Journalist-at-large Blog

New photography blog

mjmartinez — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:17:58 +0000

For all you shutter bugs, this is a good one. Nothing like good photography from the LA Times.

Bssera, Pakistan — Pakistani flood survivors evacuate a flooded area. Pakistani officials have issued fresh flood warnings, putting parts of Punjab and Sindh on alert.

A whale of a time

mjmartinez — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:53:51 +0000

This photo is so perfect that you gotta wonder if it’s been Photoshopped.

Still, it’s every sailor’s nightmare, worthy of Moby Dick.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2010/07/southern-right-whale-crashes-sailing-party-literally.html

Latinos want to become Americans

mjmartinez — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:58:38 +0000

Xenophobia runs rampant today, but this poll should ease those fears (but probably won’t):

AP-Univision Poll: US Hispanics mix hopes, strains

By ALAN FRAM and CHRISTINE ARMARIO (AP)

Associated Press (July 20, 2010)

For topline results, click here

MIAMI – Hispanics worry more than most Americans about losing jobs and paying bills. But they place a high importance on education and expect their children to go to college – even if most of them don’t expect the United States to elect a Latino president in the next 20 years.

An Associated Press-Univision poll of more than 1,500 Latinos shows them eager to blend into American society while still holding onto their cultural identity. They are likewise torn between hopes for tomorrow and daily doses of financial stress.

“The situation is bad now, but I have faith that this is going to change,” says Yadilka Aramboles, a 32-year-old Miamian from the Dominican Republic.

She eyes her three young children playing on the sidewalk and sees college in their future – even though her husband’s modest accountant’s income barely covers the family’s most basic expenses.

“For me and my children, I aspire to something more,” Aramboles says.

America’s 47 million Hispanics face acute economic and political pressures.

The recession that erased millions of jobs has taken an especially heavy toll on Latinos, whose average income is lower than many other groups. And the Hispanic community has been jolted by election-season debate over the country’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants, a debate that has increased in intensity following Arizona’s enactment of a law that requires police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person’s immigration status if officers have a reasonable suspicion he or she is in the country illegally.

About three-quarters of the nation’s illegal immigrants are Hispanic, according to the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center.

The poll, also sponsored by The Nielsen Company and Stanford University, shows that Hispanics have complex beliefs about how best to fit into America.

Just over half, 54 percent, say it is important that they change to assimilate into society, yet about two-thirds, 66 percent, say Latinos should maintain their distinct culture.

Gary Segura, a political scientist from Stanford who helped conduct the study, said those two views are not necessarily at odds. He said other, better established ethnic groups cling to their traditions, adding, “Identity is multidimensional, and people can see themselves as Hispanic and as Americans.”

“It’s important to survive in whatever land we’re in,” said Aniela Sanchez, 30, a freelance editor in Passaic, N.J., and child of a Puerto Rican mother and Dominican father. “But every culture has its beautiful mannerisms, songs, food, and you have to take pride in who you are.”

The survey reveals a cautious optimism that brighter opportunities lie ahead – and a conviction that the way to get there is better education.

Just over half expect it will be easier for their children than it’s been for them to find good jobs and buy houses. More than eight in 10 say the most important goal for girls and boys graduating high school is to continue their education, with most saying the aim should be a four-year college. Ninety-four percent say they expect their children to actually go to college – more than double the number who say their own parents expected them to do so.

“There’s many ways they can succeed here,” Ana Mendoza, 33, of Mission, Texas, said of her four children. To achieve that, she says, “it’s an obligation to finish school.”

Yet the poll highlights a double-barreled problem: As a group, Hispanics have been hit disproportionately hard by the economic slump and are less educated than others.

Forty-five percent say they or a family member have lost a job since last September, with similar numbers or more expressing deep worries about becoming unemployed, paying bills and saving for college. By both measures, that is worse than the downturn’s impact on the overall population, according to recent AP-GfK polls.

Signaling concern for the future, 36 percent of Hispanics expect it to be harder for their children to raise a family than it’s been for them.

