite thought.

So I only hope that Reid and his supporters are not swayed by this nonsense survey, which is meant to provide all kinds of statistics to be used to back up their ridiculous ideas about what U.S. policy on immigration ought to be.

JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE went to the trouble to spend good money to compile a batch of percentages and spin them in a way that sounds negative does not make it true.

These numbers are truly evidence of the fact that statistics, in and of themselves, can lie.

-30-

Why not NASCAR for Latinos

When it comes to the assimilation of the growing Latino population into the mainstream of U.S. culture, one measuring stick may very well be NASCAR – that Southern-inspired stockcar race event that seems to be coming more popular across the country.

Except with Latinos.

A NEW STUDY contends that while just over one-third of Latinos pay some attention (38 percent, to be exact) to the antics of stockcar racing, only 7 percent of Latinos would describe themselves as hard-core fans of the “sport.”

Now I realize that someone who drives an automobile at such fast speeds had better be in top physical condition. In fact, it wouldn’t shock me to learn the typical stockcar driver is in better shape than the typical baseball pitcher.

But the idea of thinking of this activity as a sport always mystifies me, since I think of sports as something done by people. Put the drivers in a footrace around the track, and that would be sport to me. Driving the cars is just noise – in my mind.

Of course, I still remember one person once explaining to me that the whole point of watching stockcar racing was to enjoy the crowd atmosphere while drinking some cervezas. (Of course, many of those people would likely get a bit miffed if you used any word other than “beer” to buy the beverage).

THE STUDY CONDUCTED by the sports marketing firms rEvolution and Knowledge Networks was done to give NASCAR officials a better handle on how they can reach out to Latino fans.

That is encouraging. It shows that someone realizes that stockcar racing will have to evolve if it is to continue as a public spectacle that can make money for its sponsors.

It turns out that of the 38 percent of Latinos who say they pay attention to NASCAR racing, two-third of them (67 percent) only pay a “little” attention. In short, the hard-core Latino fan of stockcar racing is so rare. So paying much attention to maintaining existing traditions may very well miss the point when getting Latinos to partake in racing.

It also turns out that Latinos watch NASCAR the same way many National Football League fans watch their favorite game – on television.

THE WHOLE CONCEPT of NASCAR being a taste of Dixie spreading across the country could be racing’s biggest impediment to trying to gain support from the fastest growing segment of the U.S. population (one that could account for as much as one-third of the U.S. population by 2050).

But then again, the sporting tastes of Latinos don’t always extend to watching a graceful Venezuelan play shortstop or viewing a real futbol team play on the soccer pitch, juggling a ball about with their feet in ways that rival the grace of a ballet dancer.

How else to explain the popularity of Mexican-style Lucha Libre wrestling, other than to say that we view these games as entertainment, and it doesn’t always have to be high-brow.

NASCAR has a chance to gain the attention of Latinos because of the “high speeds” at which these cars drive around and around and around the track. If there happen to be several near-hits, or even an occasional crash, it will catch our attention.

IT ALSO TURNS out that 59 percent of those Latinos who pay any attention to NASCAR were first attracted to the event because of speed.

It has nothing to do with the cult paid by many Southern NASCAR fans to particular drivers. When it comes to Latinos who watch NASCAR, we tend to be like the general public when it comes to viewing golf.

We say we like whoever happens to be the most recent winner in the same way that many people don’t know of any golfer other than Tiger Woods (or perhaps they remember the name Chi Chi Rodriguez, but aren’t quite clear about what he accomplished?)

Now as I indicated earlier, I’m probably never going to be among the Latinos who take any serious interest in stockcar racing. It just literally strikes me as too many laps around a track by machines that make so much noise that the one time in my life I went to an auto race, I didn’t get my full hearing capabilities back for about two days.

BUT I DON’T doubt that the growing market is one that can be reached, particularly if NASCAR officials show a willingness to try to understand our numbers in this country.

In fact, that is a common trait of many aspects of U.S. culture – we are a market that is not impossible to assimilate. Much of the problem comes from people who, in their own ways, are resistant to the idea of us being a part of the overall picture in this country.

So there could very well be the day when I’m the crazy old Viejo shaking my head in dismay at batches of my ethnic brethren getting all worked up over a stockcar race.

But for now, I’m in the majority of the Latino population.

-30-

Treating immigration as a ‘crime’ distorts statistics

Reading a recently published analysis of federal crime statistics based on ethnicity provides the nativist element of our society with all the ammunition it needs to denounce those all those Latino “foreigners” who are inflating their share of the U.S. population by slipping across the U.S./Mexico border.

It is a simple fact that the people who get most worked up over immigration always go out of their way to present the mere existence of these non-citizens in the United States as a criminal act in and of itself.

IT IS THESE people who push for what they consider more just enforcement of immigration laws – with an emphasis put on increased deportations, rather than assimilation of people who are making a worthwhile contribution to our society.

And that focus of federal law enforcement in recent years is being reflected in the statistics related to people charged with federal offenses.

It turns out that about two of every five adults convicted of a federal crime in this country are Latino, unlike the roughly one in seven adults of the general population whose ethnic origin lies in a Latin American country.

That 40 percent share of people sentenced for a federal crime being Latino is way up from 1991, when the figure was 24 percent.

IN ANOTHER RELATED manner, only 7 percent of all people sentenced for a federal crime in 1991 were for immigration-related offenses, compared to 24 percent for immigration “crimes” in 2007.

And for those who wonder how significant this is for Latinos, they accounted for 80 percent of all people convicted of an immigration offense in ’07.

These figures came from the United States Sentencing Commission, based on an analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center.

They would indicate that the desire to treat immigration as a potentially criminal act can cause an inflated tally when it comes to federal crimes committed in this country. And it also distorts the number of Latinos who get caught up in the crime statistics.

WHICH IS SOMETHING that I’m sure does not bother the nativist element at all, since it fits into their theory of life that the growing Latino segment of the population somehow represents a threat to the way they perceive what the United States is about.

