NewsTaco

By Arthur C. Brooks, Wall Street Journal

Half the Hispanics eligible to vote don’t. They are the ones most likely to call themselves ‘political conservatives.’

Before Washington was rocked in recent days by an assortment of brewing scandals, immigration reform was at center stage. And immigration reform will surely return shortly to the heart of Washington debates as Congress considers legislation proposed by Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio and his bipartisan “Gang of 8″ colleagues.

Their bill would normalize the status of millions of illegal, mostly Hispanic immigrants. This has stimulated a vigorous debate among conservatives over the cost of reform, mostly in the form of public services for those with low skills and high needs.

Click HERE or on the picture to read the full story.

[Photo by valentinapowers]

Por Maria Lourdes Pallais, IDL-Reporteros

Delgada, de corta estatura, entra sonriente, discreta, casi desapercibida. En minutos, la intensidad del tono de su voz, el brillo que despiden sus ojos inteligentes y su presencia pequeña pero dinámica domina la entrevista. Habla rápido, enfatizando con los ojos y las manos. Solo a veces pausa y se toma más tiempo para reflexionar. Dispara dardos verbales con decisión, especialmente cuando se refiere a las autoridades mexicanas, que incluyen la Procuraduría General de la República (fiscalía federal), la Secretaría de Gobernación (Interior) y la Policía Federal, dependencias que para ella han destacado por su ineficiencia y “cinismo” en lo relativo a la protección de los derechos humanos e integridad física de los periodistas.

Es Anabel Hernández, reconocida periodista de investigación y autora de “Los Señores del Narco” (2010), donde expone los nexos de la clase política, policiaca y empresarial mexicana con el narcotráfico, particularmente con el Cartel de Sinaloa y su líder Joaquín Guzmán Loera “El Chapo”, a quien la DEA considera el narcotraficante más poderoso de todos los tiempos; y “México en llamas” (2013), que narra quiénes fueron los cómplices del ex presidente Felipe Calderón; la farsa de su guerra contra las drogas; las cartas de los secuestradores que cortaban orejas, manos, dedos, y los sobornos a Genaro García Luna cuando era jefe de la Policía Federal en 1998 y 1999. Hasta 2011, Hernández (Premio Pluma de Oro de la Libertad) fue la reportera estrella del diario digital Reporte Índigo, donde destacaban sus polémicas portadas sobre los atropellos e ilícitos de García Luna; sobre el “Palacio de los Excesos” del gobierno federal; sobre la asesoría del ex presidente Vicente Fox a la campaña de Enrique Peña Nieto, entonces aspirante del PRI a la presidencia, entre otras.

Hoy, la periodista “más valiente” de México, “chiquitita de estatura pero de gran corazón”, como dice el corrido que lleva su nombre, está enojada y no lo esconde.

Le quitan los escoltas

“Son absolutamente cómplices de los homicidios de los periodistas porque son igual de responsables el que tira el gatillo y el que, siendo autoridad, permite que eso suceda”, afirma, contundente, a IDL-Reporteros.

Habla de quienes tienen el deber de proteger su vida, luego de que una fuente le revelara un plan de García Luna para matarla haciéndolo pasar por accidente, robo o secuestro.

El “odio” de quien fuera el funcionario engreído de Calderón hacia ella, dice, nació cuando se enfocó en documentar actos de corrupción y de complicidad con la delincuencia organizada de él y otros altos funcionarios.

Tras denunciar al ahora ex ministro ante la Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos (CNDH), el entonces fiscal de la Ciudad de México y ahora alcalde Miguel Ángel Mancera, le ofreció escoltas 24 horas al día.

Todo así hasta hace unas semanas, cuando le anunciaron que la “medida cautelar” concluiría en junio. La razón: al gobierno de la Ciudad de México no le “competía” esa responsabilidad.

Fue entonces que la Junta de Gobierno del llamado “Mecanismo para la Protección de Personas Defensoras de Derechos Humanos y Periodistas”, que incluye a Gobernación, fiscalía federal, CNDH, legisladores y otras autoridades, decidió estudiar su caso. En una primera reunión el pasado dos de mayo, la Junta decidió reevaluar el plan de protección “previo a la conclusión de dicho periodo” en junio. Analizará ofrecerle protección de una agencia federal, en la que Hernández no confía porque sospecha que está coludida con García Luna. Aunque en el escrito, la Junta asegura que también revisará la propuesta del Gobierno de la Ciudad de México de “prestar una escolta permanente”, Anabel desconfía:

“Ésta es una clara muestra de porqué siguen matando impunemente periodistas en México. Y entiendo que puede ser una respuesta a mis fuertes críticas planteadas a la Junta el 26 de abril pasado en la audiencia que tuve ante ustedes para plantear mi caso”, les escribe por email. Se refiere a su ponencia ante esa Junta donde “fui a reclamarles su incompetencia por todos los periodistas asesinados, como los compañeros torturados y descuartizados en Veracruz; como el [caso] de Regina Martínez, asfixiada por estrangulamiento hace un año en Veracruz”.

