The 'Sleeping Giant' Awakens (Again)
-->
Eastern Group Publications, Opinion, Jorge Mariscal, Apr 04, 2006
In the 1950s, when anthropologists referred to Mexican Americans as the sleeping giant and the media stereotype of choice was a man sleeping under a cactus, the thought that Latinos in the United States might organize to demand equal opportunity seemed far-fetched. One noted social scientist wrote: “The masses of Mexican Americans in the large cities of the Southwest are politically inert. The very model of Mexican leadership has been the 'quiet fighter' who does not create any public difficulties.” It was not until Cesar Chavez, Dolores Huerta, and California farm workers burst into the national consciousness in 1966 that pundits began to detect a major tremor in the political landscape. In 1968 in Los Angeles, Chicano high school students demonstrated for educational reform, a movement captured in the new HBO film “Walkout!” In 1970, Chicanos and Chicanas organized major rallies against the U.S. war in Southeast Asia. What we now call the Chicano Movement was a grass-roots mobilization composed of diverse organizations and agendas. It gave a generation of Mexican Americans a new identity premised upon cultural pride, a thirst for justice, and an insistence that U.S. democracy deliver on its promises. The recent demonstrations in support of humane immigration reform that does not exploit hard-working families dwarf the demonstrations of the Chicano Movement era--4, 000 in Dallas, 5,000 in San Francisco, 20,000 in Phoenix, 50,000 in Detroit, 50,000 in Denver, 300,000 in Chicago, and more than 500,000 in Los Angeles. In Atlanta, an estimated 80,000 Latinos protested by not going to work. On Atlanta streets, marchers carried signs that read “Nosotros también tenemos un sueño” (“We too have a dream”). Dr. King and Cesar Chavez would have been proud. Whereas the movement of the Vietnam War era was limited to young Mexican Americans in the Southwest, today's movement includes people of every age with a variety of connections to the immigrant experience and with origins in many different Spanish-speaking countries. Marching side by side with the thousands of legal immigrants who arrived in the decade of the 1990s (more than any previous decade in U.S. history) were those whose parents or grandparents came to this country years ago. Newly arrived Salvadorans, fifth-generation Chicanas with family members who fought in World War II, Vietnam, and Iraq, and everyone in between said in one voice “We will not be criminalized; we will not be intimidated.” The shockwaves of these massive demonstrations will be dramatic. Like the aftermath of California's Proposition 187 in 1994 that would have removed the social safety net for undocumented workers, we can expect that the new mobilizations will produce a huge spike in Latino voter registration. As it did in the 1960s, the “sleeping giant” has once again risen from its slumber. Comedian Carlos Mencia finds it amusing to drop epithets like “beaner” and “wetback.” In the politically correct 1990s, we might have chastised him for being too ignorant to realize what a far greater comedian named Richard Pryor learned on his first trip to Africa. “I didn't see any n*****s there,” Pryor said.
This week, immigrants, their children, the grandchildren and great grandchildren of immigrants, and those with Spanish surnames who trace their roots to the Southwest before there was a United States took to the streets to demand dignity and respect. Someone tell Carlos Mencia, the Minutemen, and Senators Sensenbrenner and Frist that there was not a single beaner or wetback among them. Jorge Mariscal is Director of the Chicano/Latino/a Arts and Humanities Program at the University of California, San Diego.
----
I'm part "them", you know. Whatever happens to them will also affect what will happen to my family in some way. Even a the highest king has the lowly peasent blood in his veins.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
A Nation That Demands Unkindness
Something to really think about here...
A Nation That Demands Unkindness
-->
La Prensa San Diego, Commentary, Pedro Celis, Apr 03, 2006
REDMOND, Wash. – “Once we secure our borders and the American people are confident that we have control of the south, in particular, I believe that we will be able to have a rational national debate about what to do with the 8 million to 10 million souls [undocumented immigrants] that are here,” said Congressman Mike Pence (R-Indiana) recently, while explaining his opposition to the guest worker program proposal endorsed by President Bush.Yet Congressman Pence voted in favor of a law (HR 4437), approved last December by the House of Representatives, that turns those 10 million souls into criminals. It turns illegal presence in this country from a civil violation into a federal crime — subject to an entirely different kind of policing and punishable by much stiffer penalties. Those 10 million people would:
• Be declared felons, barred from ever being eligible to become legal immigrants.
• Even their children would be declared felons, subject to jail time and subsequent deportation
• Any person or any organization who “assists” an individual without documentation “to reside in or remain” in the United States knowingly or with “reckless disregard” as to the individual’s legal status would be liable for criminal penalties and five years in prison.
