An “ugly” little fact some won’t want to concede - Mexican nationals can be U.S. heroes

Monday is the day we officially honor those military personnel who died in behalf of the United States. Some might want to view it as a respite from the rhetoric that has been spewed in the partisan battles now taking place over the issue of immigration reform.

Yet it isn’t really.

FOR WHILE I can envision some of the hard-liners who want to think that this is a day when their “patriotism” reigns supreme and anyone who doesn’t adhere to their nativist viewpoint ought to pipe down, it really isn’t.

If anything, Memorial Day is a day when we get reminders of how people from other countries have been so eager to be a part of our society that they have been willing to fight in our military on its behalf. The ranks of military dead and military heroes include many immigrants.

And for those who want to think that the newest batch of immigrants is just so radically different from past waves of immigration because it comes from Latin America instead of Europe, Memorial Day provides evidence that such a thought is not so.

It is with all the “Mexico-bashing” that is taking place in some segments of our society that I feel the need to point out the following about the Congressional Medal of Honor – 43 of its recipients had ethnic origins in Latin America.

WHILE MOST OF those men were U.S.-born, there is the fact that 10 Medal of Honor winners were not from the mainland. One is from Chile, with another from Spain, four more from Puerto Rico proper, and yet another four who were born in Mexico – the nation that these nitwits would like to believe is the source of many problems confronting this nation.

Now I am not claiming that everyone of Mexican ethnicity is as worthy of recognition as the four. But trying to claim the reverse would be about as ridiculous as claiming that Timothy McVeigh (who during his own military career won the Bronze Star and considered himself to be a true patriot) as typical of all Anglos.

But I don’t think it hurts to remember the four men whose birthplace was south of the Rio Bravo del Norte/Rio Grande, but whose most memorable contribution came about in the service of the United States.

Marcario Garcia and Silvestre Herrera achieved their honor during the Second World War, while Alfred Rascon and Jose Jimenez served in the U.S. military during the Vietnam conflict.

GARCIA ACHIEVED HIS honor for his actions on Nov. 27, 1944 when, while serving as a private (he later was promoted to staff sergeant) in the Army near Grosshau in Germany, he attacked two machinegun emplacements that were picking off his fellow soldiers.

Despite suffering multiple bullet wounds, Garcia – born in Villa de Castano – was able to crawl to a position close enough where he was able to use hand grenades to destroy the guns and his rifle to kill the operators who were trying to escape.

Despite his wounds, he also managed to take four German soldiers as prisoners. Only after the two machinegun positions were taken out and his fellow soldiers were able to advance was he willing to accept medical treatment.

Then, there was army Private Herrera, who was born in Camargo in Chihuahua (although for many years, military records indicated he was born in El Paso, Texas).

ON MARCH 15, 1945, his platoon advanced through the woods near Mertzwiller, France, until it was confronted by machinegun fire. While his colleagues took cover, Herrera charged directly at one of the guns, capturing the eight German soldiers who were operating the gun.

When the soldiers tried advancing again and encountered a second machinegun placement, Herrera tried repeating his actions. This time, he stepped on a landmine and wound up losing both of his feet.

Although he was bleeding severely, his reaction was to grab his rifle and use it to keep the German crew from being able to cause more damage. That is what enabled another group of U.S. soldiers to capture the crew.

Despite the severity of his injuries, Herrera survived and was presented with his Medal of Honor by then-President Harry S Truman.

MEXICO ALSO RECOGNIZED his actions, presenting him with the Medal of Merit. At the time of his death in 2007, Herrera (who went on to be an Arizona resident and has a Phoenix street named after him) was the only person authorized to wear both medals.

Two decades later, another war gave two other Mexican citizens their chance at U.S. military heroics.

Rascon was born in Chihuahua, but his family settled in Oxnard, Calif., when he was young. When he finished high school, he enlisted in the U.S. army. Which is how he came to be in Vietnam near the Long Khahn Province on March 16, 1966 as a medic for a platoon of paratroopers. His platoon was assigned to provide support to a sister battallion already under attack.

As a result, he repeatedly came under fire while trying to get to soldiers who were in need of medical aid. In several instances, Rascon used his own body to cover those of wounded soldiers. As a result, he suffered from several grenade blasts, yet still managed to get soldiers to safety.

HIS OWN WOUNDS were severe enough that he was administered the Last Rites, although he eventually spent six months at a hospital in Japan recovering from his injuries.

He became a U.S. citizen in 1967, and went on to have a military career that saw him retire in 2002 as a lieutenant colonel.

But his Medal of Honor status was a bigger political fight. He was nominated for the Medal of Honor, but a paperwork error was blamed for him receiving the Silver Star instead. It was former Rep. Lane Evans, D-Ill., who persuaded then-President Bill Clinton to push the Pentagon to reconsider.

Rascon received the Medal of Honor in 2000.

MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD A story was that of Jose F. Jimenez, who was born in Mexico City but whose family immigrated to the United States (Arizona, to be specific).

Initially, he enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve in June 1968, but was discharged to enlist in the regular Marine Corps later that year. On Aug. 28, 1969, he was killed in action while attacking troops near DaNang.

What made his death more memorable than most, according to his Medal of Honor citation, was that he died after charging at machinegun emplacements, personally destroying an antiaircraft weapon and killing several soldiers.

Even after being wounded, Jimenez kept charging and firing his weapon, getting within 10 feet of an enemy emplacement before suffering the wound that finally killed him.

JIMENEZ WOUND UP winning, in addition to the Medal of Honor, the Purple Heart, the Vietnam Service Medal, two Bronze Stars, the Vietnam Campaign Medal and the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry.

Which is probably more than some nativists will ever feel comfortable crediting a Mexican with receiving on behalf of the United States.

-30-

Will there someday be a ‘last Latino’ in Arizona?

It was the twisted gag out of Miami in the early 1980s when that south Florida city went from having a Cubano enclave to being Cubano-dominant – the bumper stickers put together by a resentful white population that read, “Will the last American to leave Miami please bring the flag?”

Now I could go off on a diatribe about how those Cubanos are “Americans” as well – as are everybody from the western tip of Alaska to the southern tips of Chile and Argentina.

BUT INSTEAD, I am wondering how many people think there is potential for Phoenix to become Miami in reverse – a place where Latinos (who theoretically are the native population) will feel so unwelcome that they will choose to make a life for themselves elsewhere.

Could Arizona (which has roughly a 30 percent Latino population) become the place in the desert for white people, while neighboring New Mexico (which has roughly a 44 percent Latino population) becomes the place where the “natives” become predominant?

It’s too early to tell. For the Justice Department is preparing its legal challenge to the new Arizona laws by claiming that these local cops getting involved with federal immigration policy will actually interfere with the ability of the U.S. government to enforce the laws and patrol the borders.

So it is possible that the courts could strike down Arizona’s misguided immigration effort long before there is any significant population shift. But there already are the superficial signs that people who have decided to have a life in the southwestern United States are picking any place other than Phoenix or Tuscon to do so.

ON FRIDAY ALONE, I read accounts in the New York Times about how Latino and Latin American musicians are now hesitant to perform in Arizona, while the Phoenix Business Journal reported that Arizona’s new law may wind up persuading many freshly graduated law school students to decide to have careers in Las Vegas or Los Angeles, rather than Phoenix.

There also was the Arizona Republic newspaper that reported how Latinos with school-age children were considering in significant numbers whether it would be time to move, on account of the fact that they’d rather not have their children endure the potential for harassment that could arise in coming months.

One school district in east Phoenix literally has lost 70 families during the past month. We’re talking literally about people who couldn’t wait for the school year to end in order to get out. That is a sad comment about Arizona – even though I realize there are some people who are closed-minded enough to not appreciate how embarrassed they should be for the things they are saying and doing.

Personally, I want to say it would be short-sighted for Latinos to move in great numbers – in large part because by doing so they are giving the most hard-core of the proponents of these anti-immigrant laws exactly what they want.

A WORLD WITHOUT Latinos, which would turn out to be such a deadly dull place out in the desert (which is the reason I would never want to live in Arizona – even if they were to repeal this nonsense law and the other measures that have been enacted in recent weeks).