Desconfianza no gratuita

México ocupa un infame octavo lugar en el mundo en casos de impunidad en crímenes y agresiones contra periodistas, según el Comité para la Protección de los Periodistas (CPJ).

Entre diciembre de 2006 y diciembre de 2012, al menos 14 periodistas fueron asesinados en represalia directa por su labor, dice el CPJ. Hace unas semanas, la oficina en México de Artículo 19, una organización internacional que defiende y promueve la libertad de expresión, también recibió una carta con amenazas. Y son las mujeres periodistas las más vulnerables, según Orfe Castillo, coordinadora de Solidaridad y Acción Urgente en Mesoamérica.

No sorprende entonces la desconfianza de Hernández. “No les estoy pidiendo lo que no me pueden dar. Solo pido que el gobierno del DF no me retire los escoltas que me concedió (la fiscalía capitalina) hace cinco años”.

“Si fracaso y me convierto en una víctima más, no va a ser mi fracaso. Va a ser el fracaso de todos los que están aquí sentados”, les dijo.

Una vida fragmentada

Hablar del efecto que ha tenido todo esto en su vida personal no es tema fácil para Anabel, madre soltera de dos hijos, de 16 y de tres. Pero lo enfrenta. Confiesa haberse quedado encerrada en su casa por temor. Confiesa también haber perdido productividad. “Ha sido un desgaste emocional, anímico, de productividad muy alto…”.

¿Has tenido miedo?

Si yo no hubiera tenido que perder tanto tiempo quedándome encerrada en mi casa, en tener miedo, en no buscar más fuentes de información para no ponerlas en peligro, hubiera sido más prolífica.

¿Cómo ha afectado todo esto a tus hijos?

La enfermera me decía ‘si no te concentras en tu bebé, lo vas a perder’, y mi hijo nació bien pero prematuro. Ahora de tres años, me queda claro que está profundamente afectado y me preocupa cómo se va a reflejar más tarde. Mi hija parecía que podía aguantar la presión pero está en plena adolescencia, quiere ir a fiestas, al cine y no puede… ¿Quién me devuelve eso? ¿Cuántos años tendrían que pagar estos corruptos para repararlo?

¿Cómo vive esto tu madre, tu familia?

Mi madre tiene 74 años y padece de diabetes. Me ha pedido que ya no (investigue) más… Mis hermanos me reclaman porque estoy involucrando a mi familia. Yo me tomo largos tiempos, dos o tres meses, con mi familia sola, para tener algo de cordura, algo de paz; caminar en las calles de algún país del mundo, tranquilamente, vivir libre…

¿Cómo te ha cambiado esta experiencia?

Me volví más incisiva. Entre más me presionaban, más aguerrida. Esta cacería que emprendieron contra mí lo que me arrojó es que estaba en la ruta correcta, que debía seguir investigando. Y no voy a parar…

¿Considerarías vivir fuera de México?

El nunca no existe pero si algún día (sucede) es porque a mí se me dio la gana, no porque nadie me quiera correr de mi país; ni los delincuentes ni el gobierno… Si algún día me voy es porque a mí me conviene…

¿Tienes momentos de desencanto, de basta ya?

Eso me lo reservo pero algún día espero escribir al respecto -hace un pausa, reflexiona y contesta- No es que seamos fuertes sino que tenemos tanto miedo de perderlo todo que no nos queda más que luchar.

¿Ser mujer ha influido en tu caso?

Siempre pensé que la persecución de García Luna y de sus policías corruptos tenía que ver con lo que estaba publicando pero ahora sé que no solo me odia por mis reportajes sino también por ser mujer.

¿Cómo lo sabes?

Por la manera en que se expresaba sobre mí por ser mujer; sus comentarios soeces, lo que iba a hacerme por ser mujer.

García Luna será el más visible, sobre quien ella tiene evidencias de que se quiere vengar de su trabajo, pero no es el único. El objetivo de su pluma es la corrupción, ese fenómeno tan común no solo en México, sino también en América Latina, que pocos periodistas enfrentan con tanta valentía. Su trabajo en la adversidad, que busca una cultura de honestidad y transparencia, estorba a los poderosos. Y cuando se tiene éxito (“Los Señores del Narco” fue uno de los títulos más vendidos en México en 2010), peor aún.

