How knowledgable are we about immigration issue?

President Barack Obama is going around making statements this week saying he’s now not sure anything can be accomplished during 2010 on the issue of immigration reform, while Rep. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., is claiming that just because he pulled his support from talks on the issue (thereby killing any chance of true bipartisan cooperation) doesn’t mean he should get the blame for the issue’s failure to advance.

Meanwhile, many other political people are stumbling about trying to figure out how they can avoid doing anything meaningful on the issue, while appearing not to be obstructionist in their actions.

IN SHORT, THERE is going to be a lot of material for the activists to be upset about when they hold their protest marches and rallies on Saturday, and countless priests and other clergy conduct prayer vigils and special services on Sunday will be able to vent their rage.

And as for the masses in our society? They’re confused what to think.

If there is one positive element to the activity in the past week in Arizona, it is that the ugliness of the opposition mentality to legitimate immigration reform has been exposed. Only the biggest lunkhead could ignore it.

Yet I’m wondering if some people are determined to do just that.

THE GALLUP ORGANIZATION came out with a new poll on Thursday – one conducted this week that the backers of Arizona’s absurd actions will claim to be sympathetic to their warped views.

One way of reading the poll is that 51 percent of the people surveyed favor what Arizona did, while 39 percent oppose it. The part that scares me? Another 11 percent have “no opinion” on the issue.

Of course, the reason I imply that such results are skewed is that they are the figures for people who claim to have heard a great deal of information about what happened in Arizona (Gallup admits it did not try to figure out if these people correctly comprehend the bill).

Overall among all people surveyed, 39 percent favor it, with 30 percent opposing it and another 31 percent having “no opinion” or not having heard anything about the issue.

ONE CAN ARGUE that with only 39 percent of all people surveyed and such a large “no opinion,” there is significant room for opinion to be swayed as the realities of this new law set to take effect some time in September become known.

But what scares me is the fact that of people who like to think they understand the issue, 11 percent had “no opinion.” That just strikes me as a significant chunk of the population (about one of every nine people) going out of their way to remain clueless.

Big surprise here. This issue is coming down along political partisan lines. Most Democrats are inclined to think Arizona screwed up, while most Republicans want to believe that Arizona did good last week when Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law the measure that requires local police to take stronger actions to enforce federal immigration laws.

Gallup throws the implication into its study that people considering a legal challenge to Arizona might want to reconsider on the grounds that they might not have strong public support. Then again, the law is supposed to be above public opinion. There are times when it is supposed to defend things that some segments of our society desperately wish to do away with.

IN SOME CASES, there are people who would view the growing Latino population of our nation as something falling into that category.

Which is why many Latinos are going to take up this issue – regardless of whether or not we or our families have already attained U.S. citizenship.

The Pew Hispanic Center released its own study Thursday, one meant to view data compiled for its own recent polls within the framework of what happened in Arizona.

U.S. residents as a whole see Latinos as the most-discriminated ethnic or racial group in this country, compared to almost a decade earlier when African-American people were the ones that fell into that category.

FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT of Latinos think that either they, or someone they know, will face deportatino, while 9 percent of Latinos say that they have been questioned about their immigration status.

Then, there is the statistic that catches my eye – 81 percent of Latinos think that local police have no business getting involved with immigration law enforcement, compared to 49 percent of the population as a whole.

My own belief about the Arizona political actions is based largely on the fact that I fully comprehend how offended local government types everywhere get when they think the federal government is meddling in their local affairs.

No one can seriously say that national citizenship and its implications on foreign policy is something that a state or local official is in any way qualified to address.

IT MAKES ME wonder if Latinos have a better understanding than the population at-large of the divisions between our differing types of government and the importance of maintaining those divisions, and if part of the solution to our nation’s problems is to have more Latinos in positions of authority.

We certainly couldn’t do any worse than the political knuckleheads currently in charge.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Of the roughly 2 million Latinos living in Arizona in 2008, about two-thirds of them were born in the United States. Of the roughly 500,000 Arizona residents who have immigration issues, about 94 percent of them are believed to be citizens of Mexico.

Are the Diamondbacks about to see pickets at every ballpark?

The Arizona Diamondbacks got some national attention on Thursday, and not because there was anything particularly special about the way they smacked the Chicago Cubs about (13-5, but then again, everybody beats up on the Cubs eventually)/

It was the pickets of a few dozen people outside of Wrigley Field who are going to demonize the Diamondbacks because they play in the land of Joe Arpaio and Jan Brewer, the latter being the governor who signed into law a measure that now requires all local cops to behave as though they work for the Maricopa County sheriff’s police.

THE PICKETS ARE expected to be in place (and possibly bigger) at the three remaining games the Diamondbacks will play in Chicago through Sunday. There also are hints that groups will try to put together similar pickets in every National League city the Diamondbacks play in this season.

That’s going to be a lot of nasty attention. But then again, that ought to be an expected reaction. The problem with those people who think Arizona is being picked on is that they think they can get away with nasty, mean-spirited acts without having anyone call them on it.

That is just wrong.

Not that I expect the ballplayers themselves to be swayed. Only one of the Diamondbacks players was actually born in Arizona. The guy whose reaction I’d like to know would be that of pitcher Rodrigo Lopez, a Mexico native who joined the team this season and is now a part of the starting rotation.

WHAT HAPPENS IF some overzealous cop gets it into his head that Lopez (on the way to the game) doesn’t have legitimate papers to be here (he does, one of the perks for a non-citizen of playing in Major League Baseball is a much easier time getting a visa than anyone else) and decides to harass him?

Perhaps having their “home” team lose a few games will be what causes some people to realize how ridiculous their new law is. Those wanting to know more about the protests should check out this site’s sister weblog, the Chicago Argus.

-30-

Immigration reform loses “illusion” of bipartisanship

I’m not overly offended by the loss of Lindsay Graham as a player in the political debate over immigration reform. I never expected his involvement to bring significant Republican support to any reform measure.

So when I learned that he was taking offense that the immigration reform measure was being considered more important that the climate and clean energy jobs bill that he has put partisan work into, I figured it was inevitable.

THE SENATOR FROM South Carolina would have found an excuse eventually to walk away from it.

Besides, the rhetoric I hear coming from Congress makes it clear that Graham’s presence doesn’t change the way the Senate is determined to approach this measure – appease the people who think of reform as getting more people OUT of this country, then figure out a way to keep some of the people already here.

The bill is being put together in the Senate with Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Robert Menendez, D-N.J., as its sponsors. So instead of being led by a northerner and a southerner, an urbanite and a rural guy, and a Democrat and a Republican, we now get the bill that sounds like it was put together by a pair of people from “The Sopranos.”

Schumer of the Brooklyn burough and Menendez from Jersey (specifically, Hoboken).

BUT IF ASSOCIATED Press reports about a preliminary version of the bill are any indication, the change (not even the inclusion of a Latino politico among the people helping to draft the measure) makes a difference.

For it seems that they are going under the premise that there should be increases in law enforcement initiatives meant to remove people from this country before any measure meant to keep people in this country who are making a contribution to our society.

Those include more officers for the Border Patrol and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, along with more federal funds for prosecution of drug and human smuggling, and to cover the costs of deportations.

Does this mean that if our economic status continues to struggle and funding has to be cut for something, these will be the areas that get cut? Which would mean that a program that eventually allows people who currently have no legal status could live openly in this country would have to wait for whenever the powers-that-be get their act together and get around to the issue.

THERE IS ONE part of the Schumer/Menendez measure that addresses the part of the issue that ought to be the focus – the immigrants themselves.

The Department of Homeland Security would be given the authority to register, fingerprint and screen people currently living in this country without a valid visa, thereby taking care now of much of the paperwork that would have to be done some day when federal officials do get around to making legitimate U.S. residents out of the undocumented.

Why do I get the sense that all this provision would do is create a backlog of people waiting for the day when they become legitimate? Would we get the sight someday of an elderly man who finally gets his “papers,” even though he submitted his information and fingerprints back when he was a teenager?

All of this is going to be brought up across the United States in the countless rallies and protests that will take place on Saturday.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF that date this year is that many of the activists who are most concerned about immigration reform were threatening to step up their expressions of outrage if no bill was introduced in Congress by that date.