A part of me thinks our ethnic brethren need to stand firm against this kind of nativist nonsense being spewed in the name of national security. Then again, it is not me on the “front line,” so to speak, of this particular issue. It is not my kids who face the threat of harassment.

But I can’t help but get back to the comparison to Miami, where the development of a significant Latino population is what turned that city from a sleepy southern beach town to one of the nation’s most significant cities. It was that international character that elevated the place.

Will Phoenix become a case study of the reverse – where the day will come when that city will be no more significant a municipality than a place like Lake Montezuma (pop. 3,344) with locals who desperately push for measures meant to rename the town “Beaver Creek?”

-30-

Did the Senate show a sense of common sense?

It was encouraging to see the U.S. Senate vote Thursday in a way that did not offer aid and comfort to those nativist elements of our society who are determined to impose their exclusionary view of our nation upon us all.

What happened was that the Senate failed to approve a measure that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., wanted that would have approved funding to pay for 6,000 troops along the U.S./Mexico border. It would have been part of a $59 billion bill to pay for the U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

I FIND THAT encouraging because had the Senate approved this, it literally would have played into the rhetoric of the people whose idea of immigration “reform” is a mass increase in the number of deportations to Latin American countries.

Because the reaction from the “far right” that I have been reading and hearing to President Barack Obama’s decision earlier this week to send 1,200 troops to the U.S./Mexico border was to claim that the president’s gesture was weak and ineffectual.

In fact, those same people who were criticizing Obama were often using the exact same figure of 6,000. They claim sending 1,200 National Guard members to the border is not enough, more people are needed.

This criticism, of course, comes at the exact same time that Obama is being trashed by Latino activists and others for sending ANY troops to the border. So whether Obama is acting like a fascist or a wimp depends entirely upon whom one wants to believe.

I FIND IT encouraging that the “right” won’t get their 6,000 armed soldiers along the border. Because those same people who claim that 1,200 is a weak gesture also are offended that the soldiers being sent to the border by the president are being restricted to certain support duties, which would allow the U.S. Border Patrol to free up its officers (who are actually trained in the art of detecting who does and does NOT belong on each side of the border) to do more patrols – possibly detecting more people trying to slip past the official U.S. ports of entry.

I literally have read rhetoric around the Internet by people who want actual “combat troops” sent to the border to take over patrol duties. We have some people in this country who are sick enough to want to turn this action into a shooting war.

Which is why I do not get as worked up as some Latino activists do in being upset with Obama for sending any troops to the U.S./Mexico border. I realize things could be worse, and it likely is the fact that we have a president whose underlying philosophy is sympathetic to the situation of the fast-growing Latino population in this country that keeps the nativists from prevailing all the way around.

Although the fact that I know he basically is sympathetic also makes it infuriating to many of us the degree to which the president feels the need to make gestures of support to the opposition on the immigration issue – because those opponents have pretty much made it clear they are not going to give Obama credit for anything, even when he gives them what they want.

BECAUSE ONE CAN argue that is what he has done on the immigration issue.

The Obama years have given us an increase in the number of people being picked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, along with the continuation of policies implemented by past presidents who definitely were NOT sympathetic to newcomers to this nation.

“Efforts to overhaul our broken immigration system have taken a back seat to dramatic escalations of border enforcement including placing troops on the U.S. border to serve in a function for which they have not been trained,” said Rosa Rosales, national president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, in a prepared statement.

This step-up in enforcement comes at a time when the number of actual people caught trying to enter the United States through Mexico at a place other than a port of entry has declined by more than half.

ONE COULD ARGUE that the problem of people slipping into the country undetected is not as serious now as it was a few years ago, and that the emphasis on border patrols and enforcement is merely being done to try to appease people with the ridiculous notion that the key to improving our society is to remove people who aren’t just like themselves.

Which is why we Latinos wonder at times what it will take to shift the focus of this issue onto the proper element – trying to figure out how to straighten out the convoluted immigration process so that people who are here who can (and do) make worthwhile contributions to our society ought to be able to live here openly without harassment.

These people who think the key is to send 6,000 soldiers to the U.S./Mexico border are about increasing the harassment.

-30-

What will Idaho GOPers do?

Those of us with an interest in Latino political empowerment just developed a reason to care about the state of Idaho.

That state had its primary elections this week, and in one congressional district the ex-Marine and CIA operative who was the favorite of the local Republican Party establishment actually managed to lose to his opponent – a state legislator who happens to be of Puerto Rican ethnicity.

SO IN THAT northwestern state, we’re going to get the sight of a Latino taking on an incumbent member of Congress – Rep. Walt Minnick, D-Idaho. Minnick is a first-term member of the House of Representatives who is considered vulnerable politically because his state leans toward the Republican Party.

Local GOP types want to believe that Minnick’s election was merely a fluke caused by what they want to view as that aberation of 2008 otherwise known as the election of Barack Obama as U.S. president. They were counting on Ward to present what they consider an “all-American” image to knock Minnick out come November and “restore” Idaho to its rightful place with the Party of Reagan.

Except that Ward couldn’t even get past Raul Labrador, who now gets to take on Minnick come the Nov. 2 general elections.

Now I’m not an Idaho resident. I don’t know anyone who lives there. I don’t know who I’d vote for if I did live there.

BUT IT IS going to be intriguing watching the modern-day incarnation of the Republican Party (the one that wants to think Arizona is doing them proud with all of their recent actions – including their most recent consideration of a bill that would strip U.S. citizenship from people born in this country if their parents were not citizens at the time of their birth) squirm as they try to figure out what they did so wrong that they had to be the party with the Latino nominee.

Even though Labrador won the nomination, I don’t see it as any sign that the Idaho version of the GOP has suddenly become enlightened in the area of ethnic relations.

The Idaho Statesman newspaper reported signs that Ward managed to offend the sensibilities of some Republican partisans with his ties to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (who last week appeared in Boise on his behalf and also gave his campaign other tokens of support). There also was some concern that Ward has not yet given up his family’s house in Virginia (he was renting a home for his family in Idaho).

That caused enough people to vote against Ward, rather than for Labrador – who himself engages in the anti-Obama rhetoric favored by segments of the Republican Party faithful. “The answer to Obamaism is liberty,” was Labrador’s comment early Wednesday to his campaign faithful who celebrated his electoral victory.

NOW WHILE SOME people like to view these congressional campaigns purely within a local context, the fact is that they all have to be fit within the national picture. Those political observers who are determined to believe that the Republican Party has a significant chance to take a majority of the Hosue of Representatives (if not the entire Congress) were counting on the concept of an ex-Marine being willing to appeal to the version of patriotism espoused by the social conservatives, and were figuring that Minnick was vulnerable to defeat because of that image.

But the Washington Post used its website to report Wednesday that such a view is no longer prevailing. It seems that the national Republican Party types who decide whether or not to pump in national cash and support to bolster a local candidate’s chances are skeptical that Labrador is worth the same type of support they were willing to give to Ward.

When combined with the fact that Minnick has made a point of voting against the Democratic Party leadership’s stances (he was a “no” on health care reform) on many issues so that the GOP cannot use those votes against him in this year’s general election, it’s not like the Republican Party has enough of a commitment to Latino political empowerment to want to put Labrador in office.

This may have just become yet another boring local race.

THERE ARE THOSE people who say that Minnick’s chances of re-election gained a significant jolt this week because the GOP did not pick the “right” nominee. Which is why I will be watching the state this year. How subtle will the Republican partisans be in expressing their displeasure with their candidate?

Will they be willing to look seriously at Labrador and give him a chance? Or are they going to write this year off as a loss?

I’d like to think it will be the former. Because I do believe that the growing Latino population of this country is better off if we have signficant membership within both political parties. It would be nice to see our perspective reflected in the policies of both.

Because much of the problem we have these days is that the Republican Party is being tilted too far to the right by segments of our society who want to use the party to push for policies meant to minimize (if not erase outright) our growing numbers.

-30-

Gutierrez tries to bolster immigration bill with gay support

On the surface, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., is engaging in a common political act, being willing to amend his bill in a way that includes benefits for more people – which means potential for more politicians to vote in favor of it.