Ya lo dijo Roberto Saviano, el periodista italiano que vive bajo protección policial tras haber investigado a la Camorra napolitana en “Gomorra”, “puedes investigar, pero cuando te haces demasiado popular arriesgas tu vida“♦

[Foto por Maria Lourdes Pallais]

La autora y periodista Maria Lourdes Pallas radica en la Ciudad de Mexico.

By Victor Landa, NewsTaco

If you’re looking for the Heritage Foundation today, look behind the rock next to the hard place. You’ll find the Heritage between the two, acting like it doesn’t have a care in the world. You get the sense of it by the silence.

The Heritage Foundation has been through a  difficult week, to put it delicately. First the foundation put out a report that claimed the net bill for immigration reform would total more than $6 billion over 50 years. That report was criticized by the expected Heritage opponents (namely people and groups on the left of center) and also by folks on it’s own side of the political court. The study’s conclusion was built on flimsy stacks that stretched 50 years into the future. No reputable organization or researcher would toss a lot that far ahead – anything could happen in five decades to sway even the best researched prophesy.

But if that wasn’t bad enough, that same week the reputation of one of the study’s co-authors quickly became the center of a very public storm. Jason Richwine, a Harvard educated PhD, helped crunch the Heritage study numbers. He also wrote a controversial dissertation while at Harvard in which he claimed that immigrants had inherently low IQ’s and that their offspring and subsequent generations would also have low IQ’s. All this is recent but very widely known history. The latest news was that the heat generated from the IQ dissertation was too much for Dr. Richwine, so he resigned his position at Heritage.

My concern is with the silence coming from the Heritage Foundation. You’d get the sense that it’s a jittery silence – or that it should be.

Any PR consultant worth his or her reputation would advise Heritage to do exactly what it’s doing – defend the study and ignore Richwine’s dissertation as having nothing to do with the foundation or the immigration study. That’s the best of a number of bad options. The problem is that, like it or not, Heritage tied it’s wagon to the dissertation when it hired Richwine. And whether Richwine quit Heritage or not doesn’t separate the foundation from his work – his name is all over the study already. And by default, Richwine is tied to the people who hired him because in the end they didn’t fire him.

Again, a PR tightrope. Do you fire Richwine and by so doing admit faulty research? Do you stand by the research and by default stand by his prior writing? So Richwine quit, Heritage looked the other way, then crawled to that place between the rock and the hard place.

Does anyone want to take a wild guess as to how Heritage’s next research will be received?

[Image courtesy The Heritage Foundation]

Victor Landa, NewsTaco

The U. S. Supreme Court will be handing down its decisions on two important civil rights cases soon, one possibly as soon as Monday, May 13. Both cases could have a lasting impact in the fight for civil rights that began in the decade of the 50′s and 60′s.

On Monday the Court could decide on Fischer v. University of Texas, in which the Justices are deliberating whether the University of Texas’ manner of attracting minority students is unconstitutional. The University’s main campus, in Autsin, Texas, accepts the top 10% of every high school class then uses race as one factor in attaining a balance of racial and ethnic diversity in its student body. The case was brought by a white student who claimed she was passed up for admission because of her race – implying that her place was given to a less deserving minority. In this case Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself because she served as U. S. solicitor general, so only eight justices will decide the outcome.

The other case is Shelby v Holder, which is expected to be decided in June. In this case the Court will decide whether section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which was last updated in 1972 but has been reauthorized several times since, is in violation of the Constitution. The main question, as has been reported, is if the Justices believe that the blatant and vast discrimination that existed in the 1960′s still exists, and whether the states covered by Section 5 continue to be the  most damaging offenders. Section 5 of the VRA requires that certain Jurisdictions (most of them southern states) pre-clear any election related change with the federal government. Opponents of the requirement argue that the discrimination of the past no longer exists and therefore pre-clearance is no longer needed.  Proponents maintain the opposite and emphasize that Section 5 has been successfully used in the very recent past to thwart blatant voter discrimination practices.

In both of these cases the court is evenly divided with Justice Anthony Kennedy seen as the swing vote.

[Photo courtesy c-span]

By Victor Landa, NewsTaco

At first glance, yeah, Latino voters are “punching below their weight,” as a Pew press release succinctly put it. The Latino voter turn-out rate in the past presidential election was a paltry 48% – to quote Pew again – ,”far below that of whites (64.1%) or blacks (66.2%).”

And if that were the simple malady then the logical prescription would be more gym time and a change of diet to add some bulk. But there’s more to it than that.

Lets switch metaphors, abruptly, and reach for the proverbial glass to see if it’s half-empty or half-full.

First, turn away from percentages and look at real numbers. A record 11.2 million Latinos voted in 2012, an increase of 1.2 million over the 2008 presidential election.