• Church personnel who provide shelter or other basic needs assistance to an undocumented individual would also be liable.
• Property used in this act would be subject to seizure and forfeiture.Hence, all manner of people would become criminally liable and subject to fines, property forfeiture and imprisonment: the daycare provider who cares for her neighbor’s children; the landscaper who gives a ride to his co-worker; the church program volunteer who teaches English as a second language. In essence, being a Good Samaritan could land you in jail.
State and local law enforcement are authorized to enforce federal immigration laws. State and local governments that refuse to participate would be subject to the loss of federal funding. Millions of people would now be abused and taken advantage of with the knowledge that they could not avail themselves to any of the protections offered by our laws.All of this in the name of national security.It is naïve to argue that this bill would increase our security while leaving the question of “what to do with the 8 or 10 millions souls” for a subsequent rational national debate.The provisions in this bill that deal with these souls are mean-spirited and vindictive. Turning all these individuals, who are part and parcel of our communities, into criminals is detrimental to our own security.Not that enforcement or legality are unimportant. But we need to replace illegal immigration with increased legal immigration. We need to provide avenues for honest, hard-working individuals to come or remain in our country in a way that satisfies our national security and our economic self-interest.Whoever thinks that passing a law like HR 4437 will solve our illegal immigration problem is sticking his head in the sand. It will not make these 10 million souls disappear.There is a better way to get control of our borders. A way that recognizes both the importance of enforcing the rule of law and the contributions that immigrants bring to our society and economy. That is the comprehensive immigration reform approach being discussed now in the Senate.Under the leadership of Senator Allen Specter, the Senate Judiciary Committee, has been crafting a more realistic legislation that will send to the full Senate this week. That legislation addresses some of the most glaring deficiencies of HR 4437.
Namely:
• It provides avenues to increase legal immigration.
• It deals more realistically with the 10 million undocumented souls by allowing them to register, receive background checks, and work while they apply for permanent legal immigration. It does so in a way that rejects amnesty, where someone who has violated the law would have an advantage in the process of becoming a legal immigrant over someone who did not.
• It removes most of the criminalization provisions against Good Samaritans.We agree with President Bush statement at the most recent state of the union that: “Keeping America competitive requires an immigration system that upholds our laws, reflects our values, and serves the interests of our economy.
Our Nation needs orderly and secure borders. To meet this goal, we must have stronger immigration enforcement and border protection. And we must have a rational, humane guest worker program that rejects amnesty … allows temporary jobs for people who seek them legally … and reduces smuggling and crime at the border.”Dr. Pedro Celis is a Distinguished Engineer at Microsoft Corporation in Redmond, Washington and the National Chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly.
A Nation That Demands Unkindness
-->
La Prensa San Diego, Commentary, Pedro Celis, Apr 03, 2006
REDMOND, Wash. – “Once we secure our borders and the American people are confident that we have control of the south, in particular, I believe that we will be able to have a rational national debate about what to do with the 8 million to 10 million souls [undocumented immigrants] that are here,” said Congressman Mike Pence (R-Indiana) recently, while explaining his opposition to the guest worker program proposal endorsed by President Bush.Yet Congressman Pence voted in favor of a law (HR 4437), approved last December by the House of Representatives, that turns those 10 million souls into criminals. It turns illegal presence in this country from a civil violation into a federal crime — subject to an entirely different kind of policing and punishable by much stiffer penalties. Those 10 million people would:
• Be declared felons, barred from ever being eligible to become legal immigrants.
• Even their children would be declared felons, subject to jail time and subsequent deportation
• Any person or any organization who “assists” an individual without documentation “to reside in or remain” in the United States knowingly or with “reckless disregard” as to the individual’s legal status would be liable for criminal penalties and five years in prison.
• Church personnel who provide shelter or other basic needs assistance to an undocumented individual would also be liable.
• Property used in this act would be subject to seizure and forfeiture.Hence, all manner of people would become criminally liable and subject to fines, property forfeiture and imprisonment: the daycare provider who cares for her neighbor’s children; the landscaper who gives a ride to his co-worker; the church program volunteer who teaches English as a second language. In essence, being a Good Samaritan could land you in jail.