It is, if one considers that their view is a bit twisted when it comes to fairness and the willingness to let all types of people have a chance at having a spot at achieving the “good life’ that the United States supposedly offers people a chance to have.

Treating immigration reform in its proper context and trying to come up with equitable immigration processes, rather than trying to boost the deportation statistics, would give people a more honest picture of what our society is like these days.

In fact, there was one aspect to the Pew Hispanic Center study that caught my attention, when it comes to how severe a “crime” people ought to regard violations of immigration law.

ACCORDING TO THE study, Latinos were more likely than any other ethnic or racial group to be sentenced to prison for a conviction of violating a federal law.

But Latinos were “also more likely” than any other group to receive the shortest prison terms.

Could it be that the “crimes” for which our ethnic brethren are being convicted in the U.S. District courts across this country are for offenses that truly are not criminal?

Could it turn out someday that people will regard these immigration law violations the same way we now look at someone who some 80 years ago was found guilty of violating the Volstead Act?

OUR NATION EVENTUALLY came to its senses with regards to prohibition of alcoholic beverages. Otherwise, every single professional sporting event conducted in this country would create thousands of criminals amongst the fans in the stands.

I’d like to think we eventually (sooner, better than later) will realize that the current immigration policies that treat impoverished people trying to upgrade their lots in life as criminals are equally absurd.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: About 72 percent of all Latinos sentenced for a violation of federal law (http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=104) are not U.S. citizens. If immigration offenses were not offenses, the Latino portion of federal offenders (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/us/19immig.html?em) would be more in line with their share of the overall population.

Texas town to ponder Latino politicos

Normally, the biggest battles that take place in Irving, Texas are the ones staged during autumn weekends by the Dallas Cowboys (their stadium is in the Dallas suburb).

But now, there’s a fight taking place in the federal courtrooms over how Irving government ought to be structured. This fight could have significant outcomes for those people who want to see increased political empowerment for the growing Latino population.

IRVING, LIKE MANY other southwest towns in places that were once part of Mexico (and before that, the Spanish colonies in the Americas), is developing a large Latino population – one that threatens to become a majority. In the case of this town, it is in excess of 40 percent.

Yet the current municipal government in Irving consists of an Anglo mayor and eight Anglo council members.

That has led to the lawsuit in U.S. District Court that seeks to force officials to split Irving into a town with eight distinct districts – each of which would pick their own representative. Currently, everybody in town gets to pick eight representatives to cover their interests in the local council.

The end result is that a slight white majority is able to dominate and get all eight slots.

THOSE ACTIVISTS LEADING the lawsuit that went on trial this week and could be wrapped up by Thursday think that if distinct districts were drawn, it would be inevitable that the parts of town that are definitely Latino majority would pick someone sympathetic to their interests – if not one of their own – to fill those political posts come Election Day.

Now I can understand that some people are going to resist change just because the current set-up is the way things have always been done in Irving. There are those smaller municipalities that usually believe that distinct districts or wards are unwieldy because their numbers are not large enough to sustain them.

While those people usually are correct, I can’t help but wonder when I hear it reported that some of the people opposed to the change claim it would be a mistake to think that there would result Latino political empowerment from such a change – on the grounds that many Latinos can’t vote because they’re not citizens.

If that were truly the case, then why shouldn’t these people allow for the change. If their logic is correct, they have nothing to lose. And when it turns out that they’re wrong, then we can see true change come about when Latinos start to take control. After all, political influence is only going to come for our growing numbers when we use government – instead of trying to ignore it and pretend it doesn’t exist.

-30-

Partisan is as partisan does, when it comes to the Census

An interesting outbreak of partisan politics will occur when President Barack Obama tries for the third time to pick a secretary for the Department of Commerce.

That person is going to get undue amounts of scrutiny because of the fact that Obama has already gone through two secretary-designates for the post, and because Latino activists will be watching the pick closely – looking for an excuse to scream to the high heavens if they perceive the pick as flawed.

WHAT MAKES THE Commerce Department so special?

It is that whoever Obama picks to head that agency will include among his/her duties oversight of the U.S. Census Bureau – which next year is scheduled to do its once-a-decade count of how many people live within the United States.

Latino activists are determined to ensure that an accurate count is done so as to confirm the circumstantial evidence that indicates the numbers of people who live in this country with ethnic origins in a Latin American country is on the rise.

That is why Latinos were content to learn that Bill Richardson, the Irish/Mexican-American governor of New Mexico who was Obama’s original choice for the cabinet post, would get it.

WHEN RICHARDSON WAS forced to step back so as to focus his attention on dealing with a controversy concerning his behavior in New Mexico state government and Obama responded by playing “Mr. Bi-Partisan” with the post by giving it to Rep. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., that was when Latino activists decided to play politics and make the demand that control of the Census be shifted elsewhere.

In a gesture meant to appease the community of political activists whose focus is the growing Latino community, it was decided to shift control of the Census from the Commerce secretary to the White House chief of staff.

That means putting “Rahm-bo,” Rahm Emanuel, a hard-nosed partisan politico for the Democrats, in charge.

To listen to the Republican-leaning pundits on the McLaughlin Group television program this past weekend, you would think that such an action by Obama was the equivalent of the worst of Richard Nixon’s behavior in the White House.

THE FEISTY RHETORIC implied that Obama was playing politics so as to ensure a permanent Democratic majority by “cooking the books,” so to speak, when it comes to the count in Latino-influenced neighborhoods.

After all, would the people of this country really have been better off having the 2010 Census in the hands of a man who once thought that the entire Commerce Department ought to be abolished?

For that matter, should control of the Census really have been given to a person whose partisan sentiments were such that he ultimately withdrew his own nomination to the cabinet post on the grounds that he did not fully agree with the aims of an Obama Administration?

The simple fact is that regardless of who is in charge of supervising the people who do the count, there is going to be the potential for people to make claims that the count is flawed.

SO WHAT WILL happen when Obama names yet another person for Senate confirmation as Commerce secretary?

Will Obama go out of his way to pick a hard-nosed partisan whose views could not be questioned by Latino activists, so that he could then restore control of the 2010 Census to the Commerce Department?

