Raul Ramos y Sanchez's Blog, page 16

Operation Wetback: The Romney blueprint for "self-deportation"

When MittRomney's immigration advisor Kris Kobach boasts that 5.5 million "illegals" couldbe forced out of the U.S. during the first term of a Romney presidency, it isno idle claim. There is a model for "self-deportation" that led to theexpulsion of up to 700,000 Mexicans during the mid 1950s: OperationWetback. This quasi-military nationwide effort launched by the Eisenhoweradministration in 1954 is a clear example of how the constitutional rights ofU.S. citizens can be trampled when hysteria and prejudice reach a fever pitch. The offensive name was only the beginning of its xenophobic nature. 
Operation Wetback
In less thana year Operation Wetback led to the arrest of over 80,000 people of Mexicanorigin in the U.S. and is credited with forcing the voluntary expulsion of upto 700,000 others. The operation targeted Mexican-American communities inCalifornia and Arizona and employed roadblocks along with the cordoning off ofentire neighborhoods to indentify "illegal aliens." Random stops of persons who appeared to be "Mexican" were also employed. These indiscriminate interrogations of people basedpurely on their ethnicity were organized and fully sanctioned by the federalgovernment. Allegations of widespread harassmentand beatings were later supported by lawsuits settled in favor of U.S. citizensvictimized during the operation. Many of those detained were released hundredsof miles inside the Mexican border to discourage their return.
Themotivation behind the draconian Operation Wetback reflects the bipolar nature of U.S./Mexico labor relations.
After themassive "MexicanRepatriation" during the Great Depression, the entry of the U.S. into WWIIbrought a new round of labor shortages. Againin need of cheap labor, the U.S. and Mexico entered into the BraceroProgram which brought a new wave of Mexican workers to American farms andfactories. Although the demand for cheap labor continued after GIs returnedfrom the war, tensions mounted. After complaints of labor law violations bysome Bracero workers, a backlash arose claiming that "uncontrolledimmigration" by undocumented workers were depressing wages and creatingunwarranted employment competition. Thus,Operation Wetback was born.
Will the Romney/Kobach "self-deportation"work today? Not likely, according to a recentstudy by the Center for American Progress. The study indicates that many of theundocumented today have been in the U.S. for decades and will not easilyabandon their strong family ties forged here. The study also cites a lack of opportunitiesin the migrants' native countries and the high cost of returning as additionalfactors against self-deportation. However, this will not likely deter nativistsfrom attempting a repeat of Operation Wetback, making the human costs of such ascheme all the more tragic.
"If America could deport the illegal invaders back then, theycan sure do it today!" boasts a nativistwebsite in reference to Operation Wetback and the Repatriation of the GreatDepression. These incidents and others like the unlawful Japaneseinterment during WWII, prove that fear and prejudice have often trumped the guaranteed constitutional rights of U.S. minority citizens in the past.
Ironically,nativists are especially fond of invoking  the "rule of law" to justify punitivelegislation like Arizona's SB-1070. Yet the concept of a "rule of law" in theU.S. was created to prevent mob rule from violating the rights of individualcitizens. This is exactly the opposite of what occurred with Operation Wetbackwhen U.S. citizens were harassed and arrested purely on the basis of theirethnicity.
The overwhelmingmajority of the nation's nearly 50 million Latinos are here legally. Simplisticsolutions like Romney/Kobach self-deportation scheme will not just fail, theywill very likely antagonize a large portion of the Latino community. That isnot a good recipe for domestic tranquility. For proof, one need only look atthe ugly side of similar scenarios such as the Chechens in Russia, the Basquesin Spain, the Tamils in Sri Lanka and the mother of all ethnic conflict, theBalkans.  
The solutionto the presence of some 11 million undocumented people in the U.S. will likelybe messy and involve compromise. But the alternative could be something no oneexcept the right militias want.
RaulRamos y Sanchez



Sources: Encyclopedia of Latino popular culture - Cordelia Candelaria, Peter J. García,Arturo J. Aldama OperationWetback: The Mass Deportation of Mexican Undocumented Workers in 1954 -Juan Ramon Garcia  Race,gender, and punishment: from colonialism to the war on terror -  Mary Bosworth, Jeanne FlavinWikipedia – OperationWetback


[image error]

Over one million Mexicans forcibly relocated under "rule of law"

[image error]
More than one million people of Mexican origin were unlawfully removed to Mexico during the 1930s across the United States. Approximately 60% were U.S. citizens.