“It’s just a struggle. We’re cutting back, living with less, adopting to circumstances in a way we really didn’t have to in the ’80s and ’90s,” said Amber Thomson, 34, who is half-Hispanic and lives in Menifee, Calif.

Despite their esteem for school, 37 percent of Hispanics are not high school graduates, compared with 14 percent of the overall population, Census Bureau data show. Twelve percent of Hispanics but 27 percent overall have college degrees or more.

Among Hispanics, there are significant differences between those born here and immigrants, who tend to have rosier views of their new country. Similar schisms are evident between citizens and non-citizens, and between those who mostly speak English or Spanish with their families.

Those from abroad are likelier than U.S.-born Latinos to expect their children to attend college and to have better lifestyles than they do. Yet reflecting their lesser integration into American society, 76 percent of immigrants say their well-being depends on other Hispanics succeeding – about double the number of American-born Latinos who say so. Those from abroad are likelier to express financial worries, to say it’s important to blend into society, and to say at least half their friends are other Hispanics.

Within the Hispanic community, variety abounds. Forty-six percent were born in the U.S. and 32 percent in Mexico, with the rest scattered among Caribbean islands and Central and South America. Six in 10 are Catholic, and about one in seven consider themselves Protestant evangelicals. Fewer than one in five immigrants say they arrived in the past 10 years, while nearly a quarter have been here at least three decades.

The poll detected a new wariness about the national mood in an election year in which immigration has become a hot issue.

Until April 23, when Arizona enacted a law requiring local police officers to check the documentation of people they suspect might be illegal immigrants, 39 percent of English-speaking Hispanics said it is important to blend into society. Of those interviewed after April 23, some 54 percent said so. The increase is telling because English-speaking Latinos tend to be more involved in American politics than predominantly Spanish speakers.

In a different measure of Hispanics’ perceptions of their standing, 29 percent expect a Latino president to be elected in the next 20 years – half the number who think a woman will go to the White House.

The AP-Univision Poll was conducted from March 11 to June 3 by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. Using a sample of Hispanic households provided by The Nielsen Company, 1,521 Hispanics were interviewed in English and Spanish, mostly by mail but also by telephone and the Internet. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Stanford University’s participation in the study was made possible by a grant from The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Alan Fram reported from Washington. Associated Press Polling Director Trevor Tompson and AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.

How the AP-Univision poll was conducted

The Associated Press-Univision Poll of Hispanic adults was conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago from March 11-June 3. It is based on a nationally representative random sample of 1,521 Hispanic adults. Data were gathered via mail, the Internet and telephone. The majority of interviews were completed via mail (82 percent); 15 percent were completed by via telephone and four percent via the Internet.

The sponsors and funders of the project include The Associated Press, Univision Communications, Inc., The Nielsen Company and Stanford University. Stanford University’s participation was made possible by a grant from The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Fifty-three percent of interviews were conducted in English and 47 percent were done in Spanish.

All respondents were offered a monetary incentive to complete the study.

The sample of Hispanic households was provided by The Nielsen Company. Nielsen conducts an annual survey of Hispanic households in the United States for its television viewing ratings services. The sample frame for this survey incorporated 3,427 households that were previously contacted by Nielsen and estimated to be Hispanic.

The response rate for the original Nielsen survey is estimated to be 90 percent. The cumulative response rate for the AP-Univision survey was estimated to be approximately 40 percent.

The final sample was statistically adjusted to be a more accurate representation of all Hispanic householders in the United States based on geography and Hispanic residential penetration, educational attainment and language usage by the householder, as well as the householder’s age, sex and country of origin.

No more than one time in 20 should chance variations in the sample cause the results to vary by more than plus or minus 3.5 percentage points from the answers that would be obtained if all Hispanics in the U.S. were polled.

There are other sources of potential error in polls, including the wording and order of questions.

A new state that even Republicans can like

mjmartinez — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:40:28 +0000

You read it here first a while ago: Puerto Rico seems a natch for the 51st state, and you had to wonder whether the president’s appointment of a Puerto Rican woman to the Supreme Court carried a hidden agenda of making the island the 51st star on the flag.

Now, conservative-in-chief George Will likes the idea too.