If he did that, he could claim to be trying to satisfy the concerns of the conservatives who always get worked up over the Census count – because they’d just as soon not have to acknowledge the existence of certain peoples who historically are difficult to count without actually sending Census Bureau enumerators on foot into the neighborhoods to go door to door.

But then they’d complain that Obama was not being bi-partisan enough because they would hate his Commerce Department pick.

OR WILL OBAMA try to pick a Judd Gregg clone, but keep the Census control within the West Wing?

No matter what he does, the conservatives are going to find flaws, and they will be vocal in their opposition.

But that is just the nature of electoral politics.

Personally, I’d just as soon see control of the Census remain within the Commerce Department. After all, it does set a dangerous precedent for future presidents to fool around with specific government programs and try to align them into agencies for partisan reasons – rather than where they would naturally fit.

WHAT IT MEANS is that the pick for head of the Commerce Department has some significance.

While I don’t expect a Latino to get the post (making it likely that there will only be two Latinos in the Obama cabinet – Ken Salazar at Interior and Hilda Solis at Labor), whoever does get it had better be someone with some sensitivity to the nature of the modern-day Latino community in this country.

After all, whoever gets to be Commerce secretary is going to have a lot of Latino eyes watching their every move for the next two years. We’re waiting to see a Census Bureau count that shows our true strength these days (a rough guess is that the Latino population accounts these days for about 15 percent of the U.S. total).

If we perceive anything that seems like an effort to restrict the count or hold the numbers down, there will be some true partisan screaming – loud enough to make those goofs on the McLaughlin Group sound like a batch of schoolgirls holding a “pretend tea” party.

-30-

Is this what George Bush (the younger) hopes for?

It was with great humor that I read a recent Associated Press dispatch about how the people of Paraguay think that Rutherford B. Hayes qualifies only behind Abraham Lincoln in the ranks of great U.S. presidents.

Hayes has a city, a province and a museum in Paraguay named after him. There’s also a professional soccer team that calls itself “Los Yanquis” because of their reverence for the man who was U.S. president from 1877-81.

HE GETS A postage stamp depicting his image, and there was once a program on Paraguayan television that awarded as its prize (seriously) an all-expenses paid trip to Fremont, Ohio, the town that hosts the Hayes Presidential Center.

So what is it about hayes that makes the people of Paraguay think he’s so wonderful (http://www.nydailynews.com/latino/2009/02/14/2009-02-14_paraguay_celebrates_usas_president_hayes.html), when probably 99 percent of the population of this country wouldn’t have a clue about his identity if they heard his name?

He was the president in 1878 when the U.S. government mediated a border dispute between Paraguay and Argentina.

Hayes signed the federal order that ultimately decided the dispute in Paraguay’s favor – which is why the people of Argentina don’t get all worked up over Hayes and think of him the same way they think of someone like, say, Eva Peron.

I CAN UNDERSTAND the idea of liking a decision that gives your country a chunk of land that accounts for about 60 percent of your total boundaries. But this still seems like overkill to be celebrating the man’s memory over a century later.

Perhaps I’m just used to the U.S. mindset, where some people have trouble remembering far enough back as to who was president before Bill Clinton. These are the people who, if you mention the name “George Bush,” will say, you’re wrong, that was the guy who came after Clinton.

One last thought as the people of Paraguay wonder about us why President’s Day isn’t just Hayes Day.

Perhaps this is what Bush the younger had in mind with his administration’s strong desire to have a war in the Middle East – some obscure Iraqi outpost where a century from now, the local residents will ponder the meaning of “strategery.”

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: This is how the White House remembers the “legacy” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/RutherfordBHayes/) of Rutherford B. Hayes, and how his admirers (http://www.rbhayes.org/hayes/) choose to pay tribute to him.

New Jersey leads on non-citizen drivers

For all the jokes people like to tell about the “Garden State,” New Jersey may actually be onto a sensible idea when it comes to the concept of non-U.S. citizens being able to drive an automobile.

Of course, they are physically capable of operating motor vehicles. What’s at stake is whether or not they ought to be denied legally the ability to drive a car to work, or anywhere else.

THE NATIVIST ELEMENT that exists in our country will argue that, of course they should be denied. These are the same people who dream of the day that we can have mass deportations so that everyone who isn’t exactly like themselves can be removed.

What a deadly dull nation this would become if that ever happened.

It is a battle that is taking place in many state Legislatures as to what driving privileges, if any, should be given to people who are not U.S. citizens.

They may be physically living in the state, but some people think that granting a driver’s license somehow convenes recognition that should otherwise be denied. Others think that granting a license merely recognizes reality – they’re here, they’re not going anywhere, and they need to be able to transport themselves to and from work.

SO HOW IS New Jersey handling this different than the partisan battles taking place in other states.

Jersey is considering creating a special class of driver’s license for people who cannot answer “yes” to the question on the license application, “Are You A U.S. Citizen?”

The “driving privilege card” would be granted to anyone who could pass the driving test, even if it turns out they don’t have the visa or other documents that would allow them to live openly in the U.S. without looking over their shoulder for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency officials.

State officials estimate that as many as 350,000 people live in New Jersey, even though they have neither U.S. citizenship nor a valid visa.

TO AN URBAN resident of a metropolitan area of just over 8 million people, that figure might seem gnat-like. But it is a significant number of people. There are some cities in this country that think of themselves as significant entities that don’t have that many residents.

And to think that all of those people are going to refuse to get behind the steering wheel of an automobile just because some xenophobe wants government policies to reflect his paranoid view of society is absurd.

When it comes to the idea of granting driver’s licenses to the undocumented, I have always been of the belief that it is a good idea – primarily because it would entail having these people come out in the open, give their identities and places where they live, and exist in the open.

At the very least, we’d have a better handle on how many people without papers are living in this country (those figures of 12 million nationally and 350,000 in New Jersey alone are little more than educated guesses, they could be off significantly).

ANYTHING THAT ENCOURAGES people to quit thinking they have to use a phony identity or conceal personal information about themselves in order to survive is a positive.

