Déjà vu for Senator Sessions

During the Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Senator Jeff Sessions made several chastising comments to the judge regarding her widely noted "wise Latina" comment from 2001, suggesting that she would be prejudiced against whites in her judicial decisions. This line of questioning seemed particularly disingenuous in light of Senator Sessions personal history. Seems the Senator himself was once at the receiving end of similar scrutiny for comments which some deemed "racially insensitive" during his own confirmation hearing for a federal judgeship. What follows is an excerpt from a 2002 article from Sarah Wildman in the New Republic.

Another damaging witness--a black former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama named Thomas Figures--testified that, during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he "used to think they [the Klan] were OK" until he found out some of them were "pot smokers." Sessions claimed the comment was clearly said in jest. Figures didn't see it that way. Sessions, he said, had called him "boy" and, after overhearing him chastise a secretary, warned him to "be careful what you say to white folks." Figures echoed Hebert's claims, saying he too had heard Sessions call various civil rights organizations, including the National Council of Churches and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, "un-American." Sessions denied the accusations but again admitted to frequently joking in an off-color sort of way. In his defense, he said he was not a racist, pointing out that his children went to integrated schools and that he had shared a hotel room with a black attorney several times.

During his nomination hearings, Sessions was opposed by the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, People for the American Way, and other civil rights groups. Senator Denton clung peevishly to his favored nominee until the bitter end, calling Sessions a "victim of a political conspiracy." The Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee finally voted ten to eight against sending Sessions to the Senate floor. The decisive vote was cast by the other senator from Alabama, Democrat Howell Heflin, a former Alabama Supreme Court justice, who said, "[M]y duty to the justice system is greater than any duty to any one individual."

Now sitting on the other side of the table, Senator Sessions might have felt empathy for someone accused of a similar alleged transgression. Instead, he chose to grill Judge Sotomayor, lecturing her as if his own record on the subject was clean. And why not? We all know empathy is not part of the GOP lexicon.

Raul Ramos y Sanchez

A "Gotcha" for Senator Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions

Adding to the cynicism of Senator Jeff Sessions pointed questioning of Judge Sotomayor's alleged "racist" comments during her confirmation hearings is a bit of history about the Senator himself. It seems much of the Senator's ire could be based on the fact Mr. Sessions was himself rejected as a federal judge for ... wait for it ... being racially insensitive. Yes, here is an excerpt from a column by Sarah Wildman in the New Republic with more details:

Sessions was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. The year before his nomination to federal court, he had unsuccessfully prosecuted three civil rights workers--including Albert Turner, a former aide to Martin Luther King Jr.--on a tenuous case of voter fraud. The three had been working in the "Black Belt" counties of Alabama, which, after years of voting white, had begun to swing toward black candidates as voter registration drives brought in more black voters. Sessions's focus on these counties to the exclusion of others caused an uproar among civil rights leaders, especially after hours of interrogating black absentee voters produced only 14 allegedly tampered ballots out of more than 1.7 million cast in the state in the 1984 election. The activists, known as the Marion Three, were acquitted in four hours and became a cause celebre. Civil rights groups charged that Sessions had been looking for voter fraud in the black community and overlooking the same violations among whites, at least partly to help reelect his friend Senator Denton.

On its own, the case might not have been enough to stain Sessions with the taint of racism, but there was more. Senate Democrats tracked down a career Justice Department employee named J. Gerald Hebert, who testified, albeit reluctantly, that in a conversation between the two men Sessions had labeled the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." Hebert said Sessions had claimed these groups "forced civil rights down the throats of people." In his confirmation hearings, Sessions sealed his own fate by saying such groups could be construed as "un-American" when "they involve themselves in promoting un-American positions" in foreign policy. Hebert testified that the young lawyer tended to "pop off" on such topics regularly, noting that Sessions had called a white civil rights lawyer a "disgrace to his race" for litigating voting rights cases. Sessions acknowledged making many of the statements attributed to him but claimed that most of the time he had been joking, saying he was sometimes "loose with [his] tongue." He further admitted to calling the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a "piece of intrusive legislation," a phrase he stood behind even in his confirmation hearings.

More on Senator Sessions in columns to follow.

Raul Ramos y Sanchez

Beyond satire: The Sotomayor Senate hearings

The second day of Senate hearings for Judge Sotomayor had a couple of moments so loaded with irony, they could have been satirical skits. Unfortunately, what they represented was hardly funny.

Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, berated Judge Sotomayor for her now infamous "wise Latina" comment, saying "they would have had my head" had he made the same comments. These words came from a senator whose state still flies the Confederate Battle Flag on the Capitol lawn and where the Stars and Bars waved proudly over the Capitol building itself until 2000.

However, it was Republican Senator Jeff Sessions from Alabama who took hypocrisy to new heights by asking Judge Sotomayor: “…isn't it true this statement suggests that you accept that there may be sympathies, prejudices and opinions that legitimately can influence a judge's decision? And how can that further faith in the impartiality of the system?”

I suppose one can argue Senator Sessions is an expert on prejudice. After all, his home state was a bastion of racial segregation; a state where the governor stood belligerently at the doors of the University of Alabama and tried to bar federal troops from enforcing civil rights laws that allowed black students to attend the previously all-white college for the first time.

If this was a situation comedy, the senators’ statements would have had laugh tracks. Here are two white males from states where Jim Crow laws made racial prejudice a legal fact, aggressively questioning a minority woman about her racial bias based on a statement she made eight years before. C’mon. This is right out of Seinfeld, right? I mean, they even had the prerequisite southern drawls, for God’s sake.

But no, it was not really funny. Bigotry never is.

Raul Ramos y Sanchez

For your evaluation, here are the civil rights voting records of Senators Sessions and Graham. I think they speak for themselves.

Senator Jeff Sessions

Banning the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. (Jan 2006) Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006) Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002) Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001) Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000) Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998) Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997) Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001) Rated 20% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002) Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006) Rated 7% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006) http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/jeff_sessions.htm

Senator Lindsey Graham

• Support the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. (Aug 2008)
• Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
• Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
• Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
• Rated 0% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
• Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
• Rated 11% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
• Amend Constitution to define traditional marriage. (Jun 2008)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Lindsey_Graham.htm

Distinctions that defy logic

The terms Christian and Catholic define mutually exclusive groups in the minds of many in the United States. On closer examination, this is an odd distinction. In common parlance, “Christian” is the accepted term for Protestant denominations, especially those with an evangelical bent. Catholics are somehow excluded from being “Christian.” Yet the Catholic faith can trace a direct lineage to the church founded by the apostles of Christ. Ironically, many U.S. Catholics have come to accept the distinction between Christian and Catholic – despite its semantic contradiction.

A similar logical dissonance surrounds the terms “Hispanic” and “White” (or “Hispanic” and “Black” for that matter). In the minds of many in the United States, these groups are mutually exclusive. The facts, however, prove otherwise.

To begin with, the term “Hispanic” does not define a race. The U.S. Census Bureau makes this quite clear. According to the Census Bureau, there are six racial categories. Hispanic is not one of them. In fact, in its official definition of Hispanic, the Census Bureau clearly states Hispanics may be “persons of any race.” Like the distinction between Christian and Catholic, however, in common parlance Hispanic has become a de facto racial category. And like the Catholics who have come to accept the distinction from being Christian, many Hispanics now buy into that racial defintion. This has created serious consequences.

The widespread misconception of Hispanics as a separate race is fueling some of the most divisive issues in the U.S. today. The most recent example is in the controversy surrounding the alleged “racism” of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Judge Sotomayor has been excoriated in some circles for saying "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Notwithstanding that the phrase has been taken out of context, when Judge Sotomayor used the term “white male,” did she use white as a racial definition or as a cultural group?

Many of Sotomayor’s critics immediately seized upon the racial connotation.

But purely on the basis of genetics, many women categorized as “Latina” are white by any clinical definition. Hispanic actresses Cameron Diaz, Alexis Bledel and Julie Gonzalo are just three examples. (At the same time, the late Afro-Cuban salsa legend Celia Cruz is unmistakbly of African descent, proving no single racial group defines Hispanics.)

So, in truth, the charges of “racism” against Judge Sotomayor betray a racism of their own. Unfortunately, many Hispanics suffer from the same malady.

What does “Hispanic” really mean? The Census Bureau defines Hispanic as a person whose origins are from a Spanish-speaking country. Now let’s turn that around. Suppose we were to take people with origins from all English-speaking countries and call them “Britannic.” That group would include people from England, Jamaica, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, to name a few. Would any rational person consider all English-speakers across the world to be part of a single race?