Now, get a little closer to the glass and look at this: every month, according to Voto Latino, 50 thousand Latinos turn 18 years of age. Do the math, that’s 2.4 million new eligible Latino voters between 2008 and 2012. Hold that thought, and consider this:

• According to Census Bureau data the number of eligible Latinos who chose not to vote in 2012 was 2.3 million.
• 24% of the U.S. population under 18 years of age is Latino.
• According to the Census Bureau report, the turnout rate among 18- to 24-year-olds fell to 41.2% in 2012 from 48.5% in 2008.

Now step back and look at the glass again.

The problem isn’t that it’s half-anything. The problem is that the glass is the wrong size. The Latinos that didn’t bother to vote are young, so they belong in two bins and their voter behavior responds more to their youth than to their ethnicity. With time, as the 50 thousand a month accumulate birthdays, and jobs and families they’ll see the value in casting a vote and the 1.2 million voter participation increase that we saw between 2008 and 2012 will increase even more and astonish people.

It’s going to take a while – time at the gym, carbo-loading. And when it happens the headlines will yell about the incredible jump in voters. But between you and me, we know they’ve been here all along. And we know it’ll take work to get them all registered and plugged-in.

The first wave should be primed and ready by 2016…

[Photo by whatatravisty]

By Victor Landa, NewsTaco

Of course not. Bill Richardson is not a Latino King, Khan or Potentate.

So does Bill Richardson get to decide who is Latino and who isn’t? Not at all.

So why all the buzz over his statement on ABC News, in which he said that Texas Senator Ted Cruz should not be considered “Hispanic.”

That’s because the buzz is about as ridiculous as my headline. It’s also because media loves conflict, it plays well and gets people’s attention. And because now that we’re all media – connected and producing through personal devices – we all get a say as to what stands out in the buzz.

In this sense Bill Richardson is just a guy on TV with an opinion. The fact that he was on ABC means that he’s a pretty well known guy on TV. He also self identifies as Latino, or Hispanic, or whatever word he chooses to use. In that context, and in the political context of immigration reform, he was asked his opinion of Sen. Cruz. Here’s what he said, verbatim:

“I’m not a fan. I know [Ted Cruz is] sort of the Republican latest flavor. He’s articulate. He seems to be charismatic, but I don’t like his politics. I think he introduces a measure of incivility in the political process. Insulting people is not the way to go. But I guess he’s a force in the Republican political system, but I’m not a fan.”

So he was asked his opinion, and he gave it.

Then came this, from the ABC interviewer:

Do you think he represents most Hispanics with his politics?

That’s a very specific solicitation about a very specific issue. So Richardson answered:

“No, no. He’s anti-immigration. Almost every Hispanic in the country wants to see immigration reform. No, I don’t think he should be defined as a Hispanic. He’s a politician from Texas. A conservative state. And I respect Texas’ choice. But what I don’t like is… when you try to get things done, it’s okay to be strong and state your views, your ideology.  But I’ve seen him demean the office, be rude to other senators, not be part of, I think, the civility that is really needed in Washington.”

Here’s the problem with that statement – not having the same political views as the majority of people in a group does not exclude you from the group.

Ted Cruz does not have the same opinion on immigration as the vast majority of Latinos in the U.S. Also, Ted Cruz is a U. S. Senator, so his political opinion matters, in this case, much more than Richardson’s or yours or mine, because he has one of 100 votes in the outcome. So let’s say that Cruz self-identifies as a Latino, and let’s say that in that context he is one of three Latinos in the U.S. Senate. His opinion, then, would carry weight in the Latino community. But if you parse his constituency, you’ll find that he was elected by a majority of non-Latinos in Texas. So his ethnicity, self identified or not, is irrelevant. He wasn’t elected as a Latino, he was elected as a conservative, Tea Party Republican.

Richardson went on to say that he doesn’t like Cruz’s behavior, that he thinks Cruz is rude and demeaning. And I’m sure I could get many Latinos to line-up on Richardson’s side of that argument. So maybe what Richardson was trying to say is that Cruz shouldn’t be defined as representing a majority Hispanic political sentiment. No one could argue with that.

But that’s obvious. And had Richardson said that, in that way, there would have been no buzz and we wouldn’t be talking about it today. Ted Cruz was not elected by Latinos, so he can’t be defined as a Latino politician in the strict constituency sense.

The thing is that  Ted Cruz embodies what we all strive for as Americans: to be able to call ourselves what we want, believe what we want and vote for whoever we want. And in that very same context, Bill Richardson, the guy on TV, was asked his opinion.

We may not like his politics and think he’s rude, but the voters who elected Cruz define him in political terms. Anything else is just louder noise in the buzz.