Many of those who demonize the undocumented and support harsh nativist legislation instead of immigration reform cloak their arguments under the guise of maintaining "the rule of law." They make this point despite law enforcement statistics that show crime has dropped significantly across the nation since the early 1990s, the period when the present flood of undocumented immigrants began. (In Los Angeles, a city with probably the highest concentration of undocumented immigrants, overall crime has dropped 64% during this same period.)

This weekend, a plaque will be unveiled in the City of Los Angeles acknowledging one of the most flagrant civil rights violations in U.S. history. This seldom-mentioned event was perpetrated across the nation by elected officials and law enforcement agencies at every level under a federal campaign led by President Herbert Hoover.

According to scholar Kevin R. Johnson:

ManyAmericans have not heard of the forced removal of approximately one millionpersons—U.S. citizens as well as noncitizens—of Mexican ancestry from theUnited States during the Great Depression. This is true despite the fact thatthe number of repatriates dwarfed by about tenfold the number of persons ofJapanese ancestry who were interned by the United States government duringWorld War II. Unfortunately, the lack of awareness of the repatriation isconsistent with the general invisibility of Latina/o civil rights deprivationsthroughout much of U.S. history. 

Although"repatriation" is the term often used to refer to the campaign to removehundreds of thousands of persons of Mexican ancestry from the United States inthe 1930s, it is not entirely accurate.  Federal,state, and local governments worked together to involuntarily remove many U.S.citizens of Mexican ancestry, many of whom were born in the United States.  These citizens cannot be said to have been "repatriated"to their native land. Approximately 60 percent of the persons of Mexicanancestry removed to Mexico in the 1930s were U.S. citizens, many of them childrenwho were effectively deported to Mexico when their immigrant parents were sentthere.

The forced"repatriation" of an estimated one million persons of Mexican ancestry from theUnited States included the removal of hundreds of thousands of people fromCalifornia, Michigan, Colorado, Texas,Illinois, Ohio, and New York during the Great Depression.  It is clear today that the conduct offederal, state, and local officials in the campaign violated the legal rightsof the persons repatriated, as well as persons of Mexican ancestry stopped,interrogated, and detained but not removed from the country. The repatriationcampaign also terrorized and traumatized the greater Mexican-Americancommunity.

To justify the "Repatriation," Los Angeles county officials claimed that returning Mexicans would save the city money by reducing the number of needy families using up federal welfare funds and free up jobs for "real" Americans. However, sources at the time documented that less than 10 percent of people on welfare across the country were Mexican or of Mexican descent.

The "Repatriation" included sweeps through barrios with indiscriminate mass arrests. Most people were unconstitutionally denied their legal rights of Due Process and Equal Protection under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment. (The U.S. Department of Justice recently stripped Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio's office of its immigration enforcement powers for conducting similar "sweeps".)

Is this what nativists mean by the "rule of law" in the United States?

Raul Ramos y Sanchez








[image error]

Romney bashes Santorum for his support of Sotomayor

From a video just released by the Romney campaignMitt Romney is pulling no punches in trying to beat back a challenge from Rick Santorum for the GOP presidential nomination. This recent attack ad is one of several the Romney campaign is using to blanket Michigan airwaves. The ad features Santorum's connection with Arlen Specter, Republican turned Democrat.  In passing, the ad takes a swipe at Santorum's vote for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

With Judge Sotomayor's widespread popularity among Latino communities across the nation, this move reveals one of several things about the Romney campaign: 1) They feel Romney can win in November without much Hispanic support. 2) They think Latinos will forget being used as a political piñata in pandering to xenophobes and racists during the GOP primaries. 3) They are completely clueless.