But we’re talking about Gutierrez’ desires for immigration reform, combined with Latinos and gay rights activists. So naturally, we have the social conservatives getting all worked up, seeing some sinister plot on the part of the congressman from Chicago to get all the people they despise wrapped up in backing a bill they despise even more than the new health care reform measure that became federal law despite their opposition.

IF IT READS like I am writing that there is a lot of irrationality being spewed these days, you’d be correct.

At stake was Gutierrez, who earlier this week in Chicago said he is willing to expand his immigration reform measure (the one desired by Latino activists but so opposed by the right that there is little chance Democrats let it get close to being the bill they actually use when the day comes that they decide to deal with the nation’s immigration laws).

He’s willing to have it written into federal law that citizens who want someone from another country of the same gender who is their “partner” to be granted a visa so they can openly live in the United States, then so be it.

Current federal law would only allow for that visa to be granted if there was a family relation between the two. Which means that gay couples of differing nationalities fall outside of what the current system was set up to accommodate.

BY TAKING THIS action, Gutierrez now has two more congressmen willing to talk up the merits of this bill – Reps. Jared Polis, D-Colo., who is gay, and Mike Quigley, D-Ill., who represents many neighborhoods in Chicago where a hostility toward gay people would be perceived as a negative.

There also is the chance that this gets perceived as more than just a “Latino” issue, which is the problem that immigration reform faces these days. Too many people are perceiving it as something that does not impact them, while others see it as helping a group of people whom they would prefer to mess with politically.

Which means that Gutierrez is merely engaging in the “game” of electoral politics – majorities win. Could the social conservative opposition to this really come down to the fact that they don’t want it exposed that they are the minority view on this issue, and that there is a coalition of interests that – when put together – will outvote them?

It could wind up being that the progressive coalition that gave us our nation’s current president could wind up coming together again in some future year to push this issue through. It is only by keeping the various factions split up that the social conservatives can mass together in a large enough form to vote their goals into action.

NOW I KNOW some people are going to want to believe that all those Catholic Latinos are going to have a problem going against the church’s teachings on homosexuality. Although I think the people who are most vocal in bringing up that point are the ones trying to use it to keep the progressive factions “split apart.”

I don’t see it as a significant split. In fact, I wonder if the mood of the society is changing to the point where it will soon be a negative for those people not willing to include gay people in their interests.

I find it interesting that Gutierrez reaches out to gay activists for support on the immigration issue at the same time the Gallup Organization came out with a pair of polls.

That group claims that support for the “moral acceptability” of gay relations was 52 percent of those surveyed, with 43 percent calling it “morally wrong.” Gallup noted they have asked this same question in recent years, and that the 43 percent is the lowest level ever.

AS EXPECTED, THE older one gets, the less acceptable they find such behavior. But among those under 50, 62 percent of men and 59 percent of women found gay behavior “morally acceptable.”

When it comes to those Catholics, 62 percent of those surveyed said they could find gay relations “morally acceptable,” even though the church officially teaches otherwise. (It seems to be the Protestants who have the biggest hangup these days, with only 42 percent finding such behavior acceptable).

So what should we think of immigration reform? Despite the ridiculous rhetoric all too often spewed these days by its critics, I still believe it is something whose political passage is inevitable, particularly with the growing Latino population not slowing up anytime soon.

Immigration reform has been an issue where the Latino activists have worked with religious leaders (many clergy see the keeping of families together regardless of citizenship as a humanitarian issue) and organized labor. Now, they have added another interest to the coalition. How much longer until the social conservatives eager to keep this country out of the 21st Century become a minority best ignored?

-30-

Party switching in Latino political future?

The concept of socially-conservative Latinos has never been a shock to me. So it doesn’t surprise me to learn that Latinos are in the Republican Party, and that some consider themselves to be among the Tea Party types who will speak out in defense of Arizona and the immigration opponents and much else that some people would consider downright backward.

It’s a little too simplistic to say that this conservative streak comes from the Catholic Church.

BUT THERE ARE those among us who have no problems accepting the social agenda that conservatives often tout, particularly on issues involving abortion and gay people.

So when I read a pair of reports that wound up on the Internet, my initial reaction was something along the lines of “eh” even though I’m sure the entities that put these reports together (the Wall Street Journal newspaper and Dallas’ Channel 11 – a CBS affiliate) want us to be shocked at the very concept of Latino conservatives.

In the case of Dallas television, it was a slow news day Sunday, so a reporter-type went to a “Tea Party” gathering. Big surprise, you’re in Texas, and many Latinos are from families that have lived there for generations.

So there were Spanish surnames among the gathering.

WHICH MEANS THEY found Latinos who think of themselves as so assimilated into the society that they’re willing to defend its more jackassed moments. “It’s difficult being Hispanic and conservative,” one of them told the television station – as though the masses are now supposed to feel sorry for this particular person.

Now I come from a family where it was my grandparents who were the immigrants. I can remember as a kid hearing rhetoric from them that indicated an interest in assimilation, and not much interest in looking back at the state of the “old country” (although I can remember my maternal grandfather mocking my grandmother’s claims of various European ethnicities in her family background by telling us kids that grandma, “is just a Mexican like everyone else here”).

I also know there is little about my experience that wasn’t shared by many other people in this country with ethnic backgrounds tracing back to Latin American nations.

Which is why it doesn’t shock me to learn that some people (including some of my cousins) of Latino ethnic backgrounds don’t share the same level of interest in geneology. Then again, I have other cousins whose knowledge and interest is so much more intense than my own.

WHETHER YOU WANT to believe it or not, I truly am somewhere in the middle of the mix when it comes to reflecting the thought process of the growing Latino population.

That is why Latinos who want to associate with those Tea Party types (personally, I find most of them to be so boring with their constant rants about what is wrong with this country, instead of recognizing the improvements that have been achieved in recent decades) don’t surprise me. When I read in that Dallas television report that someone said these Latino Tea Party types were out of touch with Latinos, I’d say we’re all over the place, so it is that variety of opinion that construes the true Latino perspective on issues.

There also was another report published by Rupert Murdoch’s business-oriented newspaper (the one he’s trying to make more general interest), which tells of Latinos who had considered themselves to be loyal to the GOP – only to now question their political future in the wake of Arizona’s new law that is going to require local police to aggressively enforce federal immigration laws.

The newspaper found people who say they feel betrayed by the hard-line Republican Party support for this policy – and the trash-talk being dealt out by the GOP toward anyone who implies the Arizona policy might be even slightly flawed.

DO I EXPECT a lot of defections? That is probably overstating the effect that will occur, for I think a lot of the Latinos who have gone GOP because of the social agenda will find a way to justify their continued allegiance to that political party in the future.

The real effect is more likely to be in terms of gaining new members, which is what any entity has to continually do to prevent itself from aging, dying off and becoming irrelevant.

Particularly when it comes to the Latino population, it is a young one, with many people who have not yet achieved voting age. Or in the case of those who are not yet citizens, they have not yet achieved the ability to cast a ballot in U.S. elections.

Which is why Latinos in Arizona account for 30 percent of the population, but only about 12 percent of those registered to vote. The gap between those figures eventually will close in future years (I will guess within the next decade).

WITH THE WAY the GOP has allowed its conservative fringe to dominate its thought process on so many issues, I just can’t see many of these newcomers to the process deciding that they want to have anything to do with the party that at times seems embarrassed by the fact it once was the Party of Lincoln.

If anything, the Republicans threaten to become the party of “grandpa,” out of touch with the realities of life in our society during the 21st Century. Which is why I will always believe that if the GOP had had any sense, they would have taken the initiative on implementing immigration reform. It could have created significant support to bolster their ranks.

-30-

What is a Latino name in this age of assimilation?

I got dissed, so to speak, the other night by “the Latin Lunatic.”

That is the monicker used by standup comedian J.J. Ramirez, who on Friday appeared at an event in Highland, Ind., where local people put together a program of entertainment (several Latino comedians and dancers) that was meant to appeal to a Latino pop cultural sensibility.

THIS PARTICULAR COMEDIAN managed to drag me into his routine ever so briefly, and mocked me and another guy in attendance because he didn’t think our names sounded Spanish enough.

In my case, he misheard me and thought my name was Craig. I didn’t resist, in part because my voice was hoarse and I didn’t feel like screaming. Plus, I’m sure he got a better punchline out of an evening of mocking the pseudo-Mexicans named Craig and Ralph.