Problem is, what will the residents of La Isla del Encanto think? Statehood vs. independent vs. status quo vs. none-of-the-above has literally divided families in the land of the coqui.

The Flag of Puerto Rico

Will: A novel idea for GOP to resolve its Hispanic dilemma

By George F. Will

Washington Post (July 17, 2010)

A Republican governor – a very Republican governor – has an idea for solving one of his party’s conundrums. The party should listen to Luis Fortuno, the Reaganite who resides in Puerto Rico’s executive mansion.

Conservatives need a strategy for addressing the immigration issue without alienating America’s largest and most rapidly growing minority. Conservatives believe the southern border must be secured before there can be “comprehensive” immigration reform that resolves the status of the 11 million illegal immigrants. But this policy risks making Republicans seem hostile to Hispanics.

Fortuno wants Republicans to couple insistence on border enforcement with support for Puerto Rican statehood. This, he says, would resonate deeply among Hispanics nationwide. His premise is that many factors – particularly, the Telemundo and Univision television channels – have created a common consciousness among Hispanics in America.

How many know that Puerto Ricans are American citizens? That every president since Truman has affirmed Puerto Rico’s right to opt for independence or statehood? That every Republican platform since 1968 has endorsed Puerto Rico’s right to choose statehood? That Ronald Reagan, announcing his candidacy in 1979, said, “I favor statehood for Puerto Rico”?

Fortuno supports H.R. 2499 (also supported by such House conservatives as Minority Whip Eric Cantor and former Republican Study Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling), which would conduct a plebiscite on the island’s current status. If a majority favor this status, the question could be asked again in eight years. If a majority vote for change, a second plebiscite would offer a choice among the current status, independence, “sovereignty in association with the United States,” and statehood.

Puerto Rico, which is only half as far from Florida as Hawaii is from California, is about the size of Connecticut. Its population is larger than the populations of 24 states. There are, however, problems.

Puerto Rico’s per capita income ($14,905) is only 50 percent of that of the poorest state (Mississippi, $30,103) and 27 percent of the richest (Connecticut, $54,397). The fact that Puerto Ricans are at home in American society does not entail the conclusion that the commonwealth, a distinct cultural and linguistic entity (most on the island do not speak English), belongs in the federal union. Currently Puerto Ricans pay federal income taxes only on income from off the island.

Fortuno says the present system has failed to prevent the income disparity with the mainland from widening. But America does not want lukewarm citizens. In three referendums (1967, 1993, 1998), Puerto Ricans favored the status quo – an unincorporated territory – over statehood. In 1998, the vote was 50.4 percent to 46.5 percent. In the 1950s, the last time the federal union was enlarged, Hawaiians and Alaskans overwhelmingly supported statehood.

Many Republicans suspect that congressional Democrats support statehood for the same reason they want to pretend that the District of Columbia is a state – to get two more senators (and in Puerto Rico’s case, perhaps six members of Congress). Such Republicans mistakenly assume that the island’s population of 4 million has the same Democratic disposition as the 4.2 million Puerto Ricans in the Bronx and elsewhere on the mainland.

Fortuno disagrees, noting that while Republicans on the mainland were losing in 2008, he was elected in the island’s biggest landslide in 44 years. The party he leads won more than two-thirds of the seats in both houses of the legislature, and three-fifths of the mayorships. Fortuno, who calls himself a “values candidate” and goes to Catholic services almost every day, says Puerto Ricans are culturally conservative – 78 percent are pro-life, 91 percent oppose same-sex marriage, 30 percent of the 85 percent who are Christian are evangelicals. A majority supports his agenda, which includes tax and spending cuts, trimming 16,000 from public payrolls to begin eliminating the deficit that was 45 percent the size of the budget.

Fortuno, 49, who has degrees from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and the University of Virginia’s law school, looks half his age. “Republicans,” he says, “cannot continue to oppose every Hispanic issue.” If he is correct that Puerto Rican statehood is, or can become, such an issue, Republicans should hear him out.