That is what we would get from what would be a special class of driver’s license, which isn’t a radical concept. After all, how many states offer special types of licenses for drivers under 18 or for senior citizens, which are meant to make it clear that the motorist might need special attention or concern.

The “driving privilege card” seems to fit in with that way of thinking about licenses.

It would let people who are operating automobiles do so openly, which is always a plus.

BUT IT WOULD offer concessions to those people who are concerned that it gives legitimacy to the undocumented because the card would lack the identification number and features of a standard driver’s license that is the reason why a “driver’s license” is the accepted mode of identification regardless of where one goes or what business they try to conduct.

So if it truly lets them do little more than drive to and from work, or shopping, or wherever else they go to perform functions that ultimately help bolster the nation’s economy or society, where’s the harm? Other than to the egos of the xenophobes who are determined to fight the most minute of acts out of some perverse belief that they are protecting the basic nature of our nation.

The real solution is for the federal government to take on serious immigration reform. Ultimately, this is an issue that will have to be settled on Capitol Hill, and it will come when people are willing to push the gruff talk of the nativists aside to do something sensible.

Until then, these piecemeal gestures such as what is happening these days in New Jersey will have to suffice.

-30-

Turner tries to make money off Latino images

It would appear that the presence of a Mexican-based holiday in May is the basis of devoting the entire month of Mayo into a study of the images of Latinos as presented in U.S. cinema.

Despite my fear of giving the Turner Classic Movies channel available on cable television a free promotion, I couldn’t help but notice the statement they issued this week touting their programming schedule for May.

THAT IS WHEN they plan to spend several days during the month airing films as old as “Ramona” (1910) and “The Mark of Zorro” (1920), and as new as “My Family” (1995).

There will be films portraying Latino characters who managed to work themselves in positive ways into pop culture (such as 1987’s “La Bamba,” about the short life of rock ‘n’ roller Ritchie Valens) and in negative ways (take 1955’s “Blackboard Jungle,” where a lot of the film’s thugs carry themselves in ways to give people the impression that they’re Latino – or more likely, whatever negative label was in vogue back then).

The Turner Classic Movies channel, which some film buffs denigrate for its willingness to show colorized versions of old films made in black-and white, is trying to portray this heavy showing of Latino images in cinema as a cultural awareness.

They’re planning to include commentary by academics who have done serious study into the issue of Latino portrayals in cinema and pop culture in general. It is intended to give us a greater awareness of the way in which Latino images have changed throughout the past century.

THAT IS ALL nice and good. I may very well tune in on Turner Classic Movies (I believe it’s Channel 502 on my local cable television system’s channel lineup) and watch a few of those films, if I happen to have time.

But let’s be honest about one thing.

The people who run Turner Classic Movies aren’t putting together these Latino film lineups that will run every Tuesday and Thursday night in May (beginning on May 5, which is a Tuesday) out of any real sense of educating the public, or providing some cultural service.

They’re in this to make money.

WHILE THE CHANNEL of old films offers them up without commercial interruptions, there are those breaks in between films, plus all the other ways they will be able to make a profit by putting together quite a collection of Latinos on film – from the days of silent cinema to the past decade.

The channel’s officials may say that in past years, they have done similar displays of African-Americans, Asians and gay people. But that was because they could generate enough interest to make them profitable.

Likewise, this production of old films with Latino images is merely more evidence in support of the argument that we can be, and in fact have become, a significant part of U.S. society.

Our growing population numbers are such that companies with a sense of vision will be able to figure out ways to make money from us. Ultimately, it means that trying to ignore our presence, or pretend that it somehow is alien to the “American” experience, is an “Un-American” concept in and of itself.

I WILL HAVE to admit that looking at the lineup of films to be shown, I noticed one particular night is devoted to films showing Latinos interacting with Anglos. Included is the film “Giant,” which many people remember as a lengthy production that was the last film James Dean appeared in before his death.

But I remember the nearly 3.5-hour-long film for the fact that the son of the character played by Rock Hudson married a local Mexican woman, putting Hudson’s character who shared many of the bigotries common to Texas in a past era of having to defend his grandson from the local bigots.

Pretty heady stuff for what could have been light entertainment.

But when I go through the film lineup, the one production that I likely will try to make a point of seeing (work schedules could conflict) will be the 1992 film “Mambo Kings.”

ADMITTEDLY, IT’S NOT classic cinema. It falls short of Oscar Hijuelos’ Pulitzer Prize winning novel, “The Mambo Kings Play Songs of Love,” about a pair of Cuban immigrant (not exile) brothers who come to the United States to try to make it big as musicians, only to encounter the struggles of any new group trying to get ahead in the United States.

But it still provides an entertaining viewing experience when it comes to the old mambo music, particularly since it starred both Celia Cruz and Tito Puente. With both having departed this life on Earth, it’s one of the few ways these days we can see either perform.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Something to look forward to, for people who can actually plan out their (http://www.hispanicprwire.com/news.php?l=in&id=13566&cha=1) television watching habit months in advance.

Miami-Dade's book refusal is stupid, not censorship

It is all too often that the social conservatives of our society are willing to lambaste the New York Times for being out of touch with the thought process of the rest of the country.

Usually, it is a tactic meant to try to intimidate one of the world’s most significant newspapers from having an independent thought process. But then, I read editorials such as the one published this week that trashed the appellate court based in Atlanta and the Miami-Dade School Board, and I start to wonder.

AT STAKE IS the fact that the appellate court for a good chunk of the southern United States issued a ruling that supported the school district’s attempts to restrict access to schoolchildren of a particular book.

The book in question in called “A Visit to Cuba.” It is part of a series of books that attempt to teach young children (roughly about age 6 or 7) about customs and people and places in countries around the world.

Because it is a children’s book and meant to promote Cuban customs rather than Cubano politics, it doesn’t bother to get into the evils of Communism or Fidel Castro or the Revolution of 1959 or any of the other issues to which the Miami Cubano community is obsessed with.