[Photo by MikeSchinkel]

By Victor Landa, NewsTaco

True Story: my father, who passed away late last year at the age of 92, said he remembered watching silent movies. He said he and his buddies giggled nervously thinking there were actors behind the screen. This is the same man who, years later, would call me over to the house telephone (the rotary one attached to the wall) and ask me to dial his brother’s number – “comunícame con tu tio Júlio.”

In my father’s lifetime communications technology has transformed as if from Jules Verne’s imagination; from silent movies to mobile devices we carry in our back pocket. And as I write this we’re on the cusp of even greater transformation.

Another true story: when the United States was first formed, one of the first laws that the very first congress approved was the formation of the postal service, and special rates for newspapers. The postal service was not intended, as such, for the delivery of mail as much as for the delivery of information – an informed citizenry being a pillar of a democratic society and all…

Government regulation of the communications industry – with the excuse of regulating commerce and the scarcity of the channels on the radio and TV dial, among other reasons – has been around as long as the U.S. has been…pretty much since Ben Franklin, et al.

Through the years the two – the advance of communications technologies and government regulations – have gone forward in step (there have been hiccups and fights and nastiness). But the most recent advances in communications technologies have come at such a rapid pace that government, through no fault other than its own nature, has been left swimming upstream in a torrent. Technology advances at an increasingly fast rate, and government is designed to act slowly – we want it this way, we want to make sure that government goes slow so we can keep it in check for the same reason Franklin and Co. set up a postal service to keep the citizens informed.

The problem is that we’re at an impasse. Tech is biting at the bit to move forward and government needs to step up.  The old copper line telephone system was once a novelty to my Dad, but it hardly fits the need of today’s communications. In fact, hardly one third of all communications is done via those old copper voice lines. Most of us use our wireless and mobile phones, internet pipes, chats and hangouts and such. The transition from the old infrastructure to the newer way, across the country from rural to urban areas, is over due, and so is an organized way to get it done.

This is what’s known in communications technology circles as the IP Transition (IP stands for internet protocol, which is technical jargon, but means all the stuff that makes the new technology work), and it’s incredibly important for the Latino community. The way IP Transition is carried out will have an enormous impact among Latinos.

In this regard there’s an idea for an IP roll-out called the All IP – Pilot Program. It calls for a region specific roll out where phone companies would switch off the old lines and test new IP technology. This “pilot” way would allow for wrinkles in the process to be found and ironed out, but most importantly it would give an opportunity to find how the new technology will affect all consumers.

It’s a good marriage of the open and free-wheeling advance of technological discovery and the deliberate nature of the governmental process.

The All IP – Pilot Program is a good idea, but only if Latinos are included, front and center, from the very beginning.  Latinos lag 19% behind whites in in-home computer use. Most of the lag has to do with affordability. So the Pilot Program should include Latinos and affordability in it’s fundamental set-up.

It’s exactly what the revered founding fathers had in mind back in the late 18th century: access to information, educated citizens, vibrant democracy. Nothing’s changed since then, since the days of silent movies and rotary telephones – except the technology. And that’s where we need to catch up, with deliberate equity.

[Photo by ABC Archives]

By Victor Landa, NewsTaco

By far the best compilation and rendering of the events of the Boston Marathon Bombing, and the unfolding drama of the days after, has been put together by the Washington Post.

It’s an interactive timeline that you can search by date, or by theme – “The Manhunt”: “The Suspects”; “The Investigation”; “The Scene.”

It’s got pictures, maps, satellite images, links…

Check it out HERE, or by clicking on the image above.

[Image courtesy Washington Post]

In this incredibly fluid news day, we’re as rivited to the news feeds as everyone else. The large news outlets, with reporters on the ground, have unclear information as the story unfolds.

Our best effort is to provide our readers with a moving stream of information from reporters, commentators, citizens, and yes, some critics and snark peddlers as well. The Twitter feed embedded below will refresh as you click on the “Load More” button at the bottom of the scroll.

Tweets about “#bostonbombing”

Victor Landa, NewsTaco

It’s 844 pages long. It’s been a long time coming. And it’s a compromise.

So it’s a daunting read, a sigh of relief and…better than nothing.

I’m not a big fan of compromises, because both sides lose something in the process. I’m a fan of innovative thinking, where two opposing sides see a common goal and invent a new way to achieve it that wasn’t there before; that honors and understands both sides and helps each side grow.

The immigration bill presented in the U.S. Senate by the fabled “gang of eight” is not that.

Still, it’s the best we could hope for, given the present political circumstances. So in that sense one step, in compromise, is better than no step at all.  But because it’s a compromise there will be folks on both sides who will find things to hate about it. You can take that to the bank.