The United States acquired Puerto Rico 112 years ago in the testosterone spill called the Spanish-American War. Before another century passes, perhaps Puerto Ricans’ ambivalence about their ambiguous status can be rectified to the advantage of Republicans.

Will’s e-mail address is georgewill@washpost.com.

From Manifest Destiny to Manifest Insanity

mjmartinez — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:10:24 +0000

There are some powerful observations about the new Arizona law in the latest column by Roberto Dr. Cintli Rodriguez:

In effect, the politics that we are seeing are undeniably but an extension of Manifest Destiny. Its modern expression is a Manifest Insanity – an attempt to maintain the myth of America – conceived of as a promise of a pristine, God-given home – reserved for English-speaking White Anglo Saxon Protestants, this amid the “browning” of the nation. These Arizona laws are part of a spasmodic reaction to this demographic shift, an attempt to maintain a political and cultural dominance over [brown] peoples seen as less than human and as defeated peoples. These laws seek to maintain this narrative of conquest. This is why the loss of lives of some 5,000 Mexicans and Central Americans – primarily Indigenous peoples –in the Arizona/Sonora desert in the past dozen years, mean little in this clash.

This is what Arizona represents; a civilizational clash and a clash of narratives over the myth of America itself. Nothing less. Rodolfo Acuña, author of Occupied America, came to Arizona last week, offering a stark reminder about this clash. His book – along with Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed – has been at the center of the anti-ethnic studies firestorm and law – HB 2281 – signed last month by Gov. Jan Brewer (She had signed SB 1070 – the racial profiling law – the previous month). The controversy surrounding his book has been fueled by an extreme Eurocentric ignorance.

http://web.me.com/columnoftheamericas/Site/ColumnoftheAmericas/Entries/2010/6/15_From_Manifest_Destiny_to_Manifest_Insanity.html

Rodriguez, an assistant professor at the University of Arizona, can be reached at: XColumn@gmail.com

Letter to Obama: Stop namby-pamby talk on immigration – KansasCity.com

mjmartinez — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:39:27 +0000

Mary Sanchez of the Kansas City Star has been covering the immigration issue for years, and she’s one of the best out there — even if you disagree on the timing of immigration reform.

Letter to Obama: Stop namby-pamby talk on immigration – KansasCity.com.

U.S. Supreme Court gives one to immigrants

mjmartinez — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:58:00 +0000

With the new U.S. Supreme Court decision stopping deportations based on petty offenses like mis-d drug possession, immigrants have regained a civil right.

This draconian law resulted in the ripping apart of families when one member was busted for a small crime and was sent back to his or her country of origin.

What becomes of that family member? Will families be reunited?

I wrote a story a couple of years about how a single mother’s deportation put the college-aged daughter in charge of raising her three younger siblings. She summarily became mom–on top of oldest sibling. On top of going to college. On top of working.

Dickensian stuff.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2010/06/supremes-rule-for-immigrants-again.html

Immigration trumps the nation’s worst environmental disaster

mjmartinez — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 20:38:35 +0000

Immigration is such a big issue, it’s perverse.

Never mind how sealife — so critical to our food chain and the livelihood of workers who harvest it — is being obliterated by an oil slick unlike anything that the seven seas have ever seen.

At some point, the world needs to get its priorities straight.

Amid Oil Spill Crisis, U.S. Authorities Search for Undocumented Immigrant Cleanup Workers

El Diario/La Prensa and Feet in Two Worlds publish exclusive report in Spanish and English on immigration enforcement aimed at Hispanic workers.

For immediate release – 6/4/10

Shortly after the nation’s largest oil spill started fouling the Gulf of Mexico and coastal Louisiana, U.S. authorities began checking the immigration status of Hispanic workers hired to help with the clean up effort. In an exclusive story released today by Feet in Two Worlds and El Diario/La Prensa, a spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement confirmed that agents had visited two large command centers outside New Orleans—which are staging areas for the response effort and are sealed off to the public—to verify that the workers there were legal residents.

No arrests were made during the federal investigations. However, Hispanic organizations criticized the government for focusing on the workers’ immigration status at a time when the top priority should be the spill’s environmental impact. “It’s like, ‘round everybody up and leave the oil on the beach,” said Darlene Kattan, Director of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Louisiana. “In a catastrophic situation like this, I think we should be more well-reasoned.”