So the fact that Schumer/Menendez is the closest we will be to having a bill to consider on that date is something that the activists with an interest in immigration reform will express outrage over.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., has been pushing this issue for months, but political people have made it clear they want the Senate to act first – even though some activists believe that a victory in the House of Representatives first would provide the impetus for the Senate to get off its collective duff and act upon the issue.

Plus, there is the fact that Gutierrez has never shown any interest in the so-called law enforcement-oriented reforms – which is why many people also want to diminish the significance of the representative, even though many Latinos seriously believe his measure should be the one that is used to lead the reform effort.

FOR HIS PART, Gutierrez has criticized Graham, saying he is single-handedly trying to kill off immigration reform at a time when it is obviously needed, calling his actions, “very unreasonable and illogical.”

Truthful, or reactionary? That is an answer we’re going to get in coming months as we learn whether or not our political people are capable of taking the legislative action required to make needed changes now.

For I still believe that, long-term, immigration reform WILL happen. It’s all in the demographics. Delaying it is merely postponing the inevitable.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Whether or not Robert Menendez’ involvement with the politically partisan battle to reform the nation’s immigration laws will be successful is questionable. But the senator from New Jersey did come up with a cute line, saying that Arizona has now become the “Show Me Your Papers state.”

Some try to hit Arizona in the wallet. Will it work?

Some people are going to try to fight against the flaws in federal immigration law similar to a group of two dozen protesters in the Chicago suburbs, who got themselves arrested Tuesday for using their bodies to physically block a federal detention center – thereby delaying a bus that was taking people to O’Hare International Airport so they could be put on flights sending them out of the country.

Others are going for more subtle, but in some ways more effective, means of getting the attention of the establishment. They’re going to try to put the hurt on them financially.

THAT, IF ANYTHING, is where Arizona could wind up suffering on account of the new laws it has enacted that require local police to check immigration status (a federal issue) of anyone they have probable cause to think might be questionable.

A lot of people (including myself) are suspicious that the crash course cops in Arizona will take this summer as to the nuances of immigration law will be sufficient, and a lot of people are now turned off to the idea of doing business in that state.

Then again, there also are those people who are now going to make a point of doing business in Arizona, a fact that Gov. Jan Brewer is counting on. Then again, I can’t help but wonder what she’s going to think when she realizes that many of the people who deliberately come to Arizona now are the 21st Century equivalent of the people who used to purposely eat grapes and lettuce picked by migrant farm workers in California to show their spite for Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers.

In short, Arizona is not going to be a pretty place in coming months, although I’m unsure how much of an impact there will be on business. This was, after all, the state that saw some economic losses in the early 1990s when some business interests decided to take their money elsewhere (mostly convention type gatherings, which means hotels were hit the hardest) when Arizona refused to give in to the idea of making Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday anniversary an official government holiday.

SO PERHAPS THERE are some people who feel that their state has already endured this type of hit, so they can do it again with ease.

The problem with that kind of logic is that it invites hassle. It also refuses to take into consideration the fact that eventually people will come to see Arizona as some sort of nit-wit place that just can’t get with the program. That kind of reputation can be long-lasting.

How many of you hear “Mississippi” and “Alabama” and still think of activities that took place nearly 50 years ago? It’s not right. It’s not fair. But it happens. And it was largely self-inflicted, which is what is happening again in the southwestern state.

What brings on the thought of boycott is the fact that an Arizona political-type, Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., is encouraging it. He says he wants businesses that were planning to travel to the Phoenix Metropolitan Area for conventions or other business gatherings to go elsewhere.

ALREADY, THE AMERICAN Immigration Lawyers Association is looking for a new site for its convention that would have been held in Scottsdale, Ariz., telling the USA Today newspaper the group, “didn’t feel it was appropriate” to meet now in Arizona.

The Asian-American Hotel Owners Association also told the newspaper that it formally wants the Arizona Legislature to reconsider its action. They are afraid of all the business they will lose because of the political statement made by the state. The Arizona Hotel & Lodging Association also is “concerned,” although they’re not making any demands of local politicos.

Yet Brewer is not swayed. CNN reported that the governor said she thinks the new law helps to create a “safe and secure environment” in Arizona that would be welcoming to business and tourism. “I believe it’s not going to have the kind of economic impact that some people think it might,” she said.

Now I was not surprised when Brewer signed the nativist bill into law. The only part of her act that caught me off guard was that she did it so openly (I would have expected her to try to slip it through approved, but unnoticed, the way many new laws are signed).

THEN AGAIN, CONSIDERING that she did this to appease the ideologue element of her political party in Arizona, perhaps she needed to make a big public statement out of this measure.

But I find it ridiculous that anybody who is rational would believe her rhetoric about a “safe and secure environment.”

As though the day laborers whom other portions of this new law single out (making it a crime to hire them and allowing police to arrest the people hiring them on the grounds that they’re blocking traffic when they pick them up each morning) are really any kind of threat to the “environment” of Arizona.

The only thing those people are a threat to are the sensibilities of some people in our society with ethnic hangups. Or perhaps it is because those people are showing a willingness to do hard labor – which may make others feel threatened because it exposes their own inate laziness.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Opponents in Arizona of the state’s new law, which is scheduled to take effect around the end of summer, are hoping that the federal courts will intervene and prevent it from ever taking effect until their eventual lawsuit is resolved years from now in the court system.

A “racial reign of terror” is how some protesters who got themselves arrested in Chicago describe the current situation with regards to the nation’s immigration laws. Will they consider their protests as successful as the United Farm Workers now says its grapes boycott was back in the 1960s?

Saturday to be a hectic day. How many will notice?

Saturday is May Day. It also is the date that in recent years has become the focus on large-scale rallies in cities across the United States meant to draw attention to the flaws that exist in our nation’s immigration laws.

This year will not be any different. This statue designed by Spaniard Pablo Picasso in downtown Chicago will be surrounded Saturday by immigration activists, including likely many people who do not have valid visas. Does this mean that if Immigration showed up, they'd deport it along with many people as being too "foreign" to be in this country? Photograph provided by state of Illinois.

WE’RE GOING TO see a large rally with tens of thousands of people in New York, along with a group of students who began several weeks ago walking from their college campuses in the Miami area up north to the District of Columbia.

Those two cities won’t be alone. This issue is going to crop up everywhere.

In my hometown of Chicago, there will be various small-scale rallies held in the city/suburbs that surround the metropolitan area, then a large rally to be held in the city proper – the Picasso statue outside the Daley Center courthouse will be surrounded on Saturday by people who might not be able to produce a valid visa.

The serious message being delivered that day is that the immigration laws of our nation are a mess because the process by which people can apply for citizenship or legal residency status is so ridiculously confusing.

NOT EVERYBODY HAS an equal chance at getting one of those all-precious visas that lets them live (or work) in this country without having to worry about being hassled by the federal government.

That is what needs to be reformed, and that is what we’re going to hear over and over in rally after rally in city after city across this nation of ours.

Now I understand that the New York event is probably going to dwarf all the others in terms of sheer size. And the D.C. rally may draw attention because the college students who hope to arrive in Washington that day have hinted that they will begin a hunger strike on Saturday if there is no bill on the immigration issue introduced in Congress.

Note that they’re not talking about Congress having to pass something by that date, or President Barack Obama needing to sign something into law.

WHAT THEY WANT is for the political people who have said they will eventually get around to sponsoring something to get off their collective duffs and do the paperwork to write an actual bill on the issue that can eventually be voted on by our federal representatives.

As much as Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina have said they want to create a law that compromises and gives everyone something of significance, thus far they haven’t done anything.

It all has been talk, which is why some people are getting suspicious and thinking that political people are planning to do a whole lot of nothing when it comes to this issue.

Which is why we’re going to hear a whole lot of screaming come Saturday about this issue. The fact that state government officials in Arizona recently enacted a new law that is the antithesis of what many of these people want. In some ways, it is the 180-degree opposite of the kind of reform truly needed on the immigration issue.

IN SOME WAYS, the Arizona situation might have helped because it got Obama to say that he will have federal officials review the state action to ensure that people don’t wind up getting their rights as human beings violated.

If that means it took such a drastic step to jolt him out of complacency and realize the degree of hostility that exists in our society that must be dealt with, then so be it.

Because on Saturday, he’s going to see the opposite side of the hostility – the people who are angry because they perceive that too many politicians are more interested in appeasing those people with a nativist bent to their political thought rather than doing what is right.