The complete video is included below.

Raul Ramos y Sanchez





[image error]

Minorities: On campuses or on the barricades?

In October of this year, the Supreme Court will hear Fisher vs. University of Texas, a case that may prompt the court to rule on the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education. Given the court's current makeup, many are projecting affirmative action will be overturned.

If the Supreme Court wants to end preferential treatment in college admissions, then it should start by requiring universities end legacy preferences in admissions for the children of well-heeled alumni. This inequity has been going on for a lot longer than affirmative action. Of course ending legacy preferences will never happen. These wealthy former students contribute huge sums to their alma maters. Need I add that the overwhelming majority of legacy students are Non-Hispanic Whites?

Meanwhile, the median wealth of Non-Hispanic White households is 20 times that of Black households and 18 times that of Hispanic households according to a Pew Research Center 2009 report. This fact alone is a clear indication that inequality is unfortunately alive and well. Coupled with the well established connection between household income and a student's SAT score, it is exceedingly apparent that Non-Hispanic White students have a considerable advantage over students from disadvantaged minorities when it comes to college admissions. But the reasons for having a diverse student body go beyond fairness.

By their very backgrounds, minority students bring a different and much needed perspective to the academic environment. Need proof ? Just consider the arguments for and against this very issue. On the whole, minorities see affirmative action as worthwhile and necessary. Opposition to affirmative action comes primarily from Non-Hispanic Whites.

What happens when a generation of intelligent, motivated young people find themselves marginalized and their potential stunted by societal forces? A look around the world – and at history – indicates that a very likely outcome is social upheaval including protests, rioting and even open rebellion. For proof, one only need look at last year's Arab Spring, the recent riots in England and France, China's democracy movement culminating in Tiananmen Square, theoverthrow of the Shah of Iran, and Castro's revolution in Cuba. In all of these rebellions and many others, disillusioned young people have the spark and fuel for turmoil.

It is a conceit of the privileged to think they are impartial about deciding "merit." Universities in the U.S. need the voices of the disadvantaged. If we choose to lock these often dissenting voices out our campuses, we may someday hear them from barricades on the street.

Raul Ramos y Sanchez


[image error]

Arpaio throws fellow AZ sheriff Babeu to the wolves

Joe Arpaio and Paul Babeu, two Arizona sheriffs who promote their hard-line nativism. 
"...it's up to him to face his issues, not me."
--Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio

"All I can say is he's the sheriff of Pinal County, and it's up to him to face his issues, not me," Sheriff Joe Arpaio told The Arizona Republic regarding fellow Arizona sheriff Paul Babeu. Sheriff Babeu is embroiled in a scandal that began when a Latino boyfriend publicly accused Babeu of threatening him with deportation if he did not keep their gay relationship secret.

Arpaio added that Babeu has been "begging" for an endorsement in the congressional primary. "I don't even think I'm going to get involved," Arpaio said. "We'll see what happens with Babeu."

So much for one fellow lawman covering the other's back. Looks like Sheriff Arpaio has thrown Sheriff Babeu to the wolves.

Raul Ramos y Sanchez






[image error]

Santorum's wish: Continued income inequality

"Thereis income inequality in America. There always has been and, hopefully, and I dosay that, there always will be."
-- RickSantorum

This statement by Mr. Santorum made during a speech at the Detroit Economic Club this week places the U.S. in some dubious international company. The United States already ranks 23rd worldwide in income inequality. This puts the U.S. behind several countries many Americans once fled to avoid crushing poverty and a seemingly hopeless future:  Ireland (6), Slovenia (10), Czech Republic (13), Spain (17), Slovakia (20), and Italy (22). A further slide down the inequality pole and the U.S. may find itself behind Greece (26), South Korea (28) and Poland (29).The complete list is included below.*