All the same, the belief in a Hispanic “race” has widespread support. A major U.S. Latino advocacy groups calls itself La Raza—The Race. In U.S. media reports, academic journals and some medical studies, Hispanics are treated as a distinct racial group alongside White, Black and Asian. These often well-intentioned reports sometimes qualify their racial definitions with footnotes that explain “White” or “Black” mean Non-Hispanic White and Non-Hispanic Black. But these subtleties are lost on most readers.

Adding to the confusion, the term “White” as currently defined in the United States is not really a homogenous group either. In fact, many of the nationalities currently categorized as White (like Italians, Jews and the Irish), were once considered separate races in the United States. So what does White really mean? It’s certainly not just about skin color. Italians, Greeks, Armenians and other Mediterranean people accepted as White are no less swarthy than Spaniards. Portugal even shares the Iberian Peninsula with Spain. Yet the Portuguese are not considered Hispanics.

The bottom line is this: The real differences between people labeled “White” or "Black" and those labeled “Hispanic” are as much cultural as racial distinctions. Until the U.S. sheds the myth of a Hispanic “race,” we will continue to see a widening chasm between mainstream Americans and the rapidly growing Hispanic community.

Raul Ramos y Sanchez

The cloudy picture in Honduras

The crisis in Honduras is a thorny dilemma that defies the simplistic posturing of right wing politicos in the United States.

President Manuel Zelaya is not unusual among Latin American leaders in his left-populist approach to governance. But contrary to the protrayal being spread about Zelaya in the right wing media, he is hardly a Castro or Chavez.

What prompted the crisis in Honduras was Zelaya's effort to extent term limits for his presidency. In that regard, Zelaya is in dubious company. Richard Nixon seriously contemplated changing U.S. laws to serve a third term before Watergate. Had Nixon attempted to change the law for term limits, would that have warranted a military coup against him?

President Obama said: "President Zelaya was democratically elected, he had not yet completed his term," he said. "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the President of Honduras, the democratically elected president there."

Contrary to the sales pitch of most far-right ideologues, politics are seldom a case of bad guys versus good guys. (I once had a naive young friend ask me who the good guys were in the war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980s.)

Here are the facts: Zelaya was trying by legal means to create a referendum that would extend his term of office. Zelaya was ousted by the military before his term was complete. That makes this a coup. Personally, I don’t like the idea of a “president for life.” But the people of a nation have a right to chose the way they want to be governed.

That choice was denied to the people of Honduras. And the fact Zelaya is unpopular with the U.S. right does not change that.

Raul Ramos y Sanchez

What's your take on Follow Friday?

Follow Friday on Twitter was conceived as an opportunity for tweeple to recommend someone whose tweets they admire -- especially if the person is new to Twitter. Unfortunately, some tweeps have used Follow Friday for a variety of different reasons which have become annoying to others.

So I'm asking for your opinion:

Do you follow the people recommended on Follow Friday and want the tradition to continue?

Do you appreciate being recommended on Follow Friday and support its continued use?

Do you think Follow Friday is abused and would like to see it end?

Leave a message to this post and I will share the results on Twitter.

Thanks most kindly,
Raul

Iran coverage: The new face of journalism?

Is the news coverage from Iran a glimpse of journalism in the future? Will Twitter, Facebook and social media redefine journalism and have an impact on politics and governance? Share your views.

Supreme Court decision paves the way for immigration reform

Is it identity theft when an undocumented worker uses a fake Social Security number to get a job? On May 4, 2009 the United States Supreme Court unanimously said, “No.”

Identity theft, which carries a two-year mandatory prison term, is the crime of using stolen credit cards and other personal information to purchase goods and drain bank accounts. That’s very different than an undocumented immigrant using a bogus Social Security number to obtain honest work. The high court’s recent ruling justly recognized this difference of intent -- a distinction deliberately blurred by hard-line nativists eager to portray all undocumented workers as wanton criminals. Some Bush administration officials seemed to ignore the difference as well.

Undocumented workers rounded up in workplace raids under the Bush-led Homeland Security Department were often charged with identity theft to negotiate guilty pleas to lesser charges. In hearing the case of Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa, a Mexican immigrant arrested at a steel plant in East Moline, Illinois, the high court put an end to this misuse of the 2004 identity theft law.