Besides, there was a local police chief on hand who wound up being the brunt of Ramirez’ attention that night much more than the few seconds that were paid to me.

So I’m not P.O.ed at Ramirez in any way. As I told someone later that night who asked me why I didn’t correct him about my name, what could I have done – pulled a knife and called him a pendejo? That would have been rude.

BUT IT ALSO makes me wonder if I’m going to have to start identifying myself to some people as Gregorio Miguel Tejeda Vargas, which is what the name would have been had my mother been inclined to name me in the strict Castilian tradition.

She wasn’t, which is why my birth certificate indicates I was born Gregory Michael Tejeda at the old South Chicago Community Hospital. (For anyone who’s interested, my mother says she liked the sound of the first name, and the middle name is for my maternal grandfather).

But what happens to us as we Latinos not only grow in numbers, but manage to assimilate our way into the society of this nation?

Because I would argue the fact that a joke could be made about the pseudo-Mexicans named Craig and Ralph is the evidence that we are assimilating – no matter how much the nativist element of this country desperately wants to believe that we are too radically different from “real” residents of the United States.

IF ANYTHING, I enjoy the fact that elements of my life mean I can be viewed as a nativist’s worst nightmare – someone whose existence manages to dump all over whatever nitwit theories they manage to come up with about what life in the United States ought to be like. Which is what the real punch-line of “Mexicans” named Craig and Ralph ought to be.

It also is what makes so sad the political activities of recent weeks where nativists are shouting so loudly that they are intimidating the political people who ought to (and on a certain level, do) know better about the issue of immigration reform.

Then, there also are those political people in Arizona, who passed a law that will let their local police get involved in enforcement of federal immigration laws because the hard-core proponents of such measures want to believe that the key to fixing the problems of our society is as simple as taking a hard-line on the number of Latinos who happen to be within this country’s boundaries.

The problem is that so many of us are here legitimately (born and raised within this country, no matter what the immigration critics want to believe) that all this law can do is result in harassment of people who ought not to have to worry about such an issue.

THAT IS WHY I got a kick out of a New York Times report published Sunday that made the declarative statement, “Arizona Republicans believe they’re riding a big anti-illegal immigration wave to success in November,” then went on to explain (using California of the 1990s as an example) of how long-range such activities backfired and drove that state (which in recent decades gave us presidents Nixon and Reagan) into being a solid supporter of the Democratic Party.

Any electoral victories accomplished come the Nov. 2 elections are going to carry the taint of immigration, and there’s a good chance that many of these candidates will turn out to be one-termers. I am confident that the near future (as in the next four or five years) will bring about corrective balance to all the nonsense being spewed these days.

When that day comes, I promise you that as cruel as this might seem, it will be the equivalent of all the Latinos named Craig and Ralph who will be laughing most heartily at the plight of those people (think former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin claiming that Kentucky congressional candidate Rand Paul is learning what it is like to be her because he is being trashed for offering up a nonsense theoretical defense of discrimination) who already are trying to portray themselves as the “victims” of our society.

Victims in their eyes because they can’t pick on us the way they wish they could.

-30-

Can Rupert Murdoch’s people create a relevant Latino website?

It makes sense that Newscorp wants to create a news-oriented website that will try to cover the growing Latino population.

It is growing. It is already a significant market – and one that will only get bigger. Rupert Murdoch and his heirs want to make money, and they realize that reaching out to us must be a part of that strategy.

YET THAT DOES not mean I think their website, which is going to carry the brand of Fox News is going to be worth reading. If one checks out the web address www.foxnewslatino.com as of right now, that link goes straight to the website of Fox News, what with all those conservative pundits – many of whom spew the rhetorical line that the growing Latino population is a “problem” that must be dealt with.

Now as someone who has created this site on the Internet to offer commentary explaining the thought processes of the Latino population (or as much as possible to explain the varied thoughts among Latinos), I have a few thoughts about the way in which these people are going about what, on the surface, is a noble goal.

Not that Rupert is noble. He wants to make money, and if reaching out to our segment of the overall market will do so, it will cause him to overcome any ideological hangups he might personally have.

If only other conservatives could truly do that, then we would be better off. Because there are those people who would rather hold our society back socially and economically than concede that Latinos are a legitimate part of it.

NOW I HAVE not read the site. No one outside of Fox News has. It won’t exist officially until autumn. What I have to go by are the statements corporate types have made to describe their motivations.

The bit that catches my attention is that this particular site will be bilingual. Considering the kind of funding that Fox News will have to throw into this project, that should not be surprising. They can afford to buy the news services in Spanish and English to provide copy for this site.

If it means somebody lands a job as a translator of some English-language propaganda, then that is a plus. Rupert is creating work for somebody.

It’s just that such bilingual websites are scarce. There usually is a sense where anyone publishing on the Internet for the so-called “Latino” market is really publishing for either the “Latin American” or “Latino” market.

THE ANGLOS AMONG us might not want to understand that distinction. But it means they’re either writing for people whose ethnic ties to the homeland and home language are strong enough that they want to know about the shooting in Bogota or the latest political rants in Managua (to remind themselves what they fled from).

Then, there are those who have assimiliated a little bit more into the society of this country, and whose interest is seeing our contributions to that society get some coverage – instead of being ignored or treated as a drawback.

It seems like foxnewslatino wants to be both, which makes me wonder if it is going to be neither. Will these people manage to create a website filled with content that seems too generic to really reach out and grab anyone?

Or is the real goal of this project to translate those conservative rants that we in English hear way too much about?

THEORETICALLY, IT WOULD not be the most absurd concept. Let’s not forget the one-third of Latinos who voted for John McCain to be president – or, in reality, rejected the concept of Barack Obama and were willing to go along with a Republican for president no matter how much some of his colleagues liked to engage in “stupid talk” on ethnic issues.

I could almost see this website being used to expand the reach of those conservative pundits among the growing Latino population – hoping they can reach those Latinos whose thought processes are heavily influenced by the Catholic Church’s teachings (and a belief that they don’t really want to be “minorities” like all those other foreigners).

Considering that on Friday as I write this, the main website for Fox News has among its lead stories pieces of copy with headlines such as, “Ariz. Gov. to Obama: Do your job,” “Calif. city takes stand against illegal immigration” and “How dare Calderon lecture U.S. ‘Amigos’,” I wonder how many Latinos (or how many people except for the ideologues whose idea of “fair and balanced” is “nothing I disagree with”) will have any desire to read any of this effort, translated en Español?

I understand Newscorp’s right to spend their corporate dollars in whatever fashion they so wish. But as someone with an interest in the putting together of products that report the news, I only wish they would spend that same money to upgrade their existing products – perhaps making them something more like their claim to be “fair and balanced” than the overloaded rhetoric they too often devolve into.

-30-

EXTRA: Will Ward mis-speak matter on Tuesday?

I will not be surprised if Vaughn Ward, a candidate for Congress from Idaho, does not suffer much of anything for the fact that he exposed a piece of ignorance this week with regards to international relations.

Ward is a Republican running in the Idaho primary against Raul Labrador, who is of Puerto Rican ethnic background.

DURING A CANDIDATE debate, Labrador was questioned about the whole “statehood for Puerto Rico” issue, and Ward got his chance to expound on the issue. For the record, he opposes it – on the grounds that the United States already has enough troubles that it shouldn’t be taking on more responsibilities.

Such as taking on other “countries” for their territory.

Some people are getting all worked up over the fact that Ward thought Puerto Rico was an independent nation, rather than a commonwealth whose people are U.S. citizens by birth. They’re trying to claim it is evidence that the one-time Marine and CIA operative (that’s what his official biography claims) is too stupid to serve in the Congress.

The part that bothers me was his response to Labrador’s attempt to correct him on Puerto Rico’s commonwealth status.

ACCORDING TO THE Hill (that newspaper that specializes in covering Congress), Ward said, “I really don’t care what it is. It doesn’t matter.”

Not caring about the specifics, and wanting to think that some things “don’t matter,” is the real problem, as far as I am concerned. But somehow, I expect the kind of people who are inclined to back Ward’s campaign will be thrilled to hear such talk – since many of them are the kinds who wish they could just erase certain aspects of our society that don’t intrigue them.