There are those who are likely to try to ignore the message being sent Saturday, because they want to view this issue as being one of strict border enforcement – not realizing that their theory of enforcement is what will harm our economy and eventually turn our society into the “third world nation” they always say they fear.

THAT IS WHAT happens when one tries to put together a society that is too homogenous. It is that continued diversity and influx of newcomers that is going to prop up this nation of ours. The sooner the bulk of our citizens realize that fact, the better off we as a society will be.

I’d hate to think it will really take the image of college kids engaging in a hunger strike to get the attention of political people that this is an issue that can no longer wait before it is addressed. In fact, I hope it never comes to a hunger strike.

That is a desperate act. Although there are those who feel we are in desperate times.

-30-

Will Arizona act make clear how seriously immigration reform is needed?

I was pleased to learn that Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., was among the protesters who spent their Sunday in Phoenix making it known how offensive they find Arizona’s new law with regards to immigration enforcement to truly be.

For I am hoping that Gutierrez will start laying off the cheap rhetoric about having Latinos stay at home on Election Day this year as a sort of protest against Democratic Party officials whom they do not believe are doing enough to adequately address the issue.

I AGREE WITH Gutierrez that too many Democrats are trying to “wish” this issue away, failing to realize that it is here to stay and must be dealt with.

The problem I have with a voter “boycott” is that such non-action would do something other than show Democratic Party officials how much they need us. Not turning out to vote would wind up feeding into the prejudices of the people who are pushing for nativist-inspired measures such as what Arizona managed to approve last week – and which will become law in about three months.

I have always argued in favor of people getting off their culos and casting votes on the grounds that they lose their right to complain about political activity if they don’t vote. I don’t want to be ina positiion where I cannot complain if a Republican majority that feels its top allegiance to the nativist elements of our society starts approving measures into law that they desire.

In fact, I am wondering if the end result of what Arizona has done is that it has drawn attention to exactly what kind of mentality exists in our society that is opposed to the idea of serious reform of our nation’s immigration laws.

THE IDEALIST IN me wants to believe that so many people will become repulsed by the activities that will take place in coming months in Arizona that they will be jolted to their senses, and that those people who continue to fight this issue are going to be ensuring in coming months that their places in the history books (even those approved in Texas) will be negative.

The realist knows that life is not that simple. But I know it will take more of an action than staying home on Nov. 2 to force an action on this issue.

Mexico’s president, Felipe Calderòn Hinojosa, madea point of issuing his own statement condemning Arizona, which I’m sure the nativists will claim is evidenc e of how “just” their view is. After all, what do they care what a foreign leader thinks about anything?

But the statement that caught my attention was the one that came from the Rev. Al Sharpton. I’m sure the nativists will be equally offended to learn of his thoughts, but he is feeding off the imagery of the 1960s and the Civil Rights movement, recalling the “Freedom Riders” of the North who traveled to the Deep South (I’m sure there are some who try to write them off as “Damnyankee agitators”) to protest and push for equality.

DOES THIS MAKE the U.S. citizens of Latino ethnic backgrounds to be deported this year from Arizona (it can happen, anybody who doubts it is being naïve) the equivalent of those who got tear-gassed in Selma, Ala.?

Sharpton says he plans to organize “Freedom Walkers” who will be in Arizona when the law takes effect to force arrest and show how absurd the whole measure is.

What they specifically refer to are those provisions that try to give police the authority to make arrests of people who seek day laborers on the grounds that they are interferring with traffic. The Reverend Al plans to cause many traffic jams, it seems, to force the issue out into the open similar to those of half a century ago who crowded their way into segregated lunch counters to show they had the "right" to do so, regardless of whether they actually wanted to.

Now there are those who argue that this Arizona law does not wrongly interfere with enforcement of immigration laws, which are federal in nature and are supposed to be enforced by the U.S. government. There are even those who will argue that the reason the laws do not take effect immediately is because police departments in Arizona are going to receive special training so that they know exactly what federal immigration laws are, and what constitutes the level of “probable cause” needed for a police officer to legitimately stop someone and demand to see their immigration papers.

I DON’T BUY it, in part because I’m not sure this is an issue that can be taught to every law enforcement officer in Arizona during a crash course administered during the summer months. But also, “probable cause” by its very nature is meant to be broad. It is meant to give police the authority to make a snap judgment that something is worthy of closer inspection.

So excuse me for being skeptical of the idea that all of these Arizona cops are going to show restraint in enforcing this new law, especially since there are other provisions that make it quite clear that police would be considered at fault if they did not get vigorous in the way they approach it.

The people who crafted this measure want to see an increase in the numbers of people who get turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation because they have their own ethnic hangups and they want to revert back to the days when law enforcement used its authority to back them (instead of all people) up.

Which is why I think we need more than a “voter boycott” come November.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Some 3,500 people gathered in Phoenix on Sunday to express their disgust with Arizona’s new law relating to immigration enforcement. This measure has the potential to make Arizona the focus of much ugliness in coming months.

Luis Gutierrez made the trip to Phoenix this weekend, while the Rev. Al Sharpton and others are likely to make the trip in the near future.

Let the court fight begin

I will give Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer one bit of credit – she signed a heinous bill related to immigration in a fairly public fashion on Friday, rather than waiting until the last possible minute on Saturday before issuing an innocuous statement that would go undetected by most people.

Of course, the idea that this particular new law in Arizona could go by undetected is so absurd that perhaps Brewer is just being realistic enough to know she’s going to get hit regardless of how she tries to stage this event.

THIS IS A new law that is going to make Arizona the test case for political nitwits determined to fight the inevitable, which will make the need for real immigration reform all too necessary.

The law in question is going to require local cops to start checking people for their immigration status. Of course, it won’t be all people in Arizona. It’s just going to be those who fit a nativist thought process of being people who don’t really belong in this country – even though we’re talking about the descendants of the original settlers of the states (there were people in what is now Arizona even before the white people showed up).

There also are provisions related to people trying to find day laborers. Police can now claim they are interfering with traffic and can arrest them for that. Which means that they’re trying to make it tougher for people to get work.

Brewer on Friday said she went ahead and signed the xenophobic measure to address a problem that she says the federal government “refuse(s) to fix.”

OF COURSE, ONE can legitimately argue that the people who are refusing to fix the nation’s immigration laws are the ones who insist on framing the issue in nativist terms such as this law does.

But this is the situation we’re now in.

Arizona wants to be the place that is making a “statement” about immigration reform, although what they’re going to find out is that their statement merely shows how clueless they are about the direction our nation is headed.

The growing Latino population is too well-entrenched and majority native-born (which means citizenship technically isn’t an issue) for this to make much of a difference. Arizona will eventually see they have shot themselves in their symbolic right foot by passing laws such as this.

WHAT I AM curious to see is whether state officials come to their senses and repeal this in the next couple of years, or will it take the intervention of the courts to address the issue.

For I can’t help but think this law is vulnerable to a legal challenge, which groups such as the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund have already said is forthcoming.

The immigration laws are federal, and are enforced by federal law enforcement agencies. Having local law enforcement agencies that aren’t trained and experienced in the nuances of such laws is asking for trouble.

There also is the fact that I fully comprehend how offended those same local law enforcement (or any local government) agencies would be if the federal government were to intervene.

WE’D BE HEARING harsh rhetoric about the U.S. government getting all totalitarian with its citizens. But that logic goes both ways. There has to be a respect on the part of local and federal officials for each others’ jurisdictions.

Any lack of respect in that regard is the truly offensive act of government. I can’t help but think the courts will see that, and eventually strike down this new law.

The only real problem is for the people who have to be inconvenienced until then just because some political people with xenophobic tendencies want to make a statement.

Which is why one of the most offensive actions from Friday was when the bill’s supporters who happened to be at the Statehouse in Phoenix starting singing “America the Beautiful” upon learning of Brewer’s actions.

THOSE PEOPLE ARE the ones in our society who have the least amount of comprehension about what the United States represents in the world.

One other moment I couldn’t help but notice. President Barack Obama, whom some Latinos think is being too weak when pushing for legitimate immigration reform, said Friday just before the new law was approved that he thinks the Arizona effort is, “misguided.”

He also said that federal authorities based in Arizona plan to “closely monitor the situation” to ensure that activity constituting harassment is kept to a minimum.

Could it be that it will take actions this blatantly offensive for Obama to realize why Latinos are so anxious to have serious immigration reform get passed into law – the sooner the better?

