Hispanic Fanatic

Here’s a quick thanks to Mel for his comment on my most recent post.

Before that article, I wrote about how the words “racism” and “racist” are tossed around a little too freely in America. I’ve been on the receiving end a few times, and I’ve also noticed that my posts (here, on HuffPo, and at Change.org) sometimes provoke readers to unload the word at each other.

Really, some of the threads beneath my articles – despite people’s insistence of principled claims and frequent use of SAT vocabulary words – are really little more than back-and-forth versions of “I know you are, but what am I?”

To continue reading this post, please click here.

For the most part, I’ve been pretty lucky when it comes to my neighbors. I’ve gotten along with the vast majority of them, and I’ve never had cross-yard feuds or open hostility toward the people who live near me.

Yes, there have been a few annoyances. In college, one of the other tenants in the ramshackle student housing where I lived was infamous for getting loaded, arguing with his girlfriend, and getting kicked out of the apartment. From there he would scream her name for hours until she let him back in. Her name was Jody (or more accurately, “Joooo-Deee!”), and I will never forget it because I heard him screech it so often.

When I lived in New York City, our downstairs neighbor was a cranky old woman who banged on the ceiling (our floor) if she thought we were getting too rambunctious. And when I lived on Hollywood Boulevard, I arrived home from work one day to see my neighbor being hauled out in a bodybag. He was a junkie and had OD’d… actually, I guess that’s less “annoyance” and more “freaky trauma.”

But you get the point. I’ve never agonized over who lives next door to me.

Many Americans, however, most certainly do.

A recent study found that, as of 2006, about a fifth of Americans would be upset if immigrants or foreign workers moved in next to them. This percentage has almost doubled since 1990.

Although the phrase “immigrants or foreign workers” is vague, one can safely assume that most Americans conjure images of Latinos when presented with this wording. It’s doubtful that many Americans would become enraged if, say, a British expat moved into the neighborhood. As such, the researchers’ terminology may not translate directly into antipathy for Hispanics, but it’s close.

For the sake of comparison, the researchers asked about two other despised groups in America – homosexuals and Muslims – to gauge social intolerance. I assume that asking about black people moving in next door was considered trite.

The report found that hostility toward Muslims has also increased and that they are even less popular than immigrants. A possible reason for this is the September 11 attacks, which provoked many Americans to think of Muslims as, you know, a bunch of crazed terrorists.

Interestingly, homosexuals were the group with which people had the biggest problem. More than a quarter of Americans said they would have issues if people “of that lifestyle” moved in next door. However, this was also the only group in for which tolerance has increased. Perhaps all those “Will & Grace” reruns are having an effect.

In any case, more Americans these days have trouble co-existing with immigrant neighbors, and as the report points out, we’re not even talking about “illegal immigrants.” That just covers people who happened to have committed the grievous sin of being born someplace other than the United States.

The reasons for this are numerous, but certainly are not complex. For many Americans, all immigrants are Latinos, all Latinos are illegals, and all illegals are murderous thieves hell-bent on destroying the nation. It’s basic math.

Add in an economic recession and right-wing paranoia broadcast 24/7, and it’s little wonder that so many people will consider slapping a “For Sale” sign on their lawn if the new neighbor speaks with a funny accent.

I have to wonder, of course, about the welcoming committee for a gay Muslim immigrant. Actually, let’s not dwell on that one too much… way too disturbing.

I’ve officially lost count. For a while, I could tell you exactly how many times I’ve been called a racist, but now the number escapes me. I do know, however, that it’s quite a bit.

People on the right have hurled that term at me for saying that immigration reform is needed, or for pointing out that SB 1070 might make Latinos nervous, or for implying that ethnic minorities often have different perspectives than the majority culture does on some issues (that last one is a huge no-no).

However, people on the left have also tossed it my way (the term “imperialist” is also popular with them). Most recently, I got it for using the word “Hispanic” instead of “Latino”… or it may have been the other way around. I can’t recall.

In any case, whenever I am accused of being a racist, I wonder if I should ask the person to reconsider and choose another insult. I can supply a lengthy list, if they so desire.

You see, I’m concerned that we’ve watered down the terms “racism” and “racist.” Once upon a time, these words conjured up images of guys in KKK hoods, or of George Wallace in the doorway, or of old women shrieking slurs in public. This was hardcore stuff.

To continue reading this post, please click here.

The good people of Arizona are counting the days. In just a few weeks, SB 1070 kicks in. At that time, every illegal immigrant in the state will be rounded up, processed for deportation, and kicked out.

Well, at least that’s the thinking among the anti-immigrant crowd.

However, Arizona citizens might be dismayed to discover that banishing all their undocumented workers will not cause rainbows to magically appear all over the state. Those who supported the law for economic reasons (ie, “Illegals get a free ride and cost us too much”) may receive a particularly unpleasant surprise.

According to the Arizona Republic, implementing the law will strain the state’s legal system and overburden the jails. If the same number of illegal immigrants are processed as in previous years, it will run Arizona at least an extra million bucks or so annually to take care of them. Keep in mind that “local police will presumably find more illegal immigrants than before.”