For all I know, Ward is probably going to receive praise. I’m sure the mood among those people who attended his Friday morning campaign stunt – a fundraising rally in Boise with former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin – was positive toward him – with probably a few slurs made toward anyone who cared in the least about Puerto Rico.

It will be interesting to see what happens come primary Election Day on Tuesday. Because non-voting by Latinos when Election Day comes around has the overwhelming chance of producing more elected officials like Ward -- whose initial reaction to many of the growing Latino population's concerns will be to think they, "don't matter."

-30-

Getting with the program – some of us are taking longer than others

I’m sure there are those people in our society who saw the scene on Thursday and somehow felt overrun.

The president of Mexico got to speak before the U.S. Congress, and got significant applause and cheers from those politicians representing that segment of society that realizes the need for us all to adapt to the coming realities of the 21st Century. Does this truly come across as a subversive activity, seeing the president of Mexico speak to a joint session of our Congress? Photograph provided by the Mexico federal government.

FELIPE CALDERÒN HINOJOSA made comments completely in line with his previous statements on issues such as immigration reform (he wants the two countries to work together to develop a policy that doesn’t dump on people because of their ethnicity) and firearms (he wants the U.S. to impose tougher restrictions so as to reduce the flow of automatic weapons into his country).

So for people like Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, to rant that Calderòn was “out of line” by saying such things is ridiculous. What else did anyone expect him to say?

But then, the people who get all worked up over this issue aren’t surprising. It is the usual ethnic prejudice coming from people who can’t handle the realities of our society in the 21st Century.

Several polls have documented that people see this prejudice occurring. The newest of them was released this week by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media, which said that 61 percent of all surveyed think Latinos are the brunt of discrimination.

WHILE THAT FIGURE is increased by the fact that 81 percent of all Latinos perceive discrimination against our ethnic brethren, it isn’t inflated that much. The poll claims that 59 percent of non-Latinos think that Latinos receive some level of discrimination.

If anything, that figure encourages me because, when combined with the continuous rate of growth of the Latino population, it means a significant mass of people who in the not-so-distant future are going to look back on all the nonsense rhetoric being spewed by those who oppose immigration reform and try to defend Arizona and are going to feel a sense of shame.

I’m not sure if former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is destined to become the 21st Century equivalent of onetime Birmingham lawman “Bull” Connor with some of her verbal whoppers – particularly her attempt to involve herself in the “issue” of a suburban Chicago high school that does not want its girl’s basketball team to partake in a tournament in Arizona. But she is likely to become one of the comical characters of our era; one who likely will cause us to shake our heads and wonder how anyone could ever have taken her seriously?

Of course, there is some denial.

THE NEW POLL (paid for by the Spanish-language Univision television network and the Associated Press wire service) showed 55 percent of Latinos see the level of discrimination against us as “a lot,” while only 24 percent of non-Latinos agree.

That could just be people being more aware of one’s own situation over that of other people, since the poll also offers up several figures claiming that other groups also perceive the discimination against themselves at higher rates than other groups do.

Personally, I am inclined to think that the level of discrimination usually depends on the circumstances of the individual – some people are in situations where they get hit with it more than others do. That should NOT be construed as some sort of support for those people who want to believe that any hostility toward Latinos is somehow brought on by themselves.

But it means I think the solution ultimately has to be increased exposure to each other – even though the kind of people who want to define immigration reform as more deportations are the kind who want to take our society to the other extreme.

WHICH ULTIMATELY IS why I get a bit of a kick out of the reception Calderòn received from our Congress.

Applause and praise for some (Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., went so far as to invite Latino activists from his home state’s significant city of Chicago to share in the experience) with hostility from people like Hatch – and silence from much of the Republican caucus.

I’m sure the day will come that some of those GOP members of Congress who kept quiet will wish they had lightened up just a bit to share in the joy of the chief executive of our neighboring nation saying how much he wants to work with the United States to make life better in both countries.

-30-

Obama’s criticism interesting, but real issue is Arizona police “training”

With the president of Mexico at his side, President Barack Obama made a point of using a joint appearance Wednesday by the two men to criticize the new Arizona laws motivated by people who have hangups about the increase in recent years of a Latino population in their state and in this country.

Obama used words like “discriminatory” and “misdirected” to describe the actions of Arizona, where local police are going to be asked to more aggressively search for people who might have issues with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Some say that the local cops are going to use this law as an excuse to justify their own prejudices.

NOW SOME PEOPLE think that Obama is the key figure in this whole issue. So long as he and his administration allow themselves to be scared off by the nativists and all their rants on the issue, there won’t be serious leadership to try to reform the nation’s immigration laws.

But I have to confess – Obama’s appearance with Felipe Calderòn Hinojosa as part of the Mexico president’s official state visit to the United States wasn’t all that signficant to me. The rhetoric espoused by Obama was similar to what he has said all along – that he is “with us” in theory, but isn’t about to expend too much political capital (how else to explain Obama’s additional comment, “I don’t have 60 votes in the Senate”) to do anything about it.

What caught my attention was an Associated Press report transmitted Wednesday that finally gave me a few answers to a question that has lingered in my mind ever since the date on which Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer first signed this nonsense bill into law.

One of the law’s many provisions requires that local police will receive training this summer so as to give them a clue as to what constitutes sufficient grounds for deciding that someone might not be a U.S. citizen, and that further questioning is necessary.

ALL I HAD read or heard until Wednesday implied that federal officials who actually enforce immigration laws for a living would somehow be involved. But it was never clear. Would local cops across Arizona be attending “immigration camp” this summer – spending their days in seminars being told what signs to look for in determining who is a “foreigner without papers?”

Would these sessions devolve into nonsense and stereotype? Would it even be possible to provide training to the roughly 15,000 officers with the various local departments that constitute police across the state of Arizona?

As it turns out, the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board this week gave unanimous approval to a plan to adopt a framework for a training course that will be provided to local police across the state.

A spokesman for the agency made one reassuring comment, telling the Associated Press, “race is not an (indication) of criminality.” In theory, police are being told that not every Latino in Arizona is a non-citizen without papers.

ACTUALLY, ABOUT TWO-thirds of the Latinos who live in Arizona (who comprise about one-third of the state’s population overall) are U.S.-born citizens. Although I expect the same type of people who pathetically want to believe that Obama is NOT a U.S. citizen will find a way in their mini-minds of believing that Arizona Latinos are not “real” Americans.

Personally, I can accept that as their hang-up that will hold them back in life during the 21st Century. So long as their hang-up doesn’t hold anyone else back, I don’t care what they believe.

But that is where this whole situation has the potential to go haywire – how can we “train” local police not to let their misconceptions about society (everybody has some) cause problems? Let’s just say I am not reassured after learning of the training that is going to be developed.

For it seems that they’re putting together a crash course on video. Retired immigration officers will put together a program, copies of which will be sent out to police departments across the state.

SPECIFICS OF THE program are not yet available, but officers will be told how important it is to act professionally, and to be careful they don’t violate someone’s civil rights – in large part because the nation will be watching, and ready to document the first screw-up by an Arizona cop who winds up arresting a natural born citizen because the cop thought he was a “foreigner.”

All that sounds nice. It sounds ideal. But somehow, I can see a lot of departments spending an afternoon having their officers “watch the video” while they gripe and grouse about what a waste of time this all is.

So excuse me for being skeptical that these platitudes will be taken too seriously by the police, particularly since the motivation of the people who pushed for this law to become effective is that they want an increase in the number of people who get booted from the country.

Don’t forget those provisions that make police departments liable to lawsuits if locals believe the police are not cracking down hard enough on these “foreigners.”

THAT IS WHY there is no amount of rhetoric that is going to ease the pain felt by those people with a concern about how this law could be implemented. It is an invitation to problems.

That is why we had a foreign leader on Wednesday come to the White House and bad-mouth our system. In saying that the Arizona law has a “clear element of presumption, including racial,” Calderòn is merely speaking the truth.

It also is why the focus of Wednesday’s White House state dinner (the second during the Obama presidency) wasn’t around the fact that celebrity chef Rick Bayless (a Mexican food specialist who grew up in Oklahoma, you figure it) prepared a black molè sauce native to Oaxaca for the meal.