Inequality-Adjusted Human Development Index

1. Norway
2. Australia
3. Sweden
4. Netherlands
5. Iceland
6. Ireland
7. Germany
8. Denmark
9. Switzerland
10. Slovenia
11. Finland
12. Canada
13. Czech Republic
14. Austria
15. Belgium
16. France
17. Spain
18. Luxembourg
19. United Kingdom
20. Slovakia
21. Israel
22. Italy
23. United States
24. Estonia
25. Hungary
26. Greece
27. Cyprus
28. South Korea
29. Poland
30. Lithuania


*Source:
2011 UNDP Human Development Reports
Overall, the U.S. ranks 4th in the Human Development Index as reported in the Human Development Report 2011 published by the UN Development Programme. However, when adjusted for income inequality, the U.S. slides to 23rd. When adjusted for gender inequality, the U.S. ranks 47th.





[image error]

The effects of big government on personal income

Below is a state by state ranking of 2010 per capita incomeand each state's political affiliation over the past five presidentialelections. Seven of the top ten states voted for "big government" Democrats. Sevenof the bottom ten states in per capita income voted for "small government" Republicans.If you'd like to see the rest of the nation share in the bounty of wealthproducing powerhouses like Arkansas, Utah, South Carolina, Kentucky, Idahoand Mississippi, by all means vote Republican in November.

STATE AFFILIATION 2010 per capita income

1.    Connecticut

Democrat

54,877

2.    Massachusetts

Democrat

51,302

3.    New Jersey

Democrat

51,167

4.    Maryland

Democrat

49,070

5.    New York

Democrat

48,450

6.    Wyoming

Republican

44,861

7.    Virginia

Republican

44,246

8.    Alaska

Republican

44,205

9.    New Hampshire

Democrat

43,586

10.  Minnesota

Democrat

42,847

11.  North Dakota

Republican

42,764

12.  California

Swing

42,578

13.  Washington

Democrat

42,570

14.  Colorado

Swing

42,226

15.  Rhode Island

Democrat

42,095

16.  Illinois

Democrat

42,057

17.  Hawaii

Democrat

41,661

18.  Pennsylvania

Democrat

40,599

19.  Vermont

Democrat

40,098

20.  Nebraska

Republican

39,674

21.  Delaware

Democrat

39,664

22.  South Dakota

Republican

39,593

23.  Kansas

Republican

39,005

24.  Florida

Swing

38,222

25.  Wisconsin

Democrat

38,177

26.  Iowa

Democrat

38,084

27.  Texas

Republican

37,706

28.  Louisiana

Republican

37,021

29.  Missouri

Swing

36,965

30.  Nevada

Swing

36,919

31.  Maine

Democrat

36,717

32.  Oregon

Democrat

36,427

33.  Ohio

Swing

36,180

34.  Oklahoma

Republican

35,396

35.  Montana

Republican

35,068

36.  North Carolina

Republican

34,977

37.  Tennessee

Republican

34,955

38.  Georgia

Republican

34,800

39.  Michigan

Democrat

34,691

40.  Arizona

Republican

34,553

41.  Indiana

Republican

34,042

42.  Alabama

Republican

33,516

43.  New Mexico

Democrat

33,368

44.  Arkansas

Swing

32,678

45.  Utah

Republican

32,473

46.  South Carolina

Republican

32,460

47.  Kentucky

Republican

32,376

48.  West Virginia

Swing

31,999

49.  Idaho

Republican

31,986

50.  Mississippi

Republican

31,046

Sources:State per capita income: Bureau of Business and EconomicResearch http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htmBlue/Red State designantions: Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states#Red_statesThe above classification of red and blue states(as well as purple/battleground states) was determined by compiling the averagemargins of victory in the five presidential elections between 1992 and 2008.Three of these past elections were won by Democrats, Bill Clinton in 1992 and1996, and Barack Obama in 2008, whiletwo were won by Republican George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.