This estimate is just the direct cost of SB 1070. The Arizona Republic also reports that foreclosures may increase, because there will be fewer immigrants renting apartments and buying houses. That will not be good news for the state’s stagnant housing market.

Also keep in mind that many studies have pointed out that illegal immigrants often add more to the economy than they take. Adding these factors to the equation makes the new law seem fiscally insane.

However, maybe Arizona will still come out ahead. For starters, they may not be on the hook for all those processing and deportation fees after all. According to USA Today, SB 1070 “may be prompting a mass dispersion of Hispanics — both legal and illegal — from the state.”

Apparently, many Latinos aren’t in a big hurry to see if they get pulled over in Phoenix for looking suspiciously brown. So they’re taking off for someplace else right now.

Supporters of the law must be ecstatic at his news, anecdotal as it is, because it proves that all one has to do to get rid of a loathed ethnic group is pass a draconian law targeting them. Then they’ll flee.

Yes, it moves Arizona closer to the day when the state will consist entirely of old conservatives (mostly white), and rattlesnakes. I guess that’s the way they want it.

But wait, because there’s another kooky development on the horizon.

According to Newsweek, all this screaming and yelling is unnecessary, because the whole fistfight over illegal immigration will soon take resolve itself.

This is due to the fact that the birth rate in Mexico is declining rapidly. Along with the decrease in illegal immigration (and it has gone down, no matter what you’ve heard), it means that illegal immigration in the future “won’t be nearly as overwhelming as the deluge of the 1990s and early 2000s.” In fact, Gordon Hanson, an economics professor, says in the article that “I wouldn’t be surprised if Arizona starts pleading for Mexican workers who can help them in their retirement homes.”

And that’s the final twist in this ugly tale.

There’s a perverse irony to the idea that states such as Arizona will, years from now, be clamoring for young Latinos to immigrate. At that point, there will be a lot of “What SB 1070? We were just kidding.” It’s sort of like that scene in the otherwise shitty movie The Day After Tomorrow, where Americans rush into Mexico to escape the killer cold.

So Arizona, and the rest of us, can relax about immigration… at least until we get old and there are not enough young people (Hispanic or otherwise) to fund our Social Security and clean up after us.

But it’s best not to dwell on that one too much.

Individuals like me who object to Arizona’s new anti-immigration law point out that it could lead to increased racial profiling.

“Nonsense,” backers of the law have responded. “All that’s covered in the law’s wording, which makes it clear that no Hispanic legal resident or citizen will ever, ever be harassed. So nyaa.”

It seems, however, that we don’t even have to look to Arizona for proof of how confusing it can be when we set out to round up the undocumented.

To continue reading this post, please click here.

I don’t relish beating up on Arizona. It’s a beautiful state, and although I haven’t spent a lot of time there, I’ve never run into anyone remotely unpleasant during my visits.

I have to assume, therefore, that the “invasion of Arizona” that people are talking about is not due to illegal immigrants (the rates have actually declined), but to a previously unknown strain of American crazies. Their residents simply cannot be this nuts.

Yes, on the heels of everyone’s favorite law, the infamous SB 1070, comes another nugget of racial perplexity from the  Grand Canyon state.

To continue reading this post, please click here.

As always, I appreciate the comments, so let me thank Steven, Ike, and everyone else who posts here.

Now, let me tell you about one evening when I was in college. After a particularly egregious party, I accidently laced up a friend’s shoes, thinking they were mine. She had big feet, and they were the same brand as my own. In any case, I walked around for a day or so before she pointed out that we had unintentionally switched footwear.

“But now we truly know each other,” I said. “Because we have walked many miles in each other’s shoes.”

She was just annoyed that I had stretched out her Nikes.

Of course, my literal embrace of the ancient saying didn’t help me to see the world from her perspective. All of us process events and concepts through our own cultural filters, and even the most open-minded individual has occasional trouble understanding someone else’s point of view.

To continue reading this post, please click here.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Fourteenth Amendment

U.S. Constitution

It’s probably not a shocker that I’m a liberal person. Still, I always had a healthy respect for the libertarian viewpoint. I thought it was based on principles (e.g., less government, fewer regulations, control of one’s reproductive choices, etc) rather than the virulent fear and hatred that fuels so much of the modern Republican Party.

I even tried to give Senate candidate Rand Paul the benefit of the doubt for his truly idiotic and potentially dangerous statement that private businesses can discriminate based on race.

“He’s just being a hardcore libertarian,” I thought. “He can’t be that racist.”

Then Paul let loose with his latest conservative broadside. He said that the children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States should not be granted citizenship.

With that comment, it’s difficult to ignore Paul’s implication that, in his opinion, the United States has way too many Latinos. There is no principle here.

Paul, and anyone who agrees with him, has to be willing to ignore the Constitution’s unambiguous statement that everyone born here is a citizen. They also have to be eager to overturn decades of court precedents, an action that would require a decision from a monumentally activist judge (one of those guys I thought conservatives hated).

Still, plenty of conservatives have championed the anti-birthright position in recent years, despite the right wing’s oft-stated love of the U.S. Constitution.