In short, because it does not push the idea of Cuba as a Caribbean paradise tainted by the most evil human being to ever walk the face of this earth (Fidel himself), the activists of Miami have pressured the school district to not include the book in its school libraries.

THE AMERICAN CIVIL Liberties Union filed a lawsuit to force the school district to include the book in its libraries, and a U.S. District Court judge in Miami was sympathetic.

It was that legal action that caused the appellate court in Atlanta to act. They overturned the ruling of a Miami-based judge to favor the school district.

And that has the New York Times all bent out of shape, editorializing on Wednesday that the Supreme Court of the United States needs to act by overturning the appellate court (which would reinstate the Miami-based federal judge’s ruling).

I don’t know which thought makes me shake my head more – the idea that some editorial writer at the Times is deluded enough to think that the current incarnation of the Supreme Court would ever make such a ruling, or that a library ought to be told what it can (as well as cannot) buy and keep in stock.

I DON’T LIKE the idea of anyone telling a library what it must stock – and that even applies to an instance such as this, where the local school district in Miami is behaving like a batch of half-wits who are kowtowing to the Cubano activists who have trouble accepting any view other than their own.

One of the benefits of the “freedom” that we enjoy in the United States is that it includes the freedom to say something that is stupid, or to do things that are nonsensical.

That is how I honestly view the actions of the Miami schools. They deserve some ridicule for not buying the children’s book (although how one could get anti-communist propaganda into a book for a 5-year-old without turning the copy into unintelligible gibberish is beyond me).

But I don’t want any outside authority telling a library what to buy. Because then the next step is having outside authorities having the library staffers tell children what they must read.

CONSIDERING HOW LITTLE many young people these days read anything printed on paper (my nephew and niece are in the age bracket for which this book is intended, and they will read things on a computer screen that they would ignore on the printed page), I can’t help but think such a tactic will merely discourage them from paying attention to the material altogether.

Would it even come down to some day having people tell me which books I “must” buy, in addition to which ones I cannot?

Censorship is not a simple, black-and-white issue. It has many facets.

In fact, it reminds me of the people who want and rage to me and other reporter types about news organizations that “censor” the news by not publishing their particular take on what they want to believe is significant about the happenings of the world.

TRYING TO TELL me what I must publish on this site would be an attempt at trying to censor me, just as much as I wouldn’t go tell someone else what they must publish or read, even if the things they write and read are insipid.

So I don’t want anyone telling the library for the public schools in Miami what they must stock for schoolchildren, any more than I would want anyone telling me I’m not allowed to mock the Miami schools for giving in to a batch of close-minded people on this particular issue.

Because that, ultimately, is “The American Way,” when it comes to freedom of speech.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: The idea of a children’s book about Cuba containing “inaccuracies and omissions” is laughable because just about all books written for young children about (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/opinion/11wed3.html?th&emc=th) public affairs are written in overly simplistic prose that eliminates much truth and nuance.

NOTICIAS de LATINO: Partisan political battle will focus on Census

How important is the Census to the Latino population? It turns out that one of what could be the upcoming year’s most intense politically partisan debates could focus on the Census and the way it tries to count how many Latinos live in the United States.

As one of his actions in his first weeks in office, President Barack Obama approved an order that took ultimate control of the Census to be conducted in 2010 from the Commerce Department (of which it is a part) and put it in the hands of the White House.

THE CENSUS BUREAU officials now have to answer to senior White House staffers, rather than to the Commerce Secretary.

The problem is that when Bill Richardson lost out on his chance at a cabinet post (he was supposed to be Commerce Secretary), he was replaced by Judd Gregg – who is one of three Republicans to get appointments to Cabinet-level posts in the Obama Administration.

The nativists of our society (many of whom tend to be backers of the Republican Party, which they fear doesn’t go far enough when it comes to immigration issues) see this as taking away control of the Census from someone who could be their ally.

But Latino activists who desired the change in oversight of the Census Bureau see problems with Gregg, who during his time as a member of Congress from New Hampshire was among the backers of immigration reform measures that were perceived as punitive to the interests of the growing Latino population.

SO THE CONSERVATIVES perceive partisan politics being played with the overall control of the Census Bureau being shifted to the Obama administration. But Latinos perceive that partisan politics would have been played had it been left in the hands of Gregg at Commerce.

This becomes a case of the one who gets to control the count getting to influence the process – and the accuracy to which a Census will be conducted next year. The way one perceives this particular issue ties into how they perceive the growing Latino (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/battle-over-the.html) population as a whole.

Those who fear such growth would want measures that would understate (http://www.rightsidenews.com/200902093621/homeland-security/obama-administration-transfers-census-bureau-oversite-under-latino-pressure.html) it, perhaps on the theory that if the numbers don’t reflect the huge growth, then it could be argued that it isn’t really happening. Since the Census Bureau figures will determine how government and its services are apportioned during the upcoming decade, we would wind up getting less than our numbers would indicate is appropriate.

What other issues are worthy of our attention these days?

CAN SHE PLEASE ANYBODY?: Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., just can’t seem to please anybody these days. She has Latino activists upset that her conservative views on social issues are too hostile toward their interests, and her statements of the past week that try to moderate her past political acts don’t seem to be solid enough to gain her much support.

But they are solid enough to cost her support – from the people of the upstate New York congressional district near the state capital in Albany that originally sent Gillibrand to Washington.

The New York Times reported this week about how people who live in the New York 20th Congressional District are upset that she’s now moderating her talk about issues including immigration, where she now says she’s willing to consider measures that would allow people already in this country to remain. Previously, she was one of the few Democratic supporters of the punitive measures touted by a then-Republican majority in Congress.

They see Gillibrand as selling out their views on issues. But those who are willing to (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/nyregion/09district.html?scp=1&sq=To%20some%20in%20Gillibrand's%20old%20district,%20her%20evolution%20is%20a%20betrayal&st=cse) keep considering her tout one area where she hasn’t moderated her thought process at all – she’s still a backer of the National Rifle Association, although she says she would support measures against gun trafficking.