Make no mistake, this bill is not about immigrants, it’s about politics, and votes – it’s easier to understand what’s written in the 844 pages if we go into it from that point of view. Republicans see the demographic trend and want to soften their image among Latinos, and Democrats see a potential blue wave rising across the country. They both think that immigration reform is the key to their aspiration – straight to the heart of the Latino voter.

And if the issue were that simple congress would vote on it soon and we’d be done with it, and that would be that. If the problem were that easy to resolve, it would have been fixed long ago. It happened today because the political atmosphere was right – that’s just the way Washington politics works.

But this political compromise will have economic and cultural repercussions for generations to come. Latinos have known this all along.

So if the votes are ever cast and counted on this thing, if we’re able to get passed the argument that is sure to erupt in the next days, politics will be changed in a definite way.

In the mean time, we have a bill that’s 844 pages long. You can click HERE or on the image above to read it. Have at it.

By Dr. Henry Flores, NewsTaco

Recently, I have been travelling around the country and speaking to and with groups of academics on the state of Latino politics in the USA.  Actually, Latino politics exists only in the United States.  Regardless, some of my senior colleagues, those who entered university or college teaching in the 1970s and early 1980s have lamented that there doesn’t appear to be ganas among the younger generation of scholars.  The research and writing they are doing is formulaic, predictable, traditional, and not comprehensive.

I pointed out that some of this is driven by the fact that they need to show their Anglo taskmasters that they can perform “traditional” research.  You see those of us who conduct research into Latino politics are seen as marginal players and doing research in areas that are not mainstream according to the traditionalists.  We can use good research techniques, have good data, and write marvelously yet we are considered marginal.  Some of our trade journals will not even publish our research because of the marginality, “the specialized nature,” of our shorlarship.

Now, this may not be important to you but it is an indicator of a greater problem in Latino politics.  One complaint I have heard of the great majority of the current generation of Latino politicians is that they don’t seem to be standing up for issues and policies that our community really need.  When they do speak up they end up championing the perceptions of those who wish to tear us down, for example Cruz and Rubio.  Those who would be our champions  won’t speak up or they pursue a not too adventurous way of speaking that never addresses our issues appropriately.

Asi, what is the difference between the current generation and ours?  Our generation was characterized as la generacíon de la movimiento, the movement generation.  We challenged the system, authorities, “the man,” with direct action.  We demonstrated, sat in, occupied, boycotted and in general made the majority culture wake up and pay attention to what we wanted.  If traditionalists wouldn’t publish our articles, photos, art or music we created our own venues until the institutionalists realized we, and what we said, had value.  We awakened the consciousness of some enlightened Anglos who helped us pass laws and get established in our careers.

These  first steps required a great deal of activism and courage and were exemplified by the works of Valdez and Moreno in Theatre, Jimenez, Moreno, and Baez in Music, Chavez, Corona, Huerta and Tenayuca in the labor movement, Galarza academia, Tijerina in the land reclamation movement and Gutierrez in politics.  Some of these great men and women performed works and acts that were beyond their time but that made statements to the greater culture that “we” were alive and wanted to be counted and included in the greater society.  We made a difference, we did not wish to remain an invisible people, and that we were willing and could contribute to this great society.

Greater society listened and begrudgingly recognized us and what we were doing.  You go almost anywhere in this country and you see our culture on display in almost every venue of American life.  Our families gave birth to scientists, mathematicians, astronauts, great soldiers, politicians, academics, actors, musicians, artist, and doctors.

Recently, however, I am seeing a racial backlash in America that is moving to create barriers to our participation in this great country.  Ugly, sometimes violent people are creating barriers to our continued participation.  These “uglies,” racists are ugly as far as I’m concerned, are trying to pass laws that will stop immigration from Latin America, inhibit our use of our native language, keep us from exercising our franchise, remove us from educational institutions, and deny us heath care.

Bueno, I expect this type of behavior on the part of “los feos” what I didn’t expect was complete silence and resignation from the activists and politicians of the younger generations of Latinos.  What I am hearing in the face of the growing racial howling by “los feos” is an embarrassing silence.  I feel that the younger generation has lost their way, mesmerized by the bright lights of society, they are afraid to speak up because they are afraid that they will lose acceptance by the traditionalists in their career fields, or they don’t know how and what to do or say.

This latter situation is not the case because some young Latinos are speaking out but only some.  I really feel that we, all of us, young and old must become more active, vocal and direct in confronting the “ugly tide of racism” that appears to be washing over our country at this time.  If not we will never progress or be completely accepted in this country.  Simply, we will be drowned under waves of racism, intolerance, bigotry, prejudice and hate.

[Photo courtesy Seattle Civil Rights and History Project]

Victor Landa, NewsTaco

Finally. There’s something decidedly sarcastic in writing that.