By the way, here’s a study question for all social conservatives: If forced to chose, do you revere the words of the Constitution or the Bible more? As a follow-up, have you read either one?

But back to the topic at hand, which is anchor babies.

Randy Terrill, a Republican state representative in Oklahoma who is trying to get an anti-birthright bill passed, says that in a worst-case scenario, “Children of invading armies would be considered citizens of the U.S.”

I must admit that I had never thought of this. In Terrill’s grim assessment of our future, invading armies (from some unknown or unnamed country) send brigade after brigade of pregnant soldiers to charge our front lines. Hesitant to fire upon the rampaging moms-to-be, our soldiers let them overrun the nation. Support troops, perhaps infantrywomen in their second trimester, manage to crawl under the barb wire or hop the fence without putting pressure on their swollen bellies.

Mere months later, the soldiers start giving birth. These pseudo-citizens are then granted citizenship, and the United States falls to the invading hordes. It’s truly evil genius.

Now, I’ve written before about the concept of revoking citizenship upon birth, and I expressed my support for amending the Constitution … as long as we really go for it. That is, let’s reject citizenship for everyone born here, whether the parent is an undocumented worker or a ninth-generation American. Every child is a legal resident, but can’t become a citizen until he or she passes a basic test – the way naturalized citizens do.

For some reason, this idea has never caught on.

The truth is that we just don’t want Maria from Mexico to give birth to a kid inside the California border, then have to call the offspring a citizen. So by all means, let’s ignore those sections of the Constitution that we don’t like.

But could we try not to pretend that there’s anything like principles or consistency on display? They are simply not present in this debate.

Embracing my god-given Second Amendment rights, I plan to buy an armful of automatic weapons and stuff the closets in my house with every manner of shotgun, pistol, and blunderbuss if I have to.

You see, crime nationwide has skyrocketed due to the influx of illegal immigrants, and…

What’s that you say? Just about every statistic has shown that violent crime is actually down in America? Well, that’s not what I’ve heard on cable news networks, but ok.

Still, it must be true that crime is way up in places where illegal immigrants congregate. Just look at our friends in Arizona, where stories of murder, rape, carjacking, kidnapping, assault, and arson are plentiful – all at the hands of the undocumented.

Senator John McCain says crossover crime from Mexico has led to “violence—the worst I have ever seen” (and that guy was in the Vietnam War!). Meanwhile, Governor Jan Brewer insists that her state has “been inundated with criminal activity.”

But in truth, as I’ve written before, violent crime is down in Arizona. For that matter, violence is also down in such immigrant-heavy cities as Phoenix, El Paso, and New York City.

In fact, a new study implies that cities with lots of immigrants may actually be (wait for it)… safer than other places in America. How can this be?

Well, we’d have to listen to a Harvard professor who is, no doubt, a typical elitist with fancy book learnin’ on his resume. But let’s indulge him.

Professor Robert J. Sampson, in an interview with writer Christopher Dickey, says that “immigrants move into neighborhoods abandoned by locals and help prevent them from turning into urban wastelands. They often have tighter family structures and mutual support networks, all of which actually serve to stabilize urban environments.” Sampson adds that “if you want to be safe, move to an immigrant city.”

Could this be why several police chiefs from around the country recently met with Attorney General Eric Holder? The chiefs stated that Arizona’s new law, if enacted elsewhere, could backfire.

“We will be unable to do our jobs,” said Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck. “Laws like this will actually increase crime, not decrease crime.”

The primary reason, of course, is because the new law erodes any trust between immigrant communities and the police. Also, cops would be spending less time chasing down the truly bad guys and more time booking Latinos who tried to pick up a gig outside Home Depot.

These real-world problems with the law are in addition to such minor qualms as a potential increase in racial profiling and the fact the law may violate the U.S. Constitution. But let’s not quibble.

The funny thing is that there are plenty of legitimate concerns about illegal immigration that conservatives can bring up. But they have insisted on exaggerating fears of violence. Now that they’ve committed to this path, they don’t want to hear that passing laws such as SB 1070 could actually increase crime.

But then we hear about Abel Moreno, of Charlotte, North Carolina. He called 911 when he saw a man assaulting a woman in public. The guy was arrested and faces multiple charges.

But Moreno, who is an undocumented worker, is now in line to be deported. His attorney hopes he can get Moreno a temporary visa. In the meantime, Moreno has lost his job.

I’m sure the next immigrant who witnesses a crime will be only too happy to be thrust into a similar situation by calling the cops. He’ll feel a great surge of civic pride, even after the police slap the cuffs on him.

But that’s not my concern. I’ll just buy more guns.

I’m hoping that my fellow blogger Macon D doesn’t sue me, but he had such an interesting post recently that I’m just going to steal his topic outright and run with it.

At his site, Stuff White People Do, Macon D asks if many whites believe that improvements for ethnic minorities come only at their expense.

Well, as a partial answer, let me say that as far as I can tell, America is the only country in the world where the most economically powerful take to the streets to protest that they are being oppressed.

Please click here to read the rest of this post.