THE WASHINGTON POST also identified five Republican senators whom Democrats are considering as possibilities to swing over to the Democratic side – where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., once said that 56 members would support immigration reform.

Those include the newly elected Scott Brown of Massachusetts, along with Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, George LeMieux of Florida, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Richard Lugar of Indiana.

The latter intrigues me the most, because earlier this week he appeared with Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., to push for changes in federal law making it easier for non-citizens without visas to attend college and receive financial aid in the United States.

If Lugar is willing to make the jump to support the undocumented when it comes to education, will he make the jump to other aspects of our society? Or is he going to be pressured into staying in line with his GOP colleagues?

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: “God Bless Jan Brewer” versus “Shame on You!” That was the environment at the Arizona Statehouse, where Brewer issued this statement when she approved the law that takes effect this summer. John McCain's conduct during this debate is evidence enough of why his presidential aspirations never caught on with significant numbers of Latinos.

Barack Obama expressed his concern about the Arizona situation during a Rose Garden ceremony Friday during which non-citizen military personnel received U.S. citizenship.

Pols just can’t let go of “the Wall”

Perhaps it is only appropriate that two members of the Senate who aren’t held in the highest of esteem these day by their Democratic colleagues are the ones who are willing to bring up “the Wall” – the ridiculous notion that we can erect a barricade along the U.S./Mexico border.

For it was Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut (who doesn’t even call himself a Democrat anymore on account of the fact that nobody would believe it if he did) and Roland Burris of Illinois (whom many senators already are taking mental steps to forget once his term ends in January) who earlier this week pointed out the stupidity of the Bush-era policy of having barricades at the border.

SPECIFICALLY, THEY DON’T like the idea of the “virtual fence,” which would be erected in parts of the 1,900-mile border region where it would be too impractical, expensive and totally pointless to go to the trouble of building physical walls.

We’re talking about places out in the desert where the very desert conditions act as the biggest barricade between the two countries. Anyone who tries crossing on foot in those areas is putting their life at risk.

Lieberman and Burris were willing to say that the very notion of virtual walls is stupid, and a waste of money.

Reports from a Senate committee held this week indicate the two were pushing for a cancellation of the contract with Boeing Co., which has not yet completed work on the virtual wall that is supposed to cover the portions of the border region not covered by more than 600 miles worth of actual wall.

OF COURSE, WE shouldn’t expect too much in the way of sense to emanate from the Senate (or the House of Representatives, for that matter). Because the alternative to the virtual wall seems to be construction of more physical barricades.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who tried during his presidential campaign to portray himself as the candidate sympathetic to the concerns of immigrants (hardly anybody bought it) said he’d like to have double- and triple-layers of walls built in certain parts of the border regions.

Which to me is an absurd suggestion.

Just as it was joked that a 50-foot wall would be scaled with a 51-foot ladder, having two or three fences between the two countries will merely mean a longer underground tunnel that will have to be dug in order to get from one country to the other.

SOME OF THESE political people are trying to stir up scary images in the heads of Anglos (all people actually) who know little about the border region. We’re now hearing that such walls would be meant to reduce the likelihood of violence tied to the drug cartels spreading from Ciudad Juarez into El Paso, or from anyplace in Mexico into the border towns of south Texas.

I’m only surprised they don’t talk about militarizing the area, or setting up landmines to go along with walls. Literally give us something that resembles the Berlin Wall of old.

Because that is exactly how such barricades would be perceived.

In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if such acts wound up instigating some of these cartel leaders (let’s be honest, drug dealers aren’t exactly the most rational batch of people in the human race) into viewing the region as a war zone, and one in which they must go on the attack.

LIEBERMAN THIS WEEK suggested that drug dealers may start having people use explosive devices against U.S. citizens UNLESS we build more barricades. I wonder if they’re more likely to do it BECAUSE we wasted more money on a wall.

That is, of course, assuming they don’t just use their explosives and other weapons (many manufactured and purchased in the United States – the drug dealers “buy American”) to attack “the Wall” itself. Reduce it to rubble. Strictly speaking, they wouldn’t have to enter the United States – they could do it from the Mexico side of the border.

That is the problem with the whole concept of “the Wall.”

It is an unrealistic notion that we can build a barricade that separates us from our neighbor nation to the south. It is also an impractical one, since a significant portion of our economy involves trade with Mexico and other Latin American nations. Whether we want to accept it or not, we on this continent are one entity and ought to start behaving as such – rather than thinking we can isolate ourselves while still expecting to exert influence over everybody else.

IT IS THE reason why I have always detested the concept of “the Wall,” which is favored by isolationist nitwits whose grasp on reality is questionable. Besides, as Lieberman pointed out earlier this week, the Homeland Security Department has spent more than $800 million on the virtual wall project without achieving a functional system.

That is government waste! That ought to be the concept that offends all of us.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: The idea of virtual barricades that would trip alarms warning the Border Patrol of anytime someone (http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=45073&oref=todaysnews) tried to cross any point of the U.S./Mexico border was the subject of a Congressional debate this week.

The creators of the virtual “wall” don’t like the use of the word “wall” to describe their product, which they say (http://electronicdesign.com/article/communications/building-a-virtual-wall-to-protect-our-borders1603.aspx) is merely meant to make it easier for the Border Patrol to cover all their territory.

Arizona will trade long-term success for short-term “gain”

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has the eyes of the nation on her this week, as she tries to figure out the way she can offend the least amount of people because of that issue known as immigration reform.

The state Legislature in Arizona is giving us its own take on the issue – passing a bill that decreases the amount of “probable cause” that local police would need before they can start poking around someone’s immigration status – and give them the ability to deal with those people who can’t produce a valid visa.

THE PROBLEM WITH this bill is that it is going to put many fully-legitimate Arizona residents of various Latino ethnicities (mostly Mexican) in positions where they are going to have to justify their status to local cops who might have their own hangups about who they think should legitimately be in this country.

If this measure becomes law, we’re going to get stories emanating from Arizona about people whose families have been in the region since the days when it was part of Mexico (and New Spain, before that) and before the Anglos arrived, who suddenly have to justify their citizenship. We’re talking about a state that has about one-third population Latino.

I’m waiting for the first deportation of someone whose family has been in the United States for eight or nine generations.

It’s going to happen. Because the motivation behind a bill like this is to let local cops promote the idea that certain people “don’t belong here.” Even though the ones who really ought to be removed by force are the Anglo nitwits who apparently know nothing about the history of the region that they call home.

NOW SOME WILL argue that I am over-reacting, because the measure is not law yet. Brewer is reviewing the measure, and has until week’s end. I expect she will literally hold out until Saturday, then issue some sort of innocuous statement. Or she may just issue a piece of paper saying she has acted on Arizona Senate Bill 1070 – which means nothing unless you know what bill that bill number represents.

I can’t say I’d be surprised if a Republican governor chose to appease her partisan supporters by giving them this issue. After all, many of the people who want to have these ethnic-inspired hangups turn to the Republican Party because they realize the Democratic Party would never go such such rhetoric.

In fact, the Phoenix Business Journal published a lengthy story detailing exactly why Brewer is “almost certain” to approve the measure – despite the fact that she is getting Latino activist pressure, along with that of the Catholic church (which on this issue says that current immigration laws are flawed because they can result in splitting up families).

If ever there will be an act that will split up a family, it would be the wrongful deportation of someone born in this country just because some nitwit descended from some trashy cowboy thinks they shouldn’t belong.

I AM NOT the expert on the political ways of the Arizona Legislature, so I will defer to the reporting of the Journal, which says that vetoing this measure would result in her own party turning on her. They also argue that the people who are pressuring Brewer have already made it clear they are supporting the Democratic challenger – state Attorney General Terry Goddard – come the November general elections.

So the Arizona political observers say the only way she gains anything is by giving the nativists what they want. She gains in the short-term by signing into law a measure that definitely will inspire a court challenge (and hopefully will be tossed out by a court before too many people are harmed. I really believe that immigration status is for federal law enforcement officials to handle – not local cops).

The real harm is the fact that this act is gaining national attention. This has become more than something talked about by patrons at diners near Tuscon or Mesa. This is drawing attention by political observers everywhere.

If Brewer goes ahead and gives her Arizona Republican allies what they want, she’s also going to be giving the national party a headache. Because there are those within the Republican Party ranks who realize that they have to grab ahold of a significant portion of the Latino vote if they want to remain relevant for the long-term.