State and local law enforcement are authorized to enforce federal immigration laws. State and local governments that refuse to participate would be subject to the loss of federal funding. Millions of people would now be abused and taken advantage of with the knowledge that they could not avail themselves to any of the protections offered by our laws.All of this in the name of national security.It is naïve to argue that this bill would increase our security while leaving the question of “what to do with the 8 or 10 millions souls” for a subsequent rational national debate.The provisions in this bill that deal with these souls are mean-spirited and vindictive. Turning all these individuals, who are part and parcel of our communities, into criminals is detrimental to our own security.Not that enforcement or legality are unimportant. But we need to replace illegal immigration with increased legal immigration. We need to provide avenues for honest, hard-working individuals to come or remain in our country in a way that satisfies our national security and our economic self-interest.Whoever thinks that passing a law like HR 4437 will solve our illegal immigration problem is sticking his head in the sand. It will not make these 10 million souls disappear.There is a better way to get control of our borders. A way that recognizes both the importance of enforcing the rule of law and the contributions that immigrants bring to our society and economy. That is the comprehensive immigration reform approach being discussed now in the Senate.Under the leadership of Senator Allen Specter, the Senate Judiciary Committee, has been crafting a more realistic legislation that will send to the full Senate this week. That legislation addresses some of the most glaring deficiencies of HR 4437.
Namely:
• It provides avenues to increase legal immigration.
• It deals more realistically with the 10 million undocumented souls by allowing them to register, receive background checks, and work while they apply for permanent legal immigration. It does so in a way that rejects amnesty, where someone who has violated the law would have an advantage in the process of becoming a legal immigrant over someone who did not.
• It removes most of the criminalization provisions against Good Samaritans.We agree with President Bush statement at the most recent state of the union that: “Keeping America competitive requires an immigration system that upholds our laws, reflects our values, and serves the interests of our economy.
Our Nation needs orderly and secure borders. To meet this goal, we must have stronger immigration enforcement and border protection. And we must have a rational, humane guest worker program that rejects amnesty … allows temporary jobs for people who seek them legally … and reduces smuggling and crime at the border.”Dr. Pedro Celis is a Distinguished Engineer at Microsoft Corporation in Redmond, Washington and the National Chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly.
Secure Gay Rights Before Extending Rights of the Undocumented
Secure Gay Rights Before Extending Rights of the Undocumented
-->
New America Media, Commentary, Jasmyne Cannick, Apr 04, 2006
Editor's Note: When American citizens, particularly lesbians and gays, haven't received their full civil rights, why is Congress considering extending more rights to illegal immigrants? Jasmyne Cannick is a member of the National Association of Black Journalists. She can be reached via her Web site, www.jasmynecannick.com.LOS ANGELES--Immigration reform is an important issue, but it's not the next civil rights movement. We haven't even finished with our current civil rights movement.Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts got it right when he said, "There is no moving to the front of the line."Immigration reform needs to get in line behind the gay civil rights movement. Discrimination and unequal treatment of gay Americans has not yet been resolved.I recognize the plight of illegal immigrants. However, I didn't break the law to come into this country. The country has broken its own laws by not recognizing and bestowing upon me my full rights as a citizen. I find it hard as a black lesbian to jump on the immigration reform bandwagon when my own bandwagon hasn't even left the barn.Legal American citizens continue to be denied the right to marry because of their sexual orientation, while their families are deprived of access to the more than 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities automatically granted to married heterosexual couples.If we're going to hold 24-hour Senate sessions using taxpayer dollars, let those sessions be used to come up with a comprehensive plan that allows America's same-gender loving stakeholders to have the opportunity to have the right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency, or the right to receive family-related Social Security benefits.But immigration reform dominates in Washington. President Bush wants a comprehensive guest worker program for undocumented laborers.With all due respect, Mr. President, there should be no guest worker program until we ensure that all lesbian and gay American citizens have the right to take up to 12 weeks of leave to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner, and the right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.Both Sen. Kennedy and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas backed away from requiring that guest workers leave the United States after their initial two-year visa expired. The congressmen wanted to keep immigrant families from being separated.Well, what about making sure that the children of same-sex couples are protected and not separated from the parent they know and love in the event of an untimely death? Same-sex couples make commitments and form families just like heterosexual couples, and they need the same protections.Lesbians and gays are not second-class citizens. Our issues should not get bumped to the back of the line in favor of extending rights to people who have entered this country illegally.Author and poet Audre Lorde once said, "I have come to believe over and over again, that what is most important to me must be spoken, made verbal and shared, even at the risk of having it bruised or misunderstood."While I know no one wants to be viewed as a racist when it comes to immigration reform, as a lesbian I don't want to move to the back of the bus to accommodate those who broke the law to be here. Immigrants aren't the only ones who want a shot at the American dream.
-------
Point well taken. My sweet grandparents were illegal immigrants until 1968. They crossed the Mexico/Texas border unlawfully all the time before then. They were children of simple farmers and ranchers, raised especially hard in sometimes unspeakable conditions in 1930's-1940's Mexico, a nation that at the time resembled 1900's America.