The story, written by Annie Correal of El Diario/La Prensa, was simultaneously released on Friday by El Diario in Spanish, and in English by Feet in Two Worlds (news.feetintwoworlds.org), a project that brings the work of immigrant and ethnic media journalists to public radio and the web. Feet in Two Worlds is a project of the Center for New York City Affairs at The New School.

Sites are invited to post links to this story, or to cross post it. Re-posts of the story must include credit for Feet in Two Worlds and El Diario, as well as links to news.feetintwoworlds.org and www.impre.com/eldiariony/home.php.

For further information please contact:

Sarah Kramer – sarah@feetin2worlds.org

John Rudolph – john@feetin2worlds.org

Two Chicago homeboys divided over immigration overhaul

mjmartinez — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:20:01 +0000

How divisive is the immigration debate?

Even two sons of Chicago — a major destination for immigrants — can’t agree on it.

U.S. Rep. Gutierrez (background) is squaring off with fellow Chicagoan President Obama about immigration reform

A Potential Obama Ally Becomes an Outspoken Foe on Immigration

By Julia Preston

New York Times (May 28, 2010)

Washington – Representative Luis V. Gutierrez was all set to be a friend of the Obama administration, a point man for the White House among Latinos. A nine-term Democrat, he had cut his political teeth in the wards of Chicago, just as Barack Obama did, and the two knew each other from their parallel early careers in Illinois.

But instead of a favorite ally, Mr. Gutierrez has become a noisy, needling outsider – and not just in the halls of Congress. Saying he was fed up with the president not leading an overhaul of immigration laws, Mr. Gutierrez was arrested along with more than 30 other protesters on May 1 after a sit-in in front of the White House.

Mr. Gutierrez’s frustration was only deepened by the president’s announcement this week that he would send up to 1,200 more National Guard troops to the border with Mexico, a move Mr. Gutierrez called “sound-bite driven politics.”

“There is 25 years of hard evidence that the president is wrong,” said Mr. Gutierrez, who is chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’s immigration task force. “Border security and immigration are not one-dimensional problems that can be solved by more boots on the border.”

Demonstrators plan to take to the streets again in several cities this weekend – to protest Arizona’s tough new immigration law, the president’s planned troop increase at the border, and the failure of Congress to move an immigration overhaul bill including measures to give legal status to millions of illegal immigrants.

In recent months Mr. Gutierrez has emerged as a national leader of Latinos and immigrants favoring the overhaul, who up to now have largely been organized into local community groups with no iconic faces.

“What began as a legislative campaign is transforming into a social movement,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, a group here that lobbies for an overhaul bill that includes legalization. “Luis is the closest thing we have to an Al Sharpton figure who has instant credibility with the community he speaks for.”

Allies say Mr. Gutierrez’s tenacity and his following among Latinos have helped keep the immigration overhaul alive in Washington at a time when many administration officials wish it would go away, at least for now. But even some of Mr. Gutierrez’s friends say that his sometimes intemperate broadsides and showy tactics have irritated the White House and won him no friends among Republicans, some of whom would have to sign on to any overhaul bill for it to pass.

Mr. Gutierrez, 56, said he believes he has a responsibility to point out that Mr. Obama has not fulfilled a campaign pledge to pass overhaul legislation, which is known to supporters as comprehensive immigration reform.

“I’m not demeaning him,” said Mr. Gutierrez, “I’m talking to him about something he made a promise about. You shouldn’t think you challenge somebody simply because you wish them ill. What if you challenge them so they can do better?”

In that spirit, Mr. Gutierrez points out that it is only because of Mr. Obama that he is still in Congress.

In late 2006, after the House approved a bill he abhorred cracking down on illegal immigrants, and with his wife, Soraida, struggling with cancer, Mr. Gutierrez said he would not seek re-election in 2008.