[image error]

The GOP's demographic death spiral

There was a time in living memory when the Republican party in the U.S. included moderates and even a sprinkling of liberals. (New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller and Ohio Congressman Chuck Whalen come to mind.) Those days have long since passed. Today, the GOP is a party drawing an ever-shrinking circle of political orthodoxy. That belligerent intolerance of moderate ideas has stripped the GOP of its more temperate elements, leaving only a hard core of far-right extremists, many of whom are openly racist. And as a party now perceived to serve only the interests of a diminishing Non-Hispanic White polity, the Republican party is in a demographic death spiral.

The extremist trend in the GOP is clearly in evidence at the 2012 Conservative Political Action Committee held in Washington D. C. this week. Over the last few years, the CPAC has gone from a liberal-and-big-government bash fest by mainstream conservatives to a forum that legitimizes groups considered part of the far-right fringe not too long ago. In this year's CPAC there is a seat at the table for birther advocate Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily.com and Peter Brimelow, the founder and head of the white nationalist website VDARE.com. A look at past postings on WorldNetDaily and VDARE make it clear both websites are forums for anti-Semitism and racism.

As a nation where Non-Hispanic Whites will soon be a minority, the desperation of a party that is seen as its standard bearer is palpable. Unfortunately, rather than reaching out, the Republicans are lashing out. Newt Gingrich's comments about our "food stamp" president and suggestions Blacks look for jobs instead of welfare brought a GOP crowd to its feet in thunderous applause. Meanwhile, the US English movement, which the Republican party heartily embraces, is seen by a majority of Latinos as an attack on their culture. Republicans also lose Hispanic voters in their vehement support for state laws like Arizona's SB 1070 which appear to give the green light to racial profiling in the pursuit of the undocumented.

By pandering to "the base," GOP politicians are marginalizing their party as an ethnic special interest group. Meanwhile, like a lake that is drying up, the Republican party is exposing the fetid organisms that once existed under a spring of mainstream thought. The stench is hard to ignore.
.
Raul Ramos y Sanchez




[image error]

The new MundoFox: "El dinero habla"

While many in the FOX News nation clamor for an "English-Only" United States, Rupert Murdoch has launched MundoFox, a new Spanish-language TV network. The reason behind this apparent betrayal of far-right principles is simply this: El dinero habla. [Money talks].

Expected to begin operation in the fall, MundoFox will go head-to-head with NBC's Univision and Telemundo for a Spanish-language TV market with a $3.6 billion yearly ad spend. The MundoFox programming is expected to follow the same formula as its current rivals: telenovelas, telenovelas and more telenovelas. "We think there's opportunity for growth. We're going to capture a big part of that growth," said Hernan Lopez, president of Fox International Channels in a Billboard interview.

In a similar vein of hypocrisy, Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, who also support the US-English movement, launched a blitz of Spanish-language campaign ads during the Florida primaries.

As I noted in a previous post, it seems money and votes can make multiculturalists out of even the most ardent hardliners.

Raul Ramos y Sanchez


[image error]

In fight for Hispanic vote, GOP dispenses with English-Only

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have publicly endorsed making English the official language of the United States. But it's funny how quickly both candidates will drop that stance so popular with many in the GOP base when they're on the stump for Latino votes. The Spanish-language political ads below are two recent of examples of principles taking a back seat to political expediency.

Mitt Romney Spanish-language TV ad:



Newt Gingrich Spanish-language radio spot:
http://mycmag.kantarmediana.com/Radio/201465904.wav

I hope supporters of English-only laws remember that banks, businesses, educational institutions and local government agencies that offer other-than-English language options have reasons for doing so that are as valid as those of these candidates. Then again, logic and fairness may have little effect on a movement like "English-only" which is primarily an expression of xenophobia.

Raul Ramos y Sanchez




[image error]