ARE POLICE SINGLING OUT LATINOS?: To listen to Latino activists, the police department in San Francisco is singling out the population with ethnic origins in Latin America in their attempt to reduce crime.

A city council committee this week heard from dozens of people who claim they have been stopped by police for minor motor vehicle infractions (or none at all), and eventually had their cars impounded.

Police are using policies put into place to try to reduce the number of vehicles that could be in place for drive-by shootings and other illegal acts. They admit to stepping up their efforts in neighborhoods with higher crime rates, but claim that ethnic trends to such incidents are coincidental.

Activists in the California city claim that such acts are causing greater tensions between the Latino population (http://www.kcbs.com/Allegations-of-SFPD-Profiling-of-Latinos/3818704) and the police department.

-30-

Where is he (or she)?

When you think about it rationally, it is a totally logical statement to make that the first Latino who will be president of the United States is already alive.

Not that I’m looking to any of the political knuckleheads who are part of the scene on Capitol Hill, or even at various Statehouses throughout the southwestern U.S..

IF I HAVE to make an educated guess, I would be inclined to say that the first Latino president is most likely just beginning his collegiate studies. Or perhaps he (or she) is a high school senior who will be entering college come September.

At an age of the late teens now, that person would be in line to run seriously for president in about three decades – which means that if I can manage to live a full lifespan, I ought to be able to see a Latino in the White House other than a bus boy before I die.

(And yes, I know the old joke by comedian George Lopez, who says that when a Latino lives in the White House, it will still be white – only with blue trim).

I can’t help but think that what seems to be the ridiculously slow evolutionary process of public thought and perception is going to want to see a “first woman” elected as president, and may very well get a “first Jewish president” before we get to the Latinos.

OF COURSE, THAT could mean we are more likely to see one of our own achieve the status of Leader of the Free World before we get an Arab or a Muslim of any ethnic background as president.

And sadly enough, the idea of openly gay political people being in charge at the White House will likely be a long-overdue concept by the time it becomes reality (even though any serious observer of government knows there already are public officials who don’t bother hiding their sexual orientation, and it doesn’t seriously impact their ability to do the job).

What inspired this thought on my part was learning about former government official Henry Cisneros, who recently made a comment to the EFE news service (based in Spain, it is the largest Spanish-language wire service in the world) about the political future of Latinos.

Cisneros is more willing than I to look at the existing ranks of Latino political people. He thinks there is a chance that one of them could make the rise.

AS CISNEROS TOLD the wire service, “I don’t know if he or she’s in elementary school or in law school, or is already elected to public office, but I believe that the person is already alive and we’re 20 years or less away from having a Latino or Latina president.”

I think it’s likely to be on the younger end of the age range that he gives (although I’d hate to think the first Latino to become president is a mere kindergartener these days – perhaps I should pay closer attention to my 5-year-old niece’s school friends).

Like I wrote earlier, I think there are a couple other “groups” that are going to achieve their “first” before the Latinos do. And it also wouldn’t shock me if we were to see some sort of political backlash in future decades, during which Anglos unite to give us a “white male” president to prevent this country from going too far in a direction to which some would detest.

But ultimately, the numbers will prevent that faction of the U.S. population from achieving lasting success. Who knows? Perhaps the first Latino “president” will be the next generation’s George Bush. Let’s not forget that “P” has a Mexican-American mother, in addition to a grand-father and uncle who were president of the United States.

THE FACT IS that we, the Latino population of this country, are likely to be somewhere between one quarter and one third of the total U.S. population by the year 2050.

We’re already one sixth of the nation’s population, which makes us one of the largest collections of ethnic groups in existence in this country.

Now I can believe that some people out there are shaking their heads in dismay (or shaking their fists in disgust) after reading this commentary, thinking I am ridiculously out of touch with our society as it exists today.

Perhaps they view their segment of the country, and just envision the Latino populace as somehow being too foreign to ever fit in – and too outnumbered by people hostile to it to ever be able to put up significant numbers of votes. But if that is truly what you want to believe is true, I would have to ask you to consider this fact.

BACK IN THE early-to-mid-1960s when the Civil Rights movement was at its peak and the racial tensions of this country were stoked to a hostile level and riots burst out in some cities, a majority of the country would have thought it ridiculous had someone come along and made the statement that the first “black” president (be honest, nobody back in the 1960s would have said “African-American”) was already born.

Yet back in the days when fire hoses and police dogs were unleashed on civil rights protesters in order to “maintain the order,” Barack Obama was already born. He was 7 when the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was shot on that day in April 1968 in Memphis.

So perhaps the first Latino to be president was about 14 or 15 when a then-Republican Congress pushed for harsh immigration reform proposals meant to emphasize deportation, rather than assimilation.

If that’s the case, then those GOP people may have done their party some long-term harm, rather than just persuading many Latinos not to vote for John McCain.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Henry Cisneros probably wishes he could have been born a couple (http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/politics/2009/1/26/cisneros_first_hispanic_us_president_has.htm) of generations later.

What’s the point of a wall that’s not a wall?

These Border Patrol agents on horseback provide a more imposing figure than will portions of "the Wall" to be built between Brownsville and Matamoros. Photograph provided by U.S. Border Patrol.

I got my weekend chuckle from the Brownsville Herald newspaper.

That publication in the South Texas city along the U.S./Mexico border had a story noting the observations of local officials who said they are surprised at the physical form in which “the Wall” is taking.

THAT “WALL,” OF course, refers to the Bush-era project of erecting a physical barricade along the U.S./Mexico border, supposedly to enhance the national security of our country.

In theory (at least if you want to believe the dittoheads, Birchers and other nitwits of our nation), those Arab terrorists are posing as Mexicans and slipping across the border. So building a wall allegedly would keep the harmful elements out, while also making it clear to other “foreigners” that they’re not particularly welcome in this country.

The latter goal is being achieved. Erecting such a ridiculous barricade puts up a physical image that goes so counter to everything the United States is supposed to be about.

But it turns out that “the Wall,” or at least the portions around Brownsville, hardly creates an imposing image of a country cut off from the rest of the world.