He changed his mind the next year, when Mr. Obama declared his presidential run and his wife’s illness went into remission. He was thrilled when Mr. Obama said he would take up immigration in his first year as president. Now midterm elections are looming, and in the Senate – where leaders in both houses agree the legislative effort has to begin – there is not a bill, only a Democratic blueprint. (Mr. Gutierrez presented a bill in the House in December.)

“Maybe next time you should put in a caveat,” Mr. Gutierrez said in his Capitol Hill office recently, imagining a debate with Mr. Obama. ” ‘Vote for me, and I’m going to do immigration – unless A, B and C happen.’

“That’s not what you said!” he said “You’re sophisticated. You went to Harvard. You knew the implications of what you were saying.”

As an unusually talkative lawmaker, Mr. Gutierrez does not do pith or detachment, Congressional aides and immigrant advocates said. Those who have participated in closed-door immigration negotiations with him recall Mr. Gutierrez weeping over stories of families sundered by deportation, leaping to his feet in rage at setbacks and being elated by small victories.

But for years, on immigration Mr. Gutierrez had been a more typical dealmaker. In 2007, he crafted a bipartisan bill with Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, which included enforcement provisions and a guest worker program that brought him criticism from Latino and immigrant groups.

The proposal died that year along with an overhaul bill supported by President George W. Bush that failed in the Senate.

Then, one month after Mr. Obama’s inauguration, Mr. Gutierrez embarked on a town-hall-meeting tour, called Familias Unidas (United Families), that took him to 16 cities to raise support for an immigration overhaul. Citizens and legal immigrants were invited to recount hardships they faced because loved ones lacked legal status. Most meetings were held in churches.

Mr. Gutierrez played to packed pews across the country. By the end of the tour, he began to sound more like a preacher than a politician.

“He took immigration from a specialty policy issue to a Latino identity litmus test: are you for or against us as Latinos?,” said Tamar Jacoby, a Republican who heads ImmigrationWorks USA, a business lobbying group.

It was an identity hard won. Born in Chicago to Puerto Rican parents, Mr. Gutierrez has maintained his ties to the island. His civil disobedience arrest this month was not his first; he was arrested in 2001 on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques, in a protest over bombing exercises by the United States Navy.

Latinos comprise 75 percent of his Chicago district. Most are of Mexican origin. His support there has given him confidence to take on people in high places. He has a history of friction with Rahm Emanuel, another Chicagoan and Mr. Obama’s chief of staff, which dates back to when Mr. Emanuel was a Democratic leader in the House.

“I think he sees comprehensive immigration reform as something the president does not need to prioritize,” Mr. Gutierrez fumed.

Mr. Gutierrez said his turning point was the State of the Union address in January, when the president made only passing mention of immigration. At a rally before his May Day sit-in, Mr. Gutierrez ridiculed statements by Mr. Obama that Congress might have too much on its plate to handle immigration.

“Don’t worry about us, Mr. President,” he said. “We’ll get up a little earlier if necessary.”

Even as his stature as a Latino leader is growing, he faces trouble at home. In a series of articles, The Chicago Tribune has reported that Mr. Gutierrez received a loan from a Chicago real estate developer, Calvin Boender, who was convicted in March on bribery charges, in a case that did not involve Mr. Gutierrez. Citing court records, The Tribune reported that Mr. Gutierrez wrote a letter and met with city officials on Mr. Boender’s behalf over zoning issues.

While acknowledging the loan, Mr. Gutierrez adamantly denied any wrongdoing. He produced financial records he said showed he had taken a bridge loan that was repaid after six weeks, part of a routine payment plan on a property he bought from Mr. Boender.

Other Hispanic lawmakers laud Mr. Gutierrez’s commitment, though not always his strategies. “I know the discomfort it causes the White House and the party leadership,” said Representative Raúl M. Grijalva of Arizona, another Democrat on the Hispanic caucus. “What he’s doing is necessary.”

But Representative Nydia M. Velázquez, Democrat of New York, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus leader, said the focus should be on behind-the-scenes efforts to win over Republican legislators. But Mr. Gutierrez remains focused on the president.

“This is the moment for him to act,” Mr. Gutierrez said. “And if we stumble, if somehow we fail, let’s fail together. Let’s fail fighting!”