NO MATTER HOW much some people want to think the Tea Party types are evidence of a significant movement to the “right,” the fact is that those people often can’t agree on what they stand for. While acts such as these stand to unite the Latino base in realizing that the people who are our opposition are the ones who rely on the Republican ranks to give them strength.

If she signs the measure into law, she gives Latino activists across the country another talking point, and also puts her name next to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in the ranks of nitwits who emanate from Arizona. She also threatens to give Latinos in Arizona a unifying point that inspires us to vote against the GOP in that state. In short, these kinds of acts are what threaten to cost the Republican Party the Latino vote for generations to come.

Which as far as I’m concerned is some sort of cosmic justice against those people who try to spread the notion that then-President Lyndon B. Johnson made a blunder of strategic proportions when he signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

Because it is largely the same type of people who think the South’s view on race should have prevailed who will wind up losing at the hands of a strong Latino vote in future elections.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: As of Monday, Jan Brewer’s office had received calls by a 9-1 ratio AGAINST signing the (http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/2010/04/21/20100421arizona-immigration-bill-CP.html) immigration bill into law. Nevertheless, political observers think Brewer will wind up giving the (http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/business/2010/04/brewers_back_against_the_political_wall_on_immigration_bill.html) measure her approval.

Will Brewer upstage her Saturday appearance in Glendale at the Center for Arizona Policy dinner by making her decision (http://azgovernor.gov/) that day?

Gutierrez’ Latino voter “boycott” – Will it work?

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., is stepping up his fight to pressure federal government leaders to make the reforms needed in the nation’s immigration laws – making it clear that he may start telling his constituents in the Spanish-speaking enclaves of Chicago and Latinos everywhere in the United States that perhaps it isn’t all that important for us to make a big deal out of voting in 2010.

If Democratic leadership, including the Obama administration, have any sense, they will take note of this move. They will start making serious attempts at reaching out and representing our interests – instead of focusing their attention on appeasement of Republicans out of some naïve hope that it will cause a few of them to support him in the future.

GUTIERREZ GAVE A recent interview to The Hill (a Washington-based newspaper that focuses exclusively on Congress) in which he says Latinos are not about to vote for the Republican Party types who have dreams of regaining influence following this year’s elections.

“We can say, ‘you know what? There is a third option: we can refuse to participate’,” Gutierrez told The Hill, adding that Latino activists are going to start making things “uncomfortable” for the Democratic Party leadership – which by and large wishes they could let this issue go unaddressed until a future time when the partisanship might not be so intense.

The only problem with that logic is that such a time is a stretch of fantasy. We are in an age where partisan politics has reached an intense level. We’re not overcoming that any time soon, if ever. So putting this issue off to a time when it will be less stressful politically means ignoring it indefinitely.

That is why Latino activists think the Democratic leadership ought to just accept that the time to deal with it once and for all is now.

GUTIERREZ IS PLAYING off the idea that I have expressed before – one that the Latino vote has the potential to overcome some of the conservative rhetoric that is being espoused in some circles by people who want to believe that the election of Barack Obama was somehow an attempt to “steal” their country away from them.

The Tea Party types, with their gross misuse of American colonial imagery, are trying to claim they are the 21st Century equivalent of the patriots of old – instead of merely being people stuck in a past that excluded many people from being able to achieve the “American Dream.”

If the Obama types had any sense, they would realize that the way to get significant numbers of votes to counter these outspoken types is to get the Latino vote excited enough to want to vote come Nov. 2.

Which is why Gutierrez is trying to scare his Democratic colleagues into envisioning an Election Day filled with old white people wishing for a day that is long gone (and rightfully so). A Day Without Latinos on Nov. 2 creates the worst-case scenario – a Congress with significant-enough Republican control that feels indebted to those people in our society who view Obama suspiciously and probably dream of the day they can put him through impeachment proceedings the same way that Bill Clinton endured them.

IT WON’T MATTER how flimsy the charge is, since impeachment is purely a political proceeding – and just as capable of being tainted by partisanship as anything else related to our government.

The way to avoid that is to start doing the right thing, which in this case involves providing support for issues such as immigration reform – which at its bottom line involves clarifying the status of people already living in this country and making worthwhile contributions so they no longer have to live in secrecy.

I would think anything that gets people to live out in the open would be so obviously a good thing that no one could reject it.

But people whose ethnic hangups manage to overcome their common sense find a way, and too many Democrats are letting themselves get intimidated by these “all-mouth” people.

THERE IS JUST one problem I have with the idea of a boycott – one that I already have alluded to. This election cycle without a Latino presence is likely to create several new government officials who are going to view our presence in society as a threat. Staying at home has the potential to create a stronger opposition.

And it’s not like we will have much right to complain, since we would be guilty of the ultimate political sin – not voting, which I have always believed makes one forfeit any right to complain about how little their government leadership truly does.

What we need to do is figure out a way in which our collective vote makes people realize that these Tea Party types truly are a minority (who can’t even agree amongst themselves at times what they stand for or who they support). Staying at home on Election Day means we don’t exist, which plays into the wildest fantasies of these people.

We need to find a way to make the political people realize that by ignoring our concerns, they threaten their own future election because we will go out and find someone who will listen to us.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Luis Gutierrez has his supporters in thinking that Latinos need to pressure the Democratic leadership (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/93183-dem-to-obama-push-immigration-or-ill-tell-latino-voters-to-stay-home) into getting off its collective duff and taking action with regards to immigration reform and other issues of interest to the growing Latino population.

EXTRA: We’re split

I understand that the family of Marcelo Lucero is content with the verdict reached against the teenager found guilty this week (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703757504575194493521665732.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop) of stabbing him.

They are just pleased that he will wind up doing some time in prison for the incident, which started out as a group of white teenagers looking for something to do – and deciding that smacking about some Latinos sounded like fun.

BUT I ALSO understand that I am not alone (http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/153712) in thinking that the decision by the jury to acquit him on a murder charge was a desire to believe that somehow, the Ecuadorean immigrant who was stabbed to death somehow deserved what was coming to him.

I do find it encouraging to learn that even non-Latinos (http://www.newsday.com/long-island/crime/some-liers-applaud-verdict-in-conroy-case-1.1870502) think the “penalty” was somewhat light.

May 8 is the date scheduled for the sentencing of Jeff Conroy. He could get somewhere from eight to 25 years in prison. Had he received the conviction for “murder,” the 19-year-old would be looking at a life prison term.

-30-

Jury swayed by act of self-defense?

A jury in Suffolk County, N.Y., seems to have been swayed by the fact that an Ecuadoran man who was stabbed to death following an effort by local teenagers to go “beaner jumping” tried defending himself.

What happened is after one of these teenagers punched the man in the face because he was Latino, he tried hitting back. Defense attorneys tried arguing that the act of self-defense made the men feel threatened enough to the point that one of them stabbed the man.

IT MUST HAVE worked to some degree, because the jury acquitted Jeffrey Conroy of a charge of murder as a hate crime – which was the most severe of all the criminal charges he faced.

Admittedly, Conroy was found guilty of all the other charges he faced – including one of manslaughter as a hate crime. So he is likely to face a severe prison term, and is going to have the stigma of a “hate crime” attached to his record – which may make him a hero in some circles, but an outcast to the bulk of our society.

It is kind of sad that Conroy, who is now 19, is going to lose a significant part of what should be the peak of his life. He could get up to a 25-year prison term when he faces sentencing next month in the courtroom on Long Island.

But there will be others who will be sadder because a jury did not back up that “murder” charge – which would have carried a life-prison term.

IT IS HARD for me to get too outraged over this case because this particular person is going to wind up doing some hard time in a prison environment – which is not going to be a pleasant experience. Nor do I expect it to be a rehabilitative experience. For all I know, Conroy may turn out even more messed up and anti-social when he is released from prison, than he is now.

What I mean by that is the fact that I acknowledge that his “attitude” of thinking it sport to smack about Latinos likely was reflective of his community.

It was in Suffolk County (suburban New York) that the Southern Poverty Law Center found an anti-immigrant attitude that was particularly hostile toward the growing Latino population. So I am sure there are some people who are convinced that Monday’s jury verdict is some sort of “political correctness” run amok.

The rest of us realize how ridiculous that attitude is. But I can’t help but sense that this jury had a sense of that attitude when they came up with a verdict that distinguished between “murder” and “manslaughter.”