ACCORDING TO THE Herald newspaper, one local judge said “the Wall” looks more like a fence. Bollard fences and picket fences are literally being used for some portions of the border-marking structure.

For those who are unclear, we’re talking about parts of the border being marked with concrete slabs or poles. They might very well stop someone from trying to drive a vehicle through them. But it would be very possible to walk up to the border, slip through the poles or step around the slabs, and thereby enter yet another country.

Now some people are going to use this fact as evidence that all those people who complained about construction of “the Wall” ought to shut up. After all, parts of the structure will not resemble the communist-era structure that kept the Soviet Union’s portion of Berlin separate from the rest of the world.

We’re not talking about concrete walls or electrified fences or razor-sharp wire erected along the dividing line between the two countries.

YET TO THE people who opposed the idea of the federal government spending millions of dollars to erect a barricade (even if it doesn’t cover the entire 1,900 miles of border between the two countries), it was never about the physical form.

It is the idea that marking the dividing line with anything other than Mother Nature’s attributes of the Rio Bravo del Norte/Rio Grande and uncross-able desert is in and of itself absurd.

The idea of putting up concrete poles (spaced a few inches apart and ranging as high as 18 feet) just creates something ridiculous, enhancing the overly politicized image of the Southwest as two distinct regions – when anyone who views it realistically knows that those southwestern U.S. states and the five northernmost states of Mexico are an area with people who share a common history (unless you are nativist enough to believe that nothing in the region matters if it occurred before 1848).

All I can envision becoming of the portions of “the Wall” that are nothing more than concrete poles is that they become a place where people will line up to take silly photographs, perhaps doing things that mock the idea that any political person ever thought “the Wall” was worthy of wasting taxpayer dollars to build.

I’M ALSO WONDERING how long until the physical structures get tagged with graffiti, which literally would make them just like the Berlin Wall.

Are we literally spending federal funds to erect 700 miles worth of barricades whose primary purpose will be to become a physical canvass for taggers and other artists, using “the Wall” to paint/draw/spray/write their messages of just how absurd U.S. policy toward immigration and Latin America in general has become?

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: The U.S./Mexico “Wall” may well turn out to be in portions nothing (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/fence_94566___article.html/city_cascos.html) more than a collection of concrete poles.

Who can say how stimulus would impact immigration

Are the members of Congress threatening to bolster, or reduce, the number of non-citizens in the United States by approving a stimulus package? Photograph provided by Architect of the Capitol.

For the past couple of weeks, I have heard from the social conservatives with a nativist streak in them about how the stimulus package desired by President Barack Obama to jolt the U.S. economy is going to lead to a flood of people trying to sneak across the borders into the United States – visa be damned.

By their logic, federal dollars will wind up going to programs that do little more than give government benefits to these “foreigners,” which means many more people will want to get into the United States to “collect their share.”

THAT IS WHY I found it conflicting to read a statement issued Friday in support of the stimulus package – on the grounds that NOT passing the plan will result in a flood of people trying to sneak into the United States without a visa.

Either somebody here is lying, or someone is so ignorant that they don’t deserve to be listened to.

A New York-based agency, Freydell+Torres Diversity, released its statement in support of the stimulus package, which is designed to provide additional federal funding to various program on the theory that the money will support projects that create more jobs for the public.

It’s not quite the WPA of the FDR era that helped get the nation out of the great Depression of the 1930s, but it’s something. I know from firsthand experience that many local governments already are making plans for improvement projects and repairs based on the idea that some sort of stimulus package will be approved by Congress.

DOING NOTHING WOULD create a lot of resentment among those local officials for the Republican members of Congress who appear to be the biggest critics of stimulus.

But to listen to the agency, doing nothing would also increase the number of people trying to get in the country.

As they see it, a struggling U.S. economy will spread to economic troubles in other countries. Latin America’s proximity to the United States makes it likely to bear the brunt of such troubles.

Increased unemployment and poverty in the rest of the Americas will make people there all the more eager to leave their homelands.

AND IF SOMEONE from the Dominican Republic decides to leave, there’s an excellent chance that his country of destination is not going to be Canada.

“This… would boomerang as an immigration tsunami,” were told by Humberto Freydell and Carlos Torres, in their prepared statement. “Stalling the process while awaiting an ideal plan will have devastating effects on the Hispanic and other diversity communities in this country.”

That line of logic just goes counter to the conservative rhetoric we’ve been hearing.

Take the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that likes to release reports that claim a foreign horde is threatening to take over this country.

THEY CONTEND THAT the stimulus package would create many millions of new jobs across the country, and that it would be people without visas already in this country who would wind up getting a significant share of them.

They have offered up “scare statistics” of 300,000 “illegal aliens” getting jobs because of the stimulus package, and 1 of every 7 new jobs in construction going to someone who is not a U.S. citizen.

Basically, the stimulus package has been caught up in partisan politics, despite President Obama’s naïve attempts to gain bi-partisan support in Congress. There are Republican members of Congress (and even a few Democrats) who owe their political livelihoods to people who are determined to oppose an Obama administration.

So even though it is blatantly apparent that something drastic needs to be done to jolt the U.S. economy back into something resembling fiscal health, there will be people who would prefer to do nothing. Perhaps they think the lack of action would be blamed on Obama – instead of on the people who would rather do nothing.

WHILE THE STATEMENT issued by an advertising agency that works on behalf of public policy causes (some of which are related to Latinos) sounds a bit simplistic, it is a reality that negative conditions in the United States have a knack for spreading to the rest of the world.

And we have a situation where the United States is going to be a beacon for those struggling elsewhere in the world. It sounds more realistic than the talk spewed by those who want to believe those foreigners are looking to leech off any economic benefits created in this country.

If anything, their rhetoric sounds too much like a rehearsal – they’re getting themselves ready for the moment in coming years when desperately needed reforms in federal immigration laws are considered.

Kill the stimulus now, and they will be rehearsed and ready for when the immigration reform debate comes up two or so years from now.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: The stimulus package pending before the U.S. Senate is needed to avert (http://www.hispanicprwire.com/news.php?l=in&id=13536&cha=14) significant numbers of non-citizens coming to the United States for work.