What does this mean for immigrants and gays? Their plights can no longer be simply ignored. But the hard truth is that immigrants will surely be dealt with much sooner than gays. The government does not want to deal with something as difficult to call as those with "diviant sexual preferences". It isn't clear cut. Gays are hard to tell apart from straights. Perhaps this is why they are viewed as difficult to deal with and why they are "easy targets" for hatred. It's easy to shun something that isn't clear cut or absolute, something that isn't black and white or "pure". As much as humanity loves to think of themselves as belonging to one race or religion or ethnicity, no one is pure anything. Nothing really separates us from anyone else in the human race. Sure, there is skin color, language, political beliefs, etc., but all attempt in their own way some kind of peace and harmony. In the end, are we really so different that we cannot give our fellow man his most basic right to live as he chooses? As long as he does not harm anyone or himself, he should have this. Why must it be always fought for, to be delcared something that these people were already born as: human beings?
-->
New America Media, Commentary, Jasmyne Cannick, Apr 04, 2006
Editor's Note: When American citizens, particularly lesbians and gays, haven't received their full civil rights, why is Congress considering extending more rights to illegal immigrants? Jasmyne Cannick is a member of the National Association of Black Journalists. She can be reached via her Web site, www.jasmynecannick.com.LOS ANGELES--Immigration reform is an important issue, but it's not the next civil rights movement. We haven't even finished with our current civil rights movement.Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts got it right when he said, "There is no moving to the front of the line."Immigration reform needs to get in line behind the gay civil rights movement. Discrimination and unequal treatment of gay Americans has not yet been resolved.I recognize the plight of illegal immigrants. However, I didn't break the law to come into this country. The country has broken its own laws by not recognizing and bestowing upon me my full rights as a citizen. I find it hard as a black lesbian to jump on the immigration reform bandwagon when my own bandwagon hasn't even left the barn.Legal American citizens continue to be denied the right to marry because of their sexual orientation, while their families are deprived of access to the more than 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities automatically granted to married heterosexual couples.If we're going to hold 24-hour Senate sessions using taxpayer dollars, let those sessions be used to come up with a comprehensive plan that allows America's same-gender loving stakeholders to have the opportunity to have the right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency, or the right to receive family-related Social Security benefits.But immigration reform dominates in Washington. President Bush wants a comprehensive guest worker program for undocumented laborers.With all due respect, Mr. President, there should be no guest worker program until we ensure that all lesbian and gay American citizens have the right to take up to 12 weeks of leave to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner, and the right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.Both Sen. Kennedy and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas backed away from requiring that guest workers leave the United States after their initial two-year visa expired. The congressmen wanted to keep immigrant families from being separated.Well, what about making sure that the children of same-sex couples are protected and not separated from the parent they know and love in the event of an untimely death? Same-sex couples make commitments and form families just like heterosexual couples, and they need the same protections.Lesbians and gays are not second-class citizens. Our issues should not get bumped to the back of the line in favor of extending rights to people who have entered this country illegally.Author and poet Audre Lorde once said, "I have come to believe over and over again, that what is most important to me must be spoken, made verbal and shared, even at the risk of having it bruised or misunderstood."While I know no one wants to be viewed as a racist when it comes to immigration reform, as a lesbian I don't want to move to the back of the bus to accommodate those who broke the law to be here. Immigrants aren't the only ones who want a shot at the American dream.
-------
Point well taken. My sweet grandparents were illegal immigrants until 1968. They crossed the Mexico/Texas border unlawfully all the time before then. They were children of simple farmers and ranchers, raised especially hard in sometimes unspeakable conditions in 1930's-1940's Mexico, a nation that at the time resembled 1900's America.
What does this mean for immigrants and gays? Their plights can no longer be simply ignored. But the hard truth is that immigrants will surely be dealt with much sooner than gays. The government does not want to deal with something as difficult to call as those with "diviant sexual preferences". It isn't clear cut. Gays are hard to tell apart from straights. Perhaps this is why they are viewed as difficult to deal with and why they are "easy targets" for hatred. It's easy to shun something that isn't clear cut or absolute, something that isn't black and white or "pure". As much as humanity loves to think of themselves as belonging to one race or religion or ethnicity, no one is pure anything. Nothing really separates us from anyone else in the human race. Sure, there is skin color, language, political beliefs, etc., but all attempt in their own way some kind of peace and harmony. In the end, are we really so different that we cannot give our fellow man his most basic right to live as he chooses? As long as he does not harm anyone or himself, he should have this. Why must it be always fought for, to be delcared something that these people were already born as: human beings?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