THE LATTER CHARGE is an unlawful act of violence without malice, while the former says that malice was intended all along.

In other words, did Conroy mean to kill when he started his behavior on that night in November 2008 when Marcelo Lucero died?

I have covered enough criminal trials during my time as a reporter-type person to know that prosecutors would argue that the act of slashing a knife near another person is one that implies malice because anyone with sense ought to know that their action can injure or kill someone else.

It is why the idea of an “accidental” stabbing doesn’t really matter. The law says people should know better.

BUT BY CONSIDERING this to be “manslaughter,” it means the jury put the emphasis on the beginning of the evening – where Conroy and his friends (several of whom have pleaded guilty to charges that will get them some jail time) were merely looking for Latinos to beat up.

By coming up with a verdict that says Conroy wasn’t looking to kill someone, they’re saying that Lucero brought this incident upon himself when he decided to take off his belt and use it to hit back at the people who had just punched him.

Which means that now we’re going to have a different dispute in our society; are the Latinos who think that Conroy got off a little too easy for an act of violence that was motivated by ethnic-inspired hostility over-reacting? After all, such people argue, he’s still going to prison!

Or is this an instance where old ethnic attitudes are still lingering in our society long after they should have withered away?

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Did a Long Island teenager get too light of a punishment when a jury chose “manslaughter” over “murder” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/nyregion/20patchogue.html) when rendering a verdict in the stabbing of an Ecuadorean immigrant?

¿Is too much TV, Internet bad for priests too?

I can’t help but think that a prominent Catholic priest from the land of mis abuelos has been indulging in too much in the way of certain illicit substances. How else to explain away the comments of Felipe Arizmendi – a Catholic bishop based in San Cristobal de las Casas?

The bishop spoke recently at a gathering last week of his Catholic colleagues from across Mexico, and the issue of children being abused by clergy members came up for discussion.

IN ONE SENSE, Arizmendi’s response was encouraging because it wasn’t the usual claptrap that comes from Catholic leaders out side of the United States. They have long wanted to believe that this problem is unique to the United States, and that the Catholic clergy of their countries would never indulge in such behavior.

In short, the American Way of life is what makes priests willing to use young boys in their care for such purposes.

But the bishop is creating his own line of logic that is bound to create snickers. At least that was my reaction to reading his comments made last week in Mexico City. While many in the Mexican capital city were focused on Michelle Obama and the last day of her three-day tour, Arizmendi blamed it all on pop culture and media.

I don’t mean newsgathering organizations. I’m using the word “media” in that general sense of entities that distribute messages and ideas. Arizmendi said those ideas being spread these days are filled with so much pornography.

ACCORDING TO THE Reuters wire service, Arizmendi said, “with so muich invasion of eroticism, sometimes it’s not easy to stay celibate or to respect children. If on television and on the Internet and in so many media outlets there is pornography, it is very difficult to stay pure and chaste.”

Why is this funny?

In my mind, it creates the image of a batch of priests spending their spare time checking out dirty pictures on the Internet, or watching “dirty” movies on late-night cable television. Something about that just strikes me as being a little too ridiculous to take seriously.

It also is pathetic because it reeks of a Catholic official desperate to divert responsibility for the incidents that have occurred in many places about the globe – even Mexico – throughout the years.

DOES THIS MEAN that when some young person goes to the confessional to admit his “sin” of looking at dirty pictures on the Internet, there’s a good chance that the priest in question will be able to tell him his sin wasn’t that bad – because there were even smuttier pictures on another website that the young person had never checked out before?

Yes, I’m being disrespectful, and likely sacreligious, in my tone here. But it is because I find it absurd to blame other people for influencing the thought processes of priests – when the church would like to think it is those same priests that we all turn to when we seek advice about how to cope with the salacious influences in our society that might cause us to do bad things.

Too many of the conservative types who are eager to downplay the nastiness of these religious sex scandals (which I really doubt are limited to the Catholic church, no matter how much people of other religious denominations want to believe so) are usually the first people to complain that the “problem” with our society is that no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions.

Yet what I sense here is the concept that Arizmendi doesn’t want for the Catholic Church to have to accept responsibility for the behavior of its clergy.

IS IT BECAUSE that if we realize that some members of the clergy are flawed as people and likely should not be treated as though they belong on a pedestal, we might start to question the entire leadership of the church?

I will be honest. I am not the most devout church-goer in existence. I have always thought that “faith” and “organized religion” are two different concepts – and that it is the former that is most important.

If it means that I think a bit of honesty – instead of trying to blame pedophilia priests on the Internet – would do the church some good, then all I can say is that I hope the bishop’s thought process doesn’t wind up spreading too far among the Catholic faithful.

Because a part of me would like to believe that someone who devotes their life to the spreading of the word of God (a devotion that I respect, in large part because I know I could never do it) ought to be capable of resisting the temptations of a site such as cheerleadersexclips.com (I altered the web address slightly, I don’t feel the need to offer them a free link).

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: I want to believe that Felipe Arizmendi is engaging in ridiculous rhetoric when he says (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/16/AR2010041604091.html) the Internet and television are spreading so much smut that even priests cannot resist temptation.

Since when does a head start make someone superior?

It is a common “criticism” I get when people address my writing on the attempts to reform the nation’s immigration laws – I am distorting the issue by not making a clear distinction between Latinos and Latin Americans without visas.

In short, the nativists say I am trying to give legitimacy to people whom they want to believe are engaged in criminal behavior merely by being here.

MY SHORT (AND sarcastic) answer is that I don’t distinguish because, all too often, the nativists don’t distinguish. Too many of them want to believe that all Latinos (which by its very definition means someone already in the United States) ought to be “illegal.”

There are those who want to believe that the fact anyone with ethnic origins in a Latin American nation can somehow have U.S. citizenship has to be evidence of a glitch in the system. They will argue that the “reform” needed is to revoke citizenship from some people who already have it, then send them away.

Think I’m exaggerating?

The fact that the term “anchor baby” has entered the terminology of the immigration reform debate ought to be evidence enough of the absurdity of the nativist thought process.

FOR THOSE NOT in the know, that is the term used by the xenophobes to dismiss children born in this country to parents who are citizens of another nation. As though people are impregnating each other as some sort of scam.

Even though when one thinks about it, the whole definition of “citizenship” is where one is born. It is a technicality, and an accident of birth. For anyone to think it is more than that is downright absurd.

That is why I think our immigration policy ought to be welcoming of anyone who seriously wants to live in our society. We, the people of the United States of America probably will be better off in the long run if we have a nation of people who made a serious effort to be here – instead of someone who thinks they’re a “real American” just because their parents happened to be in Mississippi or Idaho at the moment they were born,.

Being a nation that is accepting of people (rather than one that treats outsiders suspiciously – think of a place like Cuba, where the harsh restrictions on anyone who wants to immigrate there bear too much resemblance to the U.S. nativist fantasy of what immigration laws should be) is part of what gives our nation the moral high ground, and the authority to influence the ways of the world.

THE REASON I favor immigration reform has several parts.

One of the most significant is that I see that not everyone has the same chance to actually be able to obtain a visa and the permits required of non-citizens to openly live and work in the United States.

That situation is what requires reform – and it requires an acknowledgement that many of the so-called 12 million undocumented people working in the United States (no one truly knows how many really are here). That is why people who talk of “reform” as being the erection of barricades along the U.S./Mexico border and increased deportations are merely absurd and ought to be ignored.

But there also is the sense that these people who are coming from Latin American nations (or just about any other country on this earth) are not that different from my own grandparents – three of whom were born in Mexico and came to this country in the 1920s, ultimately living out the bulk of their lives in the South Chicago neighborhood that provides the namesake for this weblog.

BACK BEFORE THE original immigration laws passed by Congress in 1924, nobody was specifically “legal” or “illegal” (which is why those people who say their ancestors did immigration the “right way” are so full of hot air). Even after those laws were passed, Mexican citizens originally were exempt from restrictions.

Which means that while my grandfathers likely had to put up with a lot of the ethnic nonsense slurs that that particular generation seemed to think was its right to hurl at anyone not like themselves, the one term they didn’t specifically have to deal with was “illegal alien.” That came along later, when nativist nitwits decided they wanted to use the letter of the law to enforce their ethnic hangups.