Yesterday, late in the afternoon, my Twitter feed fluttered a little about an Associated Press announcement. The AP has decided to drop the “I” word. No longer will the term “illegal immigrant” be used to describe a person.

The period at the end of the last paragraph is forcefully intentional. It doesn’t matter what type of person is being described, or how such a person came be in a given geographic location. What matters is that the person is a human being and the AP has decided that “illegal immigrant” will no longer be used to describe a human being.

So I checked, double checked and posted the news quickly on NewsTaco and shared the post on Twitter and Facebook (I got a few nibbles, but it was late on a Tuesday afternoon…).

At long last the sleeping AP giant has awakened. It’s about time. Thirty years too late by my count.

I’ve been churning news and content for that long and have never used the “I” word intentionally – in quotes, as rule, yes. But as a reporter I was lucky enough to work in newsrooms where my personal choice to not use the word was respected and mirrored. And as a news director it was my newsroom policy to never use the word to describe a person – the word was banned form use.

For 20 years I wrote an opinion column for a Hearst publication and never used the word. What the AP thought or didn’t think was of no concern to me. But still, it matters.

It matters because language is politics, and because the AP stylebook is akin to stone tablets from Mount Sinai when it comes to journalists’ rules of the road. It matters because now that the AP has so decreed you will not read the words “illegal immigrant” again in reference to a human being – at least not in a reputable publication that follows the highest standards of journalism.

The AP’s “I” word decision is part of a wider turn. It comes along with a decision to not use behaviors to label people. As I wrote yesterday, “…a person is no longer schizophrenic, they are instead “diagnosed with schizophrenia.” And a person is no longer and “illegal immigrant.” They may be referred to as “without legal permission.”

For your reference, here’s the AP official stylebook entry:

illegal immigration Entering or residing in a country in violation of civil or criminal law. Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant. Acceptable variations include living in or entering a country illegally or without legal permission.

Except in direct quotations, do not use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegalsor undocumented.

Do not describe people as violating immigration laws without attribution.

Specify wherever possible how someone entered the country illegally and from where. Crossed the border? Overstayed a visa? What nationality?

People who were brought into the country as children should not be described as having immigrated illegally. For people granted a temporary right to remain in the U.S. under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, use temporary resident status, with details on the program lower in the story.

I have to send a heartfelt congratulations to the folks at Colorlines.com who have been relentlessly fighting to have the “I” word stricken from official use. Their Drop The I Word campaign has been excellent! And also Presente.org and Roberto Lovato. Always pushing…

So now everyone turns their collective glances towards the New York Times. We’re waiting  for you to catch up.

[Photo courtesy Colorlines.com]

By Marisa Gerber, Los Angeles Times

When Boyle Heights shop owner Arturo Macias hears fellow Latinos use the Spanish word for “wetback,” he doesn’t necessarily take offense.

By Jose Gonzalez, NewsTaco

Immigration is THE topic for most Latino communities right now and it has the right political buzz in the wake of the 2012 elections. As part of the process are the different ways that groups and coalitions are forming to negotiate this opportunity to make comprehensive immigration reform a reality this year.

Also in that process are all the pro and con arguments for comprehensive reform, ranging from a basic point of social justice, to health, to the economics of it, and so forth.

So in this mix, can an environmental case be made for immigration reform?

Well, if you missed it, recently there were two key opinion pieces from two different environmental leaders calling for immigration reform and a path to citizenship. Both pieces elicited a variety of responses, which I would generalize from a general “you’re missing some key points”, to a “right on brother.”

But it does make it a good question to ask: is there an environmental case for immigration reform? And if so, how does it make sense to frame it, and by whom?

The first piece was in the LA Times by Bill McKibben, a well-known progressive environmental figure, especially in the area of climate change. Most recently, he has been the lead figure for 350.org and the battle over the Keystone XL Pipeline.

In a nutshell, McKibben argued that it was time for the environmental community to embrace immigration reform. His piece elicited a stronger negative response from a variety of Latinos, the “you’re missing a point, or don’t get it” response. The title of the piece “Immigration Reform—for the Climate” may be indicative of the framing that many saw as condescending, misguided, missing the point, or  worst of all, downright racist. Part of the issue was that it was seen as using the call for immigration reform as a self-serving way to move the climate change agenda.

To give credit to McKibben, he acknowledges that many environmentalists have had difficulty with Latino and immigrant communities when framing the issue of population—essentially framing immigrants as a problem that leads to more disparate effects on the environment. Most memorable in that history were the troubles the Sierra Club had as it struggled with the issue of population control, and a potential board takeover that hinted of nativist themes framing migrants as the bad guys.

But a missing point is that in tying increased population patterns as directly correlated with immigration, we can miss the point that a greater threat is to not critically examine our consumption patterns, immigrant or not.