The Supreme Court’s decision is grounded on solid legal principle. Working without a visa is not a crime at all. It’s civil violation, like jaywalking or simple speeding. Yet the uproar from the nativist fringe to people simply seeking honest work is grossly out of proportion to the offense. Over 100,000 drivers are fined for speeding in the U.S. each day. When was the last time you heard speeders referred to as “criminals and parasites”? What sensible person would equate jaywalkers with “murderers, baby rapers [sic] and molesters”? Sadly, this kind of venom is an everyday staple on many right-wing radio shows and websites. I think the motivation behind these hysterical accusations is abundantly clear.

Perhaps most laughable is the nativist contention that undocumented workers using fake Social Security numbers are cheating U.S. taxpayers. Just like any other employee, undocumented workers using bogus IDs have taxes, Social Security and Medicare deducted from their paychecks. But as non-residents, the undocumented will never collect a single cent of these deductions. As a result, undocumented workers contribute billions each year to fatten the coffers of Social Security and Medicare. So in reality, it’s U.S. taxpayers who come out ahead in this bargain.

More importantly, under the Obama administration, immigration law enforcement is changing from prosecuting workers to the real source of undocumented immigrants: employers who willingly hire them. This approach is not only more humane, it’s also more effective. Busting employers who exploit undocumented workers will do more to end their influx than workplace raids ever could. The reasons are twofold.

First, it’s jobs that are drawing the undocumented across the border. Most demographers agree the number of undocumented workers in the U.S. has actually declined over the last 18 months as the American economy has slowed. (And contrary to nativist claims, the undocumented cannot get government assistance of any kind. So it’s not U.S. public largesse drawing them here.) Second, workplace raids do not deter most undocumented workers. According to the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at UC San Diego, workers who had experienced a work-site raid during their last stay in the United States were more likely to plan a return trip north than those who had not.

Going after employers who knowingly hire the undocumented provides an important economic benefit as well. It will stop the exploitation of unskilled workers and raise their wages to fair market values. This will ultimately benefit all U.S. workers.

The Supreme Court’s Flores-Figueroa decision brings an element of reason long missing from the immigration debate. Honest work is not a crime. Those who portray it otherwise betray their xenophobic motives. The U.S. Congress must muster the political will to act on behalf of reason over prejudice in passing immigration reform. In clearing away past injustices in the prosecution of undocumented workers, the high court’s decision helps pave the way to a rational national policy to deal with the millions of undocumented workers drawn here by the prospects of providing a better life for their families.

The United States needs comprehensive immigration reform that includes a guest worker program; not simply because it is just and humane but because it makes economic sense. We cannot let the amnesty screamers prevent us from fixing the nation’s broken immigration system and ending the exploitation of unskilled workers. There is too much at stake to be deterred by the bleating of people so blinded by fear and loathing they cannot distinguish between jaywalking and murder.

USA Today recommends AMERICA LIBRE as a summer read

I am delighted to announce that USA Today, the nation's widest circulated newspaper, today selected my novel AMERICA LIBRE for its 2009 Summer Reads. Included in the Summer Reads list are marquee novelists like James Patterson, Nora Roberts, Dean Koontz, James Rollins and Danielle Steel along with a host of celebrity biographies ranging from Paul Newman to Michelle Obama. To be included in this elite company is an extraordinary honor for an author whose debut novel began as a self-published edition.

The 2009 USA Today Summer Reads list includes 177 titles (104 fiction) released between April and August. (For perspective, this represents roughly one-tenth of one percent of the books published in the U.S. each year*). USA Today also publishes a Winter Reads list.

AMERICA LIBRE is slated for release by Grand Central Publishing July 29, 2009.

As all authors know, we owe every achievement to the people who support our work. This recognition is a tribute to them most of all.  

Gracias, mis amigos!

Raul Ramos y Sanchez

“You've set the blog on fire”

“You've set the blog on fire,” Orlando Sentinel reporter Victor Ramos told me following my April 27th editorial essay on the Sentinel’s Hispanosphere blog. “Your blog post is flaming... It's that A-Word getting people riled up.”

Proving once again that immigration reform is a lightning rod issue, my editorial "Getting beyond the A-word on immigration reform" set a record for visitors to Hispanosphere and stirred a torrent of reader comments, pro and con. 

My thanks to Orlando Sentinel reporter and blog host Victor Manuel Ramos (no relation) for the guest writer appearance. 

You can read the provocative article and reader reactions here.

Raul Ramos y Sanchez