Both of my grandfathers wound up being urged to go for full-fledged citizenship, and they did. I can still remember being a child listening to my maternal grandfather tell me how wonderful this country was, while showing me the documents that confirmed he was a full-fledged naturalized citizen of the United States.

Which means that when it comes to the latest of newcomers from Latin American nations, what I see are a group of people who are in situations very much like my grandfathers – who left Mexico in large part because the chaos following the Mexican Revolution made it very unlikely they would have much of a life back home.

SO LIKE MANY other people with ambition throughout the years, they looked toward our nation.

Which means that not only do I feel some compassion because I know that the nitwits of our society don’t want to have to distinguish between myself and these people, I also realize that the fact I am more assimilated into this society is because my grandfathers (and my paternal grandmother) gave our family an 80-year head start on the new newcomers.

I don’t think I get to claim any real superiority because I had a head-start, especially since the odds are overwhelming that the grandchildren of the new newcomers are going to turn out to be a lot like myself.

-30-

Is Cubano community “maturing?” Or is this just about Gloria Estefan?

President Barack Obama spent his Thursday night in one of the last places some people would have expected him to be welcome – the Miami-area home of entertainers Emilio and Gloria Estefan.

The prominent couple that unabashedly considers itself a part of the Miami Cubano community that Republicans consider to be among their political base hosted a fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee.

THERE IS ALSO the fact that even though Gloria Estefan made comments during the last presidential election cycle indicating backing for a Democratic Party candidate – it was because she liked the idea of Hillary R. Clinton running for office (and giving us the sight of former President Bill being reduced to the status of presidential spouse).

But now, the Estefan residence is allowing Obama to show up for one of two fundraisers that Democrats say could help raise about $2.5 million for the party, which wants to use the money to bolster the finances of various congressional candidates who are facing serious challenges from Republican people.

This particular fundraising event isn’t cheap. The Miami Herald newspaper reported that tickets to get in cost $30,000 per couple. That’s a lot of cash to spend just to be able to say one once went to a cocktail party and got to chat for a few seconds with a sitting president.

So will Obama drink? Or will he stay conveniently sober?

WILL SOMEBODY MAKE some gaffe that will be caught by someone who sneaks a video camera into the event – only to have the resulting video turn up on websites all over the Internet?

Most importantly, what does this say about the politics of two prominent Miami Cubans? Does it reflect on the Miami Cubano community as a whole?

For the record, the Estefans are saying they’re neither Republican nor Democrat. So this kind of political support should not be considered a surprise, or a change from any past activity.

Of course, the fact that much of their past political activity was participation in activities meant to protest the presence of Fidel Castro and was done with heavy GOP backing made many people convinced that the couple was like many other Miami Cubans of a certain generation.

DOES THIS MEAN that we now have that Cubano community no longer willing to rigidly look at the Democratic Party as the ones that sold them out at the “Bay of Pigs” and may start looking more broadly at the issue?

Could it be that the ties between various Latin American ethnicities that make us “Latinos” in this country are now going to fully include the Cuban communities living in this country?

Reading through the reports of this fundraiser, I get the sense that the Estefans aren’t exactly making a hard-core commitment to the Democratic Party and its officials – although I wonder if they fully comprehend the current political environment that is now going to bind them to that party, whether they like it or not.

The fact is that this fundraiser is being timed to take advantage of those people who do not have a problem with the health care reform measure that recently was signed into law by Obama. People who are showing up and giving money to the Estefans that ultimately will be turned over to the political party are the ones who think the federal government needs to get involved in resolving the current conditions that leave some 47 million people without health insurance.

THIS IS ISSUE Number One for the Republican Party, which plans to run candidates who are prepared to demonize the issue and claim that it is nothing more than socialist rabble to think that someone’s lack of health insurance is somehow the problem of society as a whole (I say it is because the situation can drag us all down, but that is a different commentary).

It is not going to be looked kindly upon by those GOP partisans that the Estefans gave comfort to the “enemy,” so to speak, at a fundraiser that will be tied to healthcare reform support.

It will be interesting to see the long-lasting implications of this decision.

Of course, Cuba itself is ultimately a part of the deal. Apparently, one of the conditions for the Estefans agreeing to host this particular fundraiser is that Obama give about 15 minutes of his time for a one-on-one talk with people who want to tell him what they think he should do with regards to establishing relations with the Caribbean island nation.

OBAMA IS THE official who has said he would like to take steps that lead to the eventual restoration of government relations between the United States and Cuba. He has gone so far as to ease travel restrictions on Cubans living in the United States, and also is talking about restoration of mail service between the two countries.

But there are those who fear that giving up too much will merely bolster the government of Raul Castro – rather than result in two nations that actually work together. Obama is going to have to sit through a lecture about not giving up too much, too quickly with regards to Cuba, before he can get his hands on those checks that will provide campaign cash to potential Obama allies in Congress.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Cubano supporters of the Estefan fundraiser say they’re merely trying to get the current president (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/14/1580051/obama-makes-stop-in-miami-for.html) to listen to their concerns.

Gloria Estefan had a “record,” so to speak that caused people to think Barack Obama would be the last person she’d support. She gave rhetoric support to Hillary R. Clinton in 2008 (http://www.milenio.com/index.php/2007/09/19/122662/) and also was thought by many to be a solid (http://conservative-sugar.tressugar.com/list-Republican-Celebs-2032429) Republican backer.

The last time Obama had a gathering with so many Latino entertainers, he gave us this moment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dyvou-6hHY) with singer Thalia.

How tough will Dems be when the fight kicks up a notch?

In theory, we’re hearing all the right rhetoric from Democratic Party officials who want a respectable Latino voter turnout this year and who want to see some support for our ethnic brethren who have issues with their immigration status.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., recently said that he can get 56 of the 59 senators who are Democrats or independents to back an immigration reform measure, which means there are enough votes to pass it. The only issue is if about four Republicans could be persuaded to side with them so as to eliminate the chance that GOP partisans use the filibuster procedure to prevent a vote from ever being taken.

WE ALSO HAVE Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., going out of his way recently to remind us that his grandmother was an immigrant (although throughout the years he has always talked proudly of having ethnic origins in Lithuania).

We have many Democratic officials saying they’d like to support the issue. Even President Barack Obama has made vague statements saying something will happen “this year,” although what and when exactly has never been specified.

It sounds sweet.

Democrats who have a majority in both chambers of Congress say they’re sympathetic to making changes in the nation’s immigration laws so as to make it possible for people already living and working in this country to remain here openly – no longer having to worry about some minor act like a traffic stop somehow uncovering the fact that they do not have a valid visa.

BUT WHAT I am wondering (and I’m sure I am not alone on this point) is how much of a backbone will those government officials aligned with the Democratic Party show when the Republican partisans who are more than willing to play politics with this issue decide to start smacking people about.

Are we going to see some serious political gamesmanship to get something past this outspoken opposition – which for now is in theminority?

Or are we going to get a lot of excuses from Democratic politicians about how they would have liked to have addressed the issue, but were prevented from doing so by political gamesmanship on the part of Republicans?

Which is what a filibuster really is – let’s be honest!

I REALIZE THAT Latino activists who follow political activity seriously are correct when they make comparisons to the civil rights movement that had its earliest origins in the late 1940s but didn’t get Congress and a president to pass serious legislation until Lyndon B. Johnson showed political backbone in 1964.

These things take time. They build up to a boiling point.

Yet I can’t help but sense that we’re getting close to that boiling point when action of some type must occur, and that if something does not happen this year a good part of the momentum will be lost.

That is part of the point of the overwhelming Democratic Party majorities that were achieved last year and this in Congress, and that are likely to be reduced significantly due to the natural ebb and flow of partisan politics where things go back and forth.

THERE IS A sense that one must hit on certain issues at a certain time. It may very well be that immigration reform’s “time” is now, even though I am not one of those people who is irretrievably upset because immigration “reform” was not Obama’s first act as president.

This issue will become an ugly partisan battle, and some people will go out of their way to camouflage their xenophobia by claiming that the national economic struggles we all have endured for the past two years make this exactly the wrong time to address this issue.

“Why encourage non-citizens to stay in this country at a time when gainful employment is tight?,” they will say.

Of course, that ignores the fact that these economic downturns come and go. Which means if we’re going to wait for a time when we will be guaranteed that we will never face financial struggles again, that only means immigration reform will never occur.

THE REALITY IS that the two “issues” are not connected.