Caroline Selle, from We Are Power Shift, offers a good deconstruction McKibben’s piece and further outlines some general problems with it. She sums it up as such:

“That argument makes me very, very uncomfortable. First, it has echoes of the ‘noble savage.’ Second, McKibben lumps all immigrants into one giant group. Third, he glosses over the responsibility we over-consumers have for creating the problems that spur mass immigration in the first place. And, finally, he skims past the barriers to entry immigrants face when trying to make their voices heard. Immigrants often don’t have a voice in the public sphere, but that’s often not for lack of want or trying.”

To further add, Selle notes that it ignores some history and deeper systemic issues, again focusing on the reasons as to why people need to migrate in the ways they do now.

A fair point to note, and question to ask, of the McKibben piece is who is the audience? Or what specific purpose does it seem to serve?

The piece reads more of a “conversion” piece, where he acknowledges how he is changing on the issue. If we read it with that perspective, two things come to mind. The audiences are himself and those in similar places. Second, the purpose comes across as a way to serve the climate change audience more so than the immigrant community.  This does not necessarily excuse how the overall message comes across, but at least it provides more of an understanding of where he is coming from.

Part of the problem is that to several readers, the piece read a bit clunky, like “it’s ok, Latinos are not that bad, and we can use their political clout for the change we want.”

Mind you, I too have called on Latinos to use their demographic and political clout for conservation and environmental issues. But I think part of the key difference is that you can say it so that it is an empowering statement or you can say it so that it sounds too self-serving or missing key background context on immigration.

Nonetheless, I trust Bill McKibben as he takes this risk. In fact, in the comments section of Selle’s story, he admits to needing to “learn his way forward”,  and acknowledges that his audience was those resisting immigration reform—and that I would  also surmise are ones who care about the environment but may not necessarily see a sound connection with immigration reform.

The second opinion piece was over on the Huffington Post. Philip Radford, Executive Director of Greenpeace had a very direct call for a path for citizenship. But in his piece, he did not explicitly call for immigration reform as a way to help with climate change. Rather, it was more a call of unity. As he noted:

“Every society is judged by how well it embodies its highest aspirations and how it treats its most vulnerable people. It’s not who we are as a society to create a separate class of people and force them to risk exposure to dangerous pollution or toxic pesticides simply because our immigration policies lag behind reality… Only a roadmap to full citizenship will enable all of us, including aspiring Americans, to achieve the safety, sustainability, and dignity that everyone in America deserves.”

Again, asking who the audience is and what is the purpose, this piece read clearer in terms of addressing the same environmental/conservation demographic and that it was a call for working together as a social justice issue. He was not saying that immigration reform was good for the environment. It read more of a “we’re with you”.

Having said that, there would still be many points to bring out that if mainstream environmental organizations are “with us”, then why does it not seem reflected in the movement? Why are there are so many stories about how the environmental justice movement has been wary of some of the work of mainstream environmental organizations?

But that is not to detract from exploring the connections between immigration and the environment. The connections are not new and there are genuine and valid areas to explore between the two issues. You can read some exploration of the issue, connections and conflict, in this piece by Jorge Madrid: From a Green Farce to a Green Future. And the Sierra Club too has attempted to tangentially explore the issue via interviews in its magazine articles.

But if we come back to the question of making an environmental case for immigration reform, I would argue these questions would be useful to keep in mind:

• Who is the audience? How might other audiences respond and does it matter?
• What is the purpose and what is your intent? Can it be misread?
• Has genuine outreach efforts been made to partners on the other issue? Are they with you? Does it matter?
• Do you understand the messages of the other issue or the “other side”? Are you missing something?
• Are you touching on the core issues? What may be missing and how important is it to partners on the other side?
• Are there ways to frame the issues in constructive ways?

Others may have more to add or disagree. People may also come up with different answers along with different questions. But to continue that dialogue, here is a closing thought that may help:

Latinos can and should wield their growing demographic and political weight for conservation issues and especially climate change. Pressing right now is immigration reform, which has had many vitriolic politicized moments. So allies are needed and there are valid connections with conservation organizations for mutual cooperation, but a cooperation that is complementary, not coming across as possessive. For years, this has been a genuine concern by environmental justice organizations,  that cooperation is not balanced and issues are “possessed” in unhealthy balances that lead to “feeling used” or neglected. As a leader of an environmental justice organization once told me. “We’ll work together, we’re here. But we will speak with our own voice and they need to be careful they are not speaking for us or at us. If they are going to do that, then it’s just another way of continuing to exclude us.”

With that in mind, there is the opportunity to, as McKibben said, learn forward. And we can learn forward together, from each other, with each other.

[Photo by CBP Photography]