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

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:

Many Americans have not heard of the forced removal of approximately one million persons—U.S. citizens as well as noncitizens—of Mexican ancestry from the United States during the Great Depression. This is true despite the fact that the number of repatriates dwarfed by about tenfold the number of persons of Japanese ancestry who were interned by the United States government during World War II. Unfortunately, the lack of awareness of the repatriation is consistent with the general invisibility of Latina/o civil rights deprivations throughout much of U.S. history. 

Although “repatriation” is the term often used to refer to the campaign to remove hundreds of thousands of persons of Mexican ancestry from the United States in the 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 Mexican ancestry removed to Mexico in the 1930s were U.S. citizens, many of them children who were effectively deported to Mexico when their immigrant parents were sent there.

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

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

Romney bashes Santorum for his support of Sotomayor

From a video just released by the Romney campaign

Mitt 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

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

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

Santorum's wish: Continued income inequality

"There is income inequality in America. There always has been and, hopefully, and I do say that, there always will be.”
-- Rick Santorum

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 historically 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.

The effects of big government on personal income

Below is a state by state ranking of 2010 per capita income and each state’s political affiliation over the past five presidential elections. Seven of the top ten states voted for “big government” Democrats. Seven of 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 wealth producing powerhouses like Arkansas, Utah, South Carolina, Kentucky, Idaho and 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 Economic Research

http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htm

Blue/Red State designantions: Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states#Red_states

The above classification of red and blue states (as well as purple/battleground states) was determined by compiling the average margins of victory in the five presidential elections between 1992 and 2008. Three of these past elections were won by Democrats, Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and Barack Obama in 2008, while two were won by Republican George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.

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. In a party where "moderate" has become an insult, the belligerent rejection of dissenting ideas has stripped the GOP of its more temperate elements. What remains is a core of right-wing hardliners whose views are often seen as intolerant and hostile by Blacks and Latinos. And as a party perceived to be serving the interests of a diminishing Non-Hispanic White polity, the Republican party is in a demographic death spiral.

The extremist trend in the GOP was 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 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 antisemitism, xenophobia 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 suggestion that Blacks look for jobs instead of welfare brought a GOP crowd to its feet in thunderous applause. This thinly-veiled race baiting leaves little  doubt the party of Lincoln wrote off the Black vote long ago. GOP presidential candidates are now vying for who can blow loudest on the racist dog whistle to curry favor with "the base."

Meanwhile, the US English movement, which the Republican party heartily embraces, is seen by a majority of Latinos as an attack on their culture -- including many Cuban-Americans who usually support the GOP. 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. Eager to shore up his conservative credentials, Mitt Romney has made it crystal clear he would veto the DREAM Act as president, a measure supported by over 70% of Latinos.

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 extremist organisms that once existed under a spring of more mainstream perspectives. The stench is hard to ignore.
.
Raul Ramos y Sanchez

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

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

Gingrich's plan: Court Hispanics while bashing Blacks

Do not underestimate Newt Gingrich. He is a cunning political strategist who understands the demographic death spiral facing the Republican party -- and he clearly has a plan.

Gingrich knows the Republican candidate in the November election will fail without support from U.S. minorities. Yet the GOP base will not nominate a candidate who supports issues popular in Latino and Black communities like immigration reform or affirmative action. So Newt's course will be to split the difference. He plans to court the Latino vote and brazenly bash Blacks to placate the base.

As we saw in the South Carolina debate, Gingrich dispensed with the dog whistle code used by Republicans pandering for the anti-Black vote in the south and went for the jugular. His attacks on Obama as the "food stamp president" and calls for Blacks to "demand jobs, not welfare" were the most bluntly racist comments uttered by a U.S. politician since George Wallace.

Meanwhile, as shown in the Univision video with Jorge Ramos below, Gingrich offered more concessions to immigration reform than any other GOP candidate. These include: 1) Supporting the DREAM Act for youth who volunteer for military service, 2) a guest worker program for undocumented workers and 3) a path to citizenship for the undocumented who have resided in the U.S. for 20-25 years, have a family and an American sponsor.

Gingrich is so confident of his strategy, he even boasted to Ramos about his prospects with the Latino vote. "I have a hunch that by this fall, we may do better than any Republican except maybe Reagan."

From Gingrich's perspective, the plan to court Latino votes has no downside. He knows congressional Republicans will not approve any of these election year promises if he is elected. 

This may not be Newt's only attempt at dabbling in the witches brew of racial politics. As I mentioned in an earlier article, the GOP may attempt to drive a wedge between the Black and Latino communities, further weakening President Obama's chance for re-election.

It's important for the entire electorate to be aware of Newt's apparent plan. Divisive tactics may serve the interests of a particular candidate or party. But they do not serve the interest of the nation or the world.

Raul Ramos y Sanchez