First Bush. Then Obama.

mjmartinez — Thu, 27 May 2010 15:46:29 +0000

Is this a bad flashback?

President Obama is sending National Guardsmen to the border. President Bush did the same thing.

The only difference: Obama is being more upfront about the reason: he’s calling in the troops to shore up the Republican Party and his own too.

Every good soldier knows that there are generals. And then there are politicians. The latter is suffered.

People who live on the border have had enough of their homes being used as pawns in the endless cat-and-mouse game on the international line.

PRESS STATEMENT: Border residents oppose calls for deployment of the National Guard to the U.S.-Mexico border

May 26, 2010 –Organizations and elected officials representing border communities from San Diego to Brownsville have drafted a letter to the Obama Administration and federal legislators strongly opposing the decision to send the National Guard to the U.S.-Mexico border. The organizations believe the deployment is ill-conceived and motivated by electoral politics rather than focused on the needs of border communities.

“While DC politicians like to paint the border as a war zone, the reality is that it is one of the safest areas of the country. Crime is down. Even immigration flows are down. The only emergency here is a political one,” said Pedro Rios, with the American Friends Service Committee in San Diego, one of the signatories of the letter.

However, the militarization of the border is not without consequences for the communities who live there. Economies are choked by inefficient border crossings, civil rights are pushed aside, and quality of life is seriously diminished. Worse, community safety is being sacrificed by those who believe that soldiers trained for war belong near family neighborhoods or should be involved in enforcing civilian laws. We cannot forget that in 1997, U.S. Marines sent to secure the border, shot and killed a teenage U.S. citizen who was peacefully herding goats.

“We are frustrated and disappointed by the Obama Administration because this strategy is a recipe for disaster. This militarization will further alienate border communities and jeopardize the success of border security goals and the fight against real criminal threats,” said Fernando Garcia, Executive Director for the Border Network for Human Rights in El Paso, Texas, who also signed the letter.

It is time to rethink our border policy. Increasing the quantity of armed agents and soldiers on our southern border does not enhance our national security, but in fact undermines it by misallocating resources. Humane border policies would focus quality law enforcement resources on real threats in the region, while protecting the rights and well-being of border residents.

The full text of the letter follows.
The organizations and individuals who signed the letter so far are: American Friends Service Committee (CA); San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium (CA); San Diego Foundation for Change (CA); Border Action Network (AZ); First Christian Church of Tucson (AZ); ACLU Regional Center for Border Rights (NM); Border Network for Human Rights (TX); Immigrant Justice Alliance (TX); Freedom Ambassadors (TX); U.S.-Mexico Border and Immigration Task Force; Casa de Proyecto Libertad (TX); and Project Puente (TX).

###
To President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

To Members of the U.S. Congress
Washington, DC

Border residents oppose calls for deployment of the National Guard to the U.S.-Mexico border

Border communities who had hoped for a rational and accountable border policy from the Obama Administration are deeply disappointed at the news of the authorization to deploy National Guard troops to the border. We are also deeply disappointed by calls from Congress to deploy as many as 6,000 National Guard troops to the border.

Proposals to deploy the National Guard are ill-conceived and motivated by electoral politics rather than border realities. In the course of history, presidents have rarely called up the National Guard. Deployment of these forces has almost always been limited to emergency situations and for good reason. The creation of a national police force is anathema to our fundamental values and to the protection of individual liberties.

As men and women living in the border region, which includes metropolitan areas as well as small towns, we have tried time and again to share our concerns about the militarization of the region with members of the Administration and members of Congress. But it seems we are not being heard and the policies of this Administration, far from being the change that we were promised, mirror the policies of the prior Administration and may even be worse with respect to border enforcement.

To be clear, there is no emergency at the border that would warrant the deployment of the National Guard. Immigration flows are down and border cities are among the safest in the country. Violent crime is rare and when it does happen, as in the case of the Arizona rancher who was recently killed, the perpetrator is more likely to be a citizen than an immigrant. The only “emergency” is the political emergency of upcoming elections.