For that alone, I might have been tempted to try to sneak in to the event.

-30-

Political rhetoric plays on pompous theme

Four people, including three who have issues with Immigration and Customs Enforcement that theoretically could result in their deportation, got themselves arrested this week outside the Tuscon, Ariz., office of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Not that the staged sit-in is interesting in and of itself. These kind of protests are meant to draw attention to the issue being touted by the activists, since the fact that someone gets arrested creates a legal paper trail that is too irresistable for many reporter-types to ignore.

IN SHORT, THESE students (two from Mexico and one from Iran, although all have lived significant parts of their lives in the United States) got themselves on the national newscasts. In process, they got everybody talking (for a few seconds, at least) about the DREAM Act – a bill meant to make it easier for non-citizens living in this country to continue their educations beyond high school.

What caught my attention about this event was the reaction of McCain himself.

McCain is the senator who once (along with Ted Kennedy) was a primary sponsor of an immigration reform measure that might have been comprehensive enough to resolve many of the concerns that non-citizens living in this country have in their daily lives.

Now, he’s trying to find as much nativist rhetoric as he can so as to bolster his chances of winning the Republican primary in Arizona, then the Nov. 2 general election, so he can remain a member of the U.S. Senate.

McCAIN SAID ON Monday that the students who conducted a “sit-in” (and made statements comparing themselves to those Civil Rights era protesters who used to do sit-ins at segregated lunch counters) were misdirected in their focus.

Not that he has a problem with the DREAM Act (sponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.). McCain literally said that the students should be protesting the Democrats, since that is the political party that currently has the majority of members in Congress.

“Elections have consequences, and they should focus their efforts on the president and the Democrats that control the agenda in Congress,” McCain said to the Arizona Daily Star newspaper.

The problem with that kind of “logic” is that it does not reflect reality – even though I am sure the conservative ideologues will run with it and use such lines and try to claim they are “fact” – when they’re really nonsense talk.

REALITY IS THAT if it really were just a straight up vote without any complications, we would get something passed on the issue of immigration reform (and not some version that thinks of increased deportations as “reform”). Remember back when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., used to talk a few weeks ago of having 56 of the 59 Democrats/independents willing to support the issue – and that it was a lack of four or five Republicans willing to side with them on the issue that prevented a vote from being possible almost immediately?

The situation hasn’t changed. It seems that the Republican caucus in Congress is determined to do nothing on this issue, perhaps in hopes that they can swing a majority in the Nov. 2 elections – thereby making it possible for them to pass something as defined by their membership (including the nativist elements of the party) on the immigration reform issue.

Now I understand McCain has the right to have such thoughts. I’ll credit him for picking a side in this fight, even though I think he picked the “wrong” side. But it is absurd for him to go about trying to shift blame for what is happening.

If he really thinks that he has some moral high ground on this issue, he ought to say he is doing it because he thinks he is protecting his constituents – not because the opposition won’t let him act. Could he secretly be ashamed of the rhetoric spewing from his mouth in recent months?

IT IS RIDICULOUS, almost as much as the one-time immigration reform sponsor in McCain now making campaign advertisements and other statements meant to appeal to the people who adamantly oppose the issue. It is why people like Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., (who also was once considered a potential GOP “defector” from the nativist thought process on immigration) is saying that it is a waste of time to consider the comprehensive reform package this year, and that we ought to focus on smaller targets to help people with immigration “issues.”

Such as the DREAM Act that was the focus on Monday’s protest with its staged arrest.

That is the bill meant to address the situation of people brought by their parents to the United States when they were young, have lived the bulk of their lives in this country, and have now completed high school.

The courts have ruled that public education must be made available to all who are here – regardless of immigration status. That does not apply to higher education, and college isn’t cheap.

THOSE KIDS WHO were brought here by parents whose own immigration status has lapsed (or never existed) technically are not eligible for the financial aid programs that so many students rely upon to pay tuition. The bill would entitle these kids to get “resident” status, which would suddenly make it possible for them to apply for grants and loans.

If it sounds like the DREAM Act is about nothing more than treating these kids like human beings equal to their peers, you’d be correct. Then again, the fact that it would treat people equal is likely what the nativist element (whose rhetoric is more about demonizing people than anything else) is probably what causes them to have such hang-ups.

-30-

Should we really regard Mexico’s immigration law as a model?

It is an argument I have been hearing a lot of in recent weeks – the people who want to define immigration “reform” as an increase in deportations will inevitably bring up the federal laws that govern Mexico on this issue.

Mexico, which has in its history many incidents of outside forces trying to impose their will upon the country, has taken a hard-line approach on the issue that the nativists of our society wish we would take in the United States.

THE WASHINGTON TIMES, the newspaper that likes to take the nativist view and try to portray it as less creepy than it actually is, did a story earlier this month that lets Republican members of Congress criticize the Mexican government officials who have spoken out against Arizona’s new laws with regard to local enforcement of federal immigration laws.

It also gives us a re-hash of the Mexican law, which does allow for criminal charges to be filed against someone in Mexico without a valid visa, and requires them on a repeat offense (with a potential prison term of up to 10 years).

By comparison, U.S. law doesn’t make a criminal charge out of the issue unless the person is a repeat offender. In which case, someone who has twice been caught on the “wrong” side of the U.S./Mexico border will face prison time before being deported.

Both countries have provisions allowing for non-citizens deemed to be “undesirables” to be removed, such as in 1974 when then-Chicago mob boss Sam Giancana (in exile in Mexico to evade questioning by U.S. federal investigators) was woken up one morning at his home by Mexico federal officials, who forced him into a car, took him to the airport, and put him on the first airplane to Chicago – where he was greeted by his “friends” with the FBI.

THESE CONSERVATIVES ALSO want to make an issue out of provisions requiring people to cooperate with law enforcement when it comes to immigration issues. They want to claim Mexico is being hypocritical for doing the same thing they want to believe Arizona is trying to do.

I don’t buy it.

Insofar as the latter provision is concerned, there is a major difference between the way things are handled in Mexico and the way they are in the United States. In our nation, we have our local authorities and are very trusting of such a set-up. There is a distinct split between local, state and federal jurisdictions.

By comparison, Mexico has local authorities, but strictly limits what they have much say over. In Mexico, it is the federal law enforcement authorities who are the pre-eminent power when it comes to trying to fight crime.

IN FACT, WHEN we often hear tales of law enforcement corruption in Mexico, it usually involves those local authorities whose isolation from each other allows them to “get away” with certain actions, with federal officials who are overworked and understaffed trying desperately to keep up with the mess. Also, with federal officials being pre-eminent, it makes sense that they would have the ability to address the issue.

The point is that the structure is different, and federal officials in Mexico have a larger reach than federal officials do in this country. The day that we’re willing to accept having the FBI handle enforcement of local laws and investigation of local crimes is the day that our system would resemble something like what Mexico has, where it would make sense for one entity to handle street crime and immigration investigations.

Personally, I would not want that. I would think it creates the potential for an all-too-powerful legal entity that could become an overbearing presence on our society. Which, to be honest, is what I think of the Mexican system of immigration laws.

As much as I comprehend the history where outside forces (sometimes U.S.) have interfered to the point where there is suspicion of anyone from another country (which is why it is illegal for non-citizens to directly own property anywhere within 75 miles of the U.S./Mexico border), I think it is an over-reaction.

IT CERTAINLY IS not the one aspect of Mexican law that I would want the United States to emulate. If anything, the fact that our society’s law is more reasonable and sympathetic (in line with our own history where our nation’s strength comes from the great number of outside ethnicities that have left their mark on our society) is what gives us a moral high ground.

People who argue that we ought to copy Mexico on immigration sound as ridiculous as those conservatives who used to talk with a certain sense of grudging respect for the “strong-arm” tactics used to quell dissent in places like mainland China or the now-defunct Soviet Union.

Then again, it probably is the same people making this point. Some people seem to want to turn our society into a police state – thinking it is the only way they will ever come out on top to push their narrow-mindedness (as exhibited these days with their nonsense talk about immigration restrictions) down the throats of the rest of us.