If anything, we’d probably be helping the native worker in this country with immigration reform because by stabilizing the status of these undocumented workers who are attractive to unscrupulous employers because they see them as a source of workers who can be taken advantage of, we make them less attractive.

Which very well means that, if given a choice between being required to treat a citizen and a non-citizen worker identically, the citizen would get some preference. Provided, that is, you can find many citizens who want to pick vegetables or push a mop or do many of the other menial (and sometimes dangerous) jobs that newcomers to this country use as an entry point to our society.

This is an issue whose time has come, and addressing it will be beneficial to us all.

SO WHAT WILL it be for our Democratic partisans (who do rely heavily on Latino voter support these days to counter the types who are ideologically inclined to think Tea Party sounds cute)?

Will they fight? Or are they already preparing their list of reasons why nothing could be done this summer?

-30-

Cuba wants modern-day economy without the social issues

There are those people who are going to try to pass off the changes coming from Cuba as a realization on the part of the government that a strict adherence to the Communist ideology is hurting their economy.

Could the Cuban government be taking the baby-steps, so to speak, toward a western Capitalist economy? I doubt it.

BY ALL APPEARANCES, Cuba seems to have shifted its role model from the now-defunct Soviet Union (Russia can’t really afford to prop up Cuba the way the Soviets used to) to China – the Communist regime that has adopted certain Capitalist economic reforms while still maintaining the rigid controls over social issues.

I don’t get too excited learning about the Cuban government’s efforts to sell tacky souvenirs. Nor of the fact that small businesses (which probably were too small for the government to seriously monitor anyway) may now get a bit of freedom in the way they operate.

Specifically, hair salons and barbers that operate with less than four chairs in their shops can now consider themselves self-owned, instead of the way it has been since 1968 when the government of Fidel Castro nationalized all of these tiny businesses.

For the past four-plus decades, the Cuban government has paid the operators of these small businesses a salary to cut hair – in exchange for the fact that their gross income belonged entirely to the government.

NOW, THOSE SMALL operators will get to consider their gross income to be theirs, in exchange for the fact they now have to pay rent to the government for their facilties and taxes on their income.

Either way, the Cuban government gets its share. What we’re going to see is if there truly is an entrepreneurial spirit among the Cuban people; if those who have been propped up for so long that they know no other way of doing things can adjust to suddenly having to account for themselves?

The British Broadcasting Co. reported that this is the Cuban government’s first gesture toward opening up the retail and service sector of the economy, although some taxicab operators have been allowed to operate independently in recent months.

I suppose I’d be more impressed by the gesture if it encompassed more than the smallest businesses – the ones that probably are one-person operations that are struggling to survive. For all I know, this merely reduces government overhead in terms of having to pay for a struggling hair stylist, similar to how when the government turned over control of some state-run farms to the local farmers, it was only the farms that had historically been so unproductive that they were a drag on the government’s finances.

I WILL BE more impressed when larger-scale “businesses” start to get more freedom to operate for themselves. Because I don’t see how Cuba is doing much of anyone a favor with its latest activity.

But while I am quick to criticize Cuban gestures toward its own people that have the potential to be a whole lot of talk about nothing, I also have to admit I get a bit of a chuckle out of the government’s other money-making scheme these days – a website called Cuban Mall (www.mallcubano.com).

It is a website that would look familiar to anyone in this country who likes to go shopping on the Internet – only this one peddles all kinds of clothing, music and art with contemporary Cuban themes, and it is all licensed by the Cuban government.

So the government of Raul Castro gets its cut if you decide to buy a shirt from the Compay Segundo line (remember the 90-ish singer from the Buena Vista Social Club?). They see all the international interest in the work of one-time Francisco Repilado and decide they want their piece of it, and now they can keep all of it, unlike when Segundo was alive and was entitled to 20 percent of his earnings (the other 80 percent was the tax the Cuban government assesses on any of its citizens who earn money from abroad).

I EVEN GET a kick out of the fact that this website offers “Mothers’ Day” specials, implying that we can use the website to send gifts to our relatives who remain in Cuba in time for the holidays.

Which means the Cuban government does not mind those Cubanos who now live in the United States spending money on their relatives remaining on the island, so long as the government gets its share.

In the end, it all comes down to the dollars for the Cuban government. Perhaps that is to be expected. But until we see the loosening up of the restrictions on culture within the country, Cuba is more likely to be a Chinese ally rather than one of the United States.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Small-time hair stylists can now (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8616858.stm) do business for themselves. While the Cuban government is trying to get the dollars and Euros of those people (http://star-techcentral.com/tech/story.asp?file=/2010/4/12/technology/20100412164712&sec=technology) who want genuine Cuban tacky souvenirs.

Do we really need a Mexican prison film?

Leave it to actor Mel Gibson to figure out a way to tick people off, and to figure out a way to get the local officials to tell all the upset people to “¡Buzz off!” – so to speak.

Gibson, who in the past has managed to turn himself into a persona that offends certain progressive-type people (anti-semitic comments followed by lame apologies will do that), is at it again.

SPECIFICALLY, HE’S MAKING generous financial gestures to bolster the local economy in certain Mexican towns, in order to be allowed to make his movies there. Mexico has that tropical climate and a government that is willing to bend over backward to accommodate Gibson – all so that their hometowns can get those moments of cinematic preservation.

That is what is at stake with Gibson’s latest film, to be called “How I Spent My Summer Vacation” and intended for release in movie theaters next summer. Gibson plays the part of a criminal who gets caught up in the Mexican justice system, and winds up serving time in a Mexican prison.

Not that there’s any country on this planet where I would want to be arrested and do time, but I certainly wouldn’t want to have it happen in Mexico.

To capture a sense of reality, Gibson arranged to shoot parts of his film in a real prison in Mexico – the Ignacio Allenda facility in Vera Cruz.

NOT THAT GIBSON was associating with real inmates of that prison. He had the facility cleared out.

That’s the kind of clout that Hollywood-type cash can buy. Mexican officials in search of that cinematic glory and the financial boost that their economies got from having a film crew present were willing to relocate the real inmates so that the facility would be empty.

The inmates in the film were extras, getting their token pay to be background scenery for Gibson, whose character undergoes a transformation after enduring the harsh conditions of a Mexican prison.

The real inmates had families who were inconvenienced during the time that Gibson used the real prison for his cinematic vision. They protested. They picketed. But in the end, local government officials disregarded them because they weren’t willing to spend the kind of money that Gibson and his film crew were willing to.

MONEY TALKS. IT also helps that Gibson has something of a track record of shooting films in Mexico -- using eastern parts of the country for "Apocalypto," his pre-European influence tale of life among the indigenous peoples who are now called Mexicans.

Gibson proved it in recent days by saying he plans to donate the sets he constructed for the film to the local government, which plans to convert them into a museum they have long desired to build.

Besides, they also will get their moment of glory in seeing their hometown on the movie screen.

Not that this was the first time I have ever heard of a real prison being used for a film. I can recall two films made decades apart at the old Stateville Correctional Center near Joliet, Ill. Oliver Stone staged a prison riot with a warden being decapitated at the prison (and actually managed to use a few real inmates as extras) in “Natural Born Killers,” while Jimmy Stewart’s “P.J. McNeal” character in “Call NorthSide 777 “does an inmate interview inside a real cell – in a cellblock that was emptied out for shooting and probably hasn’t been as eerily silent since.

BUT I HAVE to wonder if we’re going to get political people who are dismayed next year, as much as Illinois prison officials who have since called their Oliver Stone moment a “headache” that might not have been worth it.

I only hope Mexican officials don’t start crying out next year when they are forced to realize that the image being portrayed on film of a Mexican prison is going to be an over-the-top one – and that a future generation will make jokes about Mexican prisons similar to how an older generation recalls the film “Airplane,” with its Capt. Oveur character (played by Peter Graves) making quips about being in a “Turkish prison.”

Could Turkish prison management become the only people who wind up enjoying this new Mel Gibson film?

So if the local government officials wind up being offended by their portrayal, don’t expect me to be sympathetic. They took their payoff. Now they can live with the potential for generations of movie-watchers looking at this potentially graphic image as somehow being endemic of their community.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: From movie set to museum? Mel Gibson figured out a way to get to the hearts (http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/story/2010/04/09/gibson-veracruz-sets.html?ref=rss#socialcomments) of local government officials in Mexico.