As residents of the border region, we refuse to allow our communities and our quality of life to be sacrificed in a political game played far away from this region by people with little appreciation for the vibrancy of the region and who are motivated by politics rather than actual border needs. We consider the deployment of the National Guard an affront to border communities and oppose the militarization of our region based on the following:

The militarization of our border has already reached an extreme level and brought with it negative consequences for those who live there. Our economies are choked by inefficient border crossings, our civil rights are pushed aside, and our quality of life is seriously diminished. Worse, our safety is being sacrificed by those who believe that soldiers trained for war belong near family neighborhoods or should be involved in supporting domestic law enforcement. Let’s not forget that in 1997, U.S. Marines sent to help secure the border, mistakenly shot and killed a teenage U.S. citizen who was peacefully herding goats.

Militarization is a misguided and unnecessary response that is not based in reality or in the opinions of President Obama’s own border experts. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has said repeatedly that her Border Patrol agents have operational control of the border. Crime statistics in border cities and counties show that crime is both low and decreasing. Yet, we are being told once again that we must secure the border, just three years after we built a border wall, added thousands of new Border Patrol agents and deployed virtual enforcement technology.

Militarization costs us all. Continuing to throw money, resources and military responses at the border is not fiscally responsible, efficient, or humane. The ever mounting costs of militarizing the border are costs borne by taxpayers who can ill afford ineffective and ill-conceived political responses.

Recourse to the military as a policy option for civilian law enforcement is a disturbing precedent. Forces trained for combat, should not be used for enforcing civil laws. As a matter of fundamental U.S. political values, the military should be withdrawn from all normal law enforcement activities, even in supporting roles.
It is time to rethink our border policy. Increasing the quantity of armed agents and soldiers on our southern border does not enhance our national security, but in fact undermines it by misallocating resources. Humane border policies should emphasize quality law enforcement, and the effective focus of resources on real threats in the region, while ensuring that border communities are consulted on their specific needs, and that the rights and well-being of border residents are protected and upheld.

Consultation with local border communities on a regular basis about border enforcement; decisions about the border should not be made in a vacuum in D.C.
More accountability and oversight of immigration enforcement officers, who have become the largest law enforcement presence in the border region.
A standardized complaint process that aggregates complaints the length of the border should be implemented to better understand potential abuse of power and civil and human rights violations. Enforcement agencies should publicize this data and then use appropriate performance measures to correct gaps in current or ongoing training.
Increased funding for ports of entry to facilitate the flow of legitimate goods and people authorized to work, visit or contribute to the nation’s economy.
Compliance with environmental protection laws without exceptions for the border; we deserve the same protections as the rest of the country.
Compliance with national and international civil and human rights protections, and creation of humane detention and short-term custody standards at the border.
A zero-migrant-death standard that is incorporated into enforcement policies and practices and addresses the mounting death toll—over 5,000—of migrants who lose their lives as a result of inhumane enforcement strategies.
Comprehensive immigration reform that moves beyond enforcement and focuses on fixing the interconnected parts of our broken immigration system.
Economic development for Mexico, our second largest trading partner and primary source of immigration; a stronger Mexican economy would benefit both countries economically and ease migration pressures.

The federal government is as responsible for protecting the lives and well being of border residents as it is of protecting residents of the interior of the United States. Unfortunately, border residents have borne the burden of national security under the current hard-line strategy, but can do so no more. We oppose the deployment of the National Guard to the border as a misguided political response, and we urge our national leaders to pursue real solutions to border enforcement that take into account the needs of the border region.

Signed:
American Friends Service Committee (CA)
San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium (CA)
San Diego Foundation for Change (CA)
Border Action Network (AZ)
First Christian Church of Tucson (AZ)
ACLU Regional Center for Border Rights (NM)
Border Network for Human Rights (TX)
Immigrant Justice Alliance (TX)
Freedom Ambassadors (TX)
Casa de Proyecto Libertad (TX)
Project Puente (TX)
U.S.-Mexico Border and Immigration Task Force

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Fernando Garcia, Executive Director
Border Network for Human Rights
1101 E. Yandell
El Paso, TX 79901
(915) 577-0724