-30-

‘Nationals’ and nativists have more in common than they think

The reporter-type person in me has been covering enough rallies, protests, vigils and other events where people who are interested in immigration reform speak out to know that not everybody agrees on what constitutes “reform.”

But I am not referring to the diffference between those people with logic and those whose idea of “reform” is an increase in the number of deportations from the United States to Latin American countries.

THE LATTER GROUP consists of a batch of nitwits who are their own worse enemy. They are destined to fail in this fight. The numbers related to the growing Latino population that is U.S. citizen by birth ensure it.

The difference I refer to here is among the immigrants themselves. There are those people who came here, have worked here, have developed families here, and for all practical purposes are a part of our society (no matter how much the nativists want to pretend otherwise). Give them a chance to get legitimate papers that would allow them to live openly in this country, and they will comply with whatever arcane, complex procedure the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency concocts.

But I have encountered other types of immigrants, ones who when you get them all worked up so that they speak from the heart, you start hearing rhetoric about the inherent unfairness of requiring any kind of papers.

These people seem to think it is all just a matter of leaving them alone so they can work. They are not going to want to have to put up with any procedure concocted by the federal government – because there is a very good chance that the procedure that ultimately does allow many of the estimated 12 million undocumented individuals in this country to stay will be overly complex and designed that way so as to trip people up.

MAKE IT SO that they screw up the paperwork trail somewhere, then therefore can be said to have “failed” the process and ought to be deported.

Now I am not coming out in support of these people. In fact, I have gotten into arguments with some of them when I try to explain the legitimate need for the U.S. government to have some sort of accounting of who has entered this country from another.

Not that I am saying every single person who comes to the United States to work for a few years to make some significant money to send back to their families ought to be put on a track toward U.S. citizenship. I can understand why people might legitimately feel it would be stupid for them to give up their legal ties to another land – even if they spend a significant amount of time in our nation.

I am saying there needs to be a process by which people who want to come here can legitimately have a chance at getting the visa that allows them to live and work here, and a shot at U.S. citizenship – if that is what they so desire.

THE PROBLEM WITH the current immigration laws is that the federal bureaucracy that surrounds them creates a situation where not everybody has that equal chance. The problem with those people whose idea of immigration reform focuses on “enforcement” of the current laws is that they want to reinforce those inequities.

But that does not mean I agree with those people who would say there ought to be no process involved for wanting to live openly in this country. All “immigration reform” really amounts to is trying to straighten out a convoluted federal bureaucracy that has devolved into a mess in recent years.

That ought to be a common-sense goal everyone can support. Yet nonsense-talk oftentimes motivated by the nativist elements of our society who want to take their hateful rhetoric and make it the basis upon which the issue is considered often prevents common sense from prevailing.

There is one aspect of the people who argue there ought to be no papers or procedure required for foreign nationals to come and live in the United States that manages to amuse me.

THEIR RHETORIC WILL claim that it is wrong, if not immoral, to require people to have to carry around identification papers. They will claim it is the sign of a government wanting to meddle way too deeply into their personal lives.

Get these nationals worked up enough, and they will start claiming that such an immigration procedure is “un-Democratic.” I can already hear the nit-wits doing a mocking "We don't need no stinkin' papers." (How often has the "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" been mimicked?)

That is nonsense, of course. But it is remarkably similar to the rhetoric the social conservatives who often are the hardest-core immigration opponents use whenever they talk about their ideals for what the United States should be. They claim to be about small government and being allowed to live their own lives without interference from federal officials.

Could it be that the nativists and the foreign nationals have much more in common about the way in which they perceive our society than either side would ever want to admit to?

-30-

They’re trying to be neutral on an issue where neutrality itself may be the problem

I will give the Arizona Republic newspaper some credit. They don’t want to make the same mistake as a lot of Southern newspapers during the civil rights era, where they were so determined to prop up the old-line white establishment as justified in their conduct that their news coverage came off as ridiculous.

The Republic, once owned by former Vice President Dan Quayle’s uncle but now a part of the Gannett newspaper chain, is the newspaper that earlier this month ran an editorial that took up its entire front page – one that criticized everybody’s conduct on the issue of immigration reform and the state Legislature’s attempts to respond.

THEY TRASHED GOV. Jan Brewer for signing the law, John McCain and J.D. Hayworth for letting their primary campaign for U.S. Senate devolve into hateful rhetoric about immigration, Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., for starting up all the “boycott” rhetoric that has spread throughout the country, and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio just for being himself (seriously, they said the sheriff was guilty of “ratcheting up the heat and dimming any light on this issue”).

Now, in a couple of commentaries published in the newspaper during the past week, they’re trying to discuss the issue in rational terms. The problem is that the rhetoric has gone so far beyond the rational that we may never be able to get to a serious discussion of the legitimacy (or not) of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 – which becomes law in early August.

That was the bill that has several clauses and provisions that make it impossible to explain seriously within a couple of sentences sandwiched into the pompous or whiny quotes being spewed by people of all ideological factions.

What is clear is that this bill was put together by people whose motivation is that they want to view the presence of “immigrants” in this country as a problem that must be dealt with. When many argue they are only against “illegal” immigration, further questioning turns up the revelation that they have strong beliefs about who should be allowed to be “legal” within the United States.

IT IS FOR that factor that I discredit the statements made by Arizona officials who say that the law puts sufficient restrictions on local police so as to prevent them from running amok on the portions of the citizenry that they may think do not belong in Arizona.

They argue that the only way a person will come to police attention is if there is some probable cause to justify stopping them for something else. The problem is that the concept of probable cause is rather vague. When it comes down to it, the law gives police quite a bit of freedom to determine when they ought to take a closer look at something, or someone.

Once they’re already being questioned about that instance, the questions about citizenship status are just a natural path to take.

The people who want to support Arizona officials argue that no one will be required to carry documentation if they are a U.S. citizen. But there are going to be instances where people who are natural-born U.S. citizens are going to get questioned, and a local cop who wants to be suspicious will wind up taking someone in for more questioning.

THE END RESULT will ultimately be a person having to be released by police once their citizenship status is confirmed. But it is a harassment that people born in this country should not have to endure.

Now I believe the long-term result of this issue is that a court ultimately will strike this law down. It comes down to the fact that local officials are meddling in enforcement of federal policies where they really have no jurisdiction. It would be just as offensive if federal officials were meddling in local issues.

I can just envision the outrage.

But the part of this that really bugs me are the provisions that ease the legal standards that must be met for people who wish to sue their local police departments for not being vigorous enough in enforcing the law.

TYPICALLY, POLICE GET a certain amount of legal leeway in the way they do their jobs. The judicial system realizes that police occasionally will screw things up, and that they should not be nitpicked for every error.

Yet this law makes it clear that the police are going to have to err on the side of caution, which in this case means more vigorous questioning of people who might be U.S. citizens but might appear suspicious to some police officer who only had a couple weeks of training during a crash course he is to take this summer (and I’m willing to bet there won’t be time to give every single local cop in Arizona that training, so most will have to wing it based on their suspicions and prejudices).

So as much as the Arizona Republic is trying to envision their hometown situation as one where everybody is guilty of overheated rhetoric, we’re going to have to come to a conclusion that many of the people whom various polls say support Arizona’s actions are supportive because they’re confused about what is really happening.

This is a measure that needs to be struck down as soon as is physically possible. I only wonder if we’re going to wind up getting a native-born U.S. citizen accidentally deported to show just how flawed it is to think that local cops have any business getting involved with immigration enforcement.

-30-

Even the Latino “right” has its immigration concerns

Orlando, Fla., was the place to be, and not because of anything that emanated from the imagination of Walt Disney or his successors.

It was in Orlando that a gathering of Latinos and Latin-Americans who consider themselves ideologically conservative on issues gathered to discuss the whole concept of immigration reform, and how it has been impacted by the actions in recent weeks of the Arizona state Legislature.

WE’RE TALKING ABOUT people who are not eager to bash the Republican Party for its officials’ willingness to stir up this issue by tapping into Latino resentment (in short, the one-third of Latinos who voted FOR John McCain in 2008).

Yet it strikes me that even these people (whose existence should not be a surprise to anyone, my guess is that every single one of them considers themselves to be a “good Catholic” who is heavily influenced by the church’s teachings on social issues) are willing to recognize a problem that exists whenever immigration comes up.