Or, if you’d rather believe the conservatives, the stimulus is going to create the incentive for non-citizens (http://cis.org/SenateStimulus) to come to the United States for work.

Is the stimulus bill just immigration reform (http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/26/the-stimulus-bill-is-the-immigration-bill-all-over-again/) packaged a little differently?

Are the police taking Latinos more seriously?

In the “bad” old days, two police departments in the metropolitan area around Salt Lake City would have just written off their public statements about a pair slayings that occurred on the same date two years apart by saying they were looking for a suspect who was Latino.

But police in the towns of Taylorsville and West Valley City recently made a plea specifically to residents of neighborhoods in those Utah towns where a significant Spanish-speaking enclave has developed.

POLICE IN THOSE two towns, who believe their individual crimes are related, want Latinos to help them find a suspect whom they believe to be a person with ethnic origins to a Latin American country.

We’ve gone from being the criminal to being a part of the solution.

It might not sound like much, but when it comes to law enforcement relations with non-Anglo communities, such an appeal is definitely one of many baby steps that will have to be taken to improve the status of our society as a whole.

Specifically, police in those two towns are investigating the deaths of Sonia Mejia, who was pregnant, in her Taylorsville apartment in 2006, and the 2008 death of Damiana Castillo in West Valley City.

DESPITE BEING IN different municipalities, the two apartments are only one mile apart. Both women were strangled, and both were found dead on Feb. 9 of the year of their death.

While police won’t say what the exact bit of evidence is, they admit that all those forensic techniques that television shows like “CSI: Whatever” like to highlight have produced evidence indicating that the two slayings are connected.

The Salt Lake Tribune newspaper reported that while police in each town knew of the other slaying, the scientific connection was only discovered about two weeks ago.

Now, police are trying to figure out if there are other unsolved crimes that can be connected to these two. And they are looking into the possibility that they aren’t just in Utah.

AS WEST VALLEY City police Chief “Buzz” Nielsen told reporter-types, “Atlanta, New York, anywhere.”

So for the record, police in those Utah towns are looking for a man who could be in his early 20s, possibly Latino, with short black hair, about 5-feet, 4-inches tall and weighing about 140 pounds.

Basically, a small wiry guy who might otherwise appear nondescript.

In the old days, police would have said they were looking for a Latino, and we suddenly would have had a batch of dark-complexioned guys who weigh about 250 pounds each being dragged in just because somebody thought that all Latinos look suspicious.

BUT BY IMPLYING that Latinos ought to be helping to find this man who possibly has killed two Latinas, it becomes a matter of looking out for our own public safety, as well as that of the public at large.

“We believe there are people who have knowledge that can solve these cases,” Taylorsville police Chief Del Craig told the Salt Lake City newspaper. “We do not want anyone to be afraid to come forward.”

That is the reality of the situation.

There are too many Latinos who are suspicious of law enforcement because of some form of harassment. It doesn’t even have to be in this country.

IN THE CASE of immigrants from Latin America, they could have memories of police officers who were out to protect the wealthy or the powerful (which oftentimes can include the criminals themselves).

The reality is that law enforcement has just as much a responsibility to show it is sympathetic to, and protective of, the interests of the public. If it wants respect, it must earn it. Respect for someone is not something that can be forced.

There are many police departments that could learn a lesson or two from these Utah law enforcement agencies when it comes to dealing with law enforcement.

I even took it as a positive that the police departments made sure to include officials with the local chapters of National Council of La Raza, a Latino activist group that many social conservatives like to demonize as somehow being “un-American.” These police departments showed a willingness to speak with Latinos, not talk down to them.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: The deaths of two Latinas (http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_11635903) from Utah remain under investigation.

Utah has a small, but growing, Latino presence in its population. While these figures (http://ethnicoffice.utah.gov/about_us/documents/dem.hispanic.latino.pdf) from 2003 are not bad, the 2010 study by the Census Bureau is likely to show greater detail.

How much “praise” does Obama deserve?

In the wake of his self-described “screw up” with regards to picking Tom Daschle as secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services, perhaps it is trivial to consider whether President Barack Obama was successful in terms of getting Latinos into his cabinet.

One magazine recently published a piece praising Obama for his attempt to have three (http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/2009/2/4/obama_sets_a_record_with_his.htm) Latinos among his administration’s top advisers.

OF COURSE, THOSE of us who were paying attention and who have memories longer than Sunday’s last-minute Super Bowl loss by the Arizona Cardinals know there are only two Latino Cabinet members.

Bill Richardson ranks up there with Daschle in terms of high-profile officials who could not stand up to scrutiny from politically partisan opponents – although in Richardson’s case, there is always the chance that history will clear him of the appearance that anything improper was done in terms of the awarding of New Mexico government contracts to financial contributors of Richardson’s past political campaigns.

In terms of putting the Latino face on the Obama administration’s top levels, there are Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar – the same total achieved by the presidencies of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

Perhaps Obama will manage to slip more Latinos into positions of power and influence in future years. Perhaps there will be a Cabinet resignation that will result in another Latino joining the ranks of the Obama Administration.

BUT WHEN I look at the Department of Commerce, I see a secretary-designate that appears to be a sop to the Republicans. Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. is in line for the post.

He definitely is not Latino. In fact, he gets to replace a Latino, since former Secretary Carlos Gutierrez was one of Bush’s two Latino cabinet members.

Now I’m not necessarily trying to bash Obama. Perhaps it is appropriate to take the attitude that “he tried.” But it is also correct to take the attitude that “he failed” when it comes to Latino empowerment in the Cabinet.

Trying to find a plus in his failure to get Richardson through the confirmation process and into a position of authority is just too much of a stretch. We ought to study his actual accomplishments, rather than his attempted achievements.

ABOUT THE ONLY group of people on Planet Earth who engage in such logic are fans of the Chicago Cubs baseball team.

You know, the group that thinks their favorite team is some sort of elite franchise BECAUSE they always fail to win.

-30-