I am in complete agreement with Alfonso Aguilar, director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles (the group that organized the Thursday night forum in Orlando), when he tells local radio station WDBO-AM, “Latinos cannot be passive observers of what is going on.”

We do need to speak out. And while I suspect my statements would differ from those of Aguilar or his political allies, it is still an argument that needs to be heard.

NOW THOSE PEOPLE who showed up Thursday night (I must admit I wish I could have been on hand just to hear the arguments for myself) were taking the stance that the whole outcry occuring these days because of immigration is the fault of President Barack Obama.

If his people had been more observant and pushed for something resembling serious reform of the nation’s immigration laws, we wouldn’t have state Legislatures searching for solutions on their own – which has given an opportunity to the crackpot elements of our society to impose their own ideals (which usually consist of an increase in deportations of anyone from an ethnic background that doesn’t closely resemble their own).

Even Aguilar – who would like to think that conservative Latinos have the potential to get into the talks when Republicans come up with ridiculous proposals and help moderate them into something tolerable – says that actions such as what is happening in Arizona these days could have the potential to make the growing Latino population and its potential for a solid voter bloc wary of working with the Republican Party in any form.

“If we want to stop crime, we need to focus intensely on criminals and drug traffickers and not on good, hardworking people,” Aguilar said to his local radio station. This so-called Latino conservative is making statements that sound like they’re coming from the mouths of liberal Catholic priests who make their dioceses squirm with their repeated rhetoric.

IT IS OFTEN said by frustrated people that the Latino population of our nation is far from a monolith. We are not all alike. Our ethnic differences are often ignored, and it would be more accurate to think of the many ethnicities that comprise Latinos as a loose conglomeration that can come together when our collective interests are at stake.

Immigration reform seems to have become that issue.

A poll released this week that was taken for the Wall Street Journal and NBC News shows that 70 percent of Latinos are “somewhat” or “strongly” opposed to laws such as Arizona – which will require police to more vigorously search out people with immigration issues (and leave them open to lawsuits if ideologically-motivated locals think their local cops are being too cautious when it comes to observing the law).

That same poll showed 82 percent of Latinos think there is potential for ethnic profiling by law enforcement offices who might just make presumptions over who they think should be allowed to be in this country, as opposed to what federal law says is really the case.

AS I READ that, it means even some of the 27 percent of Latinos who “somewhat” or “strongly” support Arizona type laws (some states are cropping up around the nation that want to take such actions – although it should be noted that the other states along with U.S./Mexico border think their neighbor Arizona went too far. None of them are considering such measures) think there is potential for police harassment.

I’m sure some of those people were among the group gathered in Orlando. It would have been interesting to hear them out.

Not that I expect many Anglos would have been swayed – the people who are getting the most bent out of shape over this issue are so ideologically rigid that there’s no point in wasting breath talking to them. This is an issue where people ought to focus on reaching out to the middle ground and swaying people before the stain of ideological rants becomes so prevalent that people start taking their trash talk for fact.

-30-

Chicago split when it comes to Arizona, and I doubt the phenomenon is unique to Illinois

Highland Park High School is in an upper-income community, and it is a place being both praised and derided these days because local officials decided that having their champion girl's basketball team play in a national tournament in Arizona later this year was not worth the hassle.

Arizona is going to find many people deciding that their state is not worth the hassle, and deciding to take their business elsewhere. That is going to be the price they will have to pay for deciding to go ahead and impose state laws perceived as blatantly anti-Latino.

THE PEOPLE WHO will want to praise them (and bash Highland Park High) are the ideological descendants of those people who used to deliberately eat California-grown grapes to spite the intent of the boycott organized by United Farm Workers founder Cesar Chavez.

But that is where we are these days. Immigration has managed to push its way to the top of some peoples' list of political priorities, no matter how much some officials desperately wish it would go away. It isn't.

It's not just the high school. In the Chicago-area alone, there are several entities that are rushing to make statements both for, and against, Arizona -- the place where beginning in August, local police will be expected to fully appreciate the nuances of federal immigration law (they are getting a crash course this summer) so as to pick out which people don't belong here.

These kinds of statements aren't limited to just my home town. They're being expressed everywhere across the nation, although those who want details of how the Second City is dealing with this issue ought to read this site's sister weblog, the Chicago Argus, for details.

-30-

Schools law hacks away at nativist argument

A part of me accepts the fact that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer probably believes (even though those of us with sense know better) that she was acting in the public good when she signed into law the measure that requires local police to start aggressively searching for people with immigration issues.

She may believe she has not put into motion a measure that is going to result in harassment by the nativists of our society of the fastest-growing segment of our nation’s population.

BUT AT A time when Arizona officials are going out of their way to spin their every action as not constituting ethnic profiling or Latino resentment, Brewer has to go out of her way to make the knuckleheaded move of signing another bill into law.

Because this one, which has been desired by the state Education superintendent, is so blatantly offensive that it knocks out any factual basis that the conservatives might try to use to justify their actions.

Specifically, Brewer approved a new law that prohibits schools in Arizona from teaching programs that are designed for pupils of any one group, or that might support the idea of ethnic solidarity instead of individual treatment.

What bugs the Arizona officials is an existing program in the Tuscon Unified School District, which offers history and literature courses to those students who wish to take them that put an emphasis on the contributions of the Spanish and Mexicans.

CONSIDERING THAT WHAT we now think of as the state of Arizona was once part of the Arizona territory that separated the Mexican states of Texas and California, it only makes sense that such a program would fit in to letting people know about their home region in the days before the Anglos arrived.

Of course, there are those people who would prefer not to be reminded of those days. So now, they’re trying to use the power of the government to impose their thought process on “the people.”

Perhaps if this were Maine or Idaho, there’d be a more legitimate argument to wishing to downplay the contributions of the Spanish. But it’s not (not that anyone should think I’m implying that Maine-ers or Idahonians are knuckle-headed enough to ever do anything as stupid as Arizona has in recent weeks).

Now some people are going out of their way to cite the fact that the United Nations recently issued a statement saying that it had problems with Arizona wanting to exclude the Mexican-American studies program because it violated an inherent right it thinks people have to learn more about their cultural and linguistic backgrounds.

I'M NOT MAKING much of that point, because I realize that the kind of people who really see this as a serious issue are the ones who often engage in rants against the United Nations, somehow believing that it undermines their ability to impose their vision on the rest of the world.

It does. And for that, we ought to be thankful.

For that vision these kind of people have is twisted in its own way. It is un-American, no matter how many red, white and blue articles of clothing they wear or how loudly (and out-of-tune) they shriek while trying to sing, “God Bless America.”

Passing this kind of bill at this particular moment in time merely reinforces in the minds of rational people across the nation the idea that Arizona officials are motivated by Latino prejudice in all their actions.

IF THEY HAD had any sense, Arizona officials would have squashed this bill (which apparently has been a perennial issue on the Arizona political scene in recent years) the same way they recently stalled a measure motivated by the “birthers,” the idea that presidential candidates must prove to the satisfaction of the nativists that they were born in the United States.

A ridiculous measure for those people who can’t accept the fact that Barack Obama was born in the United States to a mother of U.S. citizenship – and that any other point is irrelevant.

Some news reports on this new law have made mention of the fact that the Education superintendent who has pushed for this change got all worked up because of comments a few years ago by United Farm Workers official Dolores Huerta when she said, “Republicans hate Latinos.”

That might be an over-statement (one of the officials on the record as opposing Arizona’s new law is former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush). Although I think it is an undisputed fact that many people who do have irrational hang-ups with regard to Latinos join the Republican Party because they find it more willing to sit back idly while their members spew their crackpot ideals.

THE END RESULT of all this is that people get worked up. A recent Gallup Organization poll shows that the number of people who consider “immigration” to be a top problem for our society has increased in the past month from 2 percent to 10 percent.

A 500 percent boost!

But then, we realize that the economy and lack of jobs remain the Number One and Number Two issues in the country, with immigration ranking Number Five overall. Perhaps some rational people remain in our society.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Should Mexico have to give up more of its territory to compensate the United States for having so many Mexican citizens within its boundaries. It’s scary to see the crackpot rhetoric turning up elsewhere around the world.