Immigration Reform and the Presidential Race

There has been much ado about President Obama's announcement last week that he would use his executive privilege to use discretion regarding dealings with unauthorized immigrants who meet certain criteria. This discretion is focused on Dreamers, the self-named group of young people whose parents brought them to the United States illegally when they were very young, who attended and completed their schooling in the U.S., have no criminal background, and/or have served in the military. Obama has said that Immigration and Customs Enforcement will now use discretion with regards to this group, halting their deportation if they meet certain criteria, and even granting them temporary 2-year work permits. 

Initially, there was elation from immigration reform advocates, especially the Dreamers, but upon further examination that excitement was tempered. 

First, they had to respond to critics that this executive order was unconstitutional and sidestepped the legislative process and Congress. This was despite an open letter to Obama sent by a large group of legal scholars and lawyers  two weeks prior to the President's announcement, criticizing the President for not using executive powers around immigration. They argued that historical actions by other presidents and legal precedent would allow Obama to exercise his authority to halt deportations and grant temporary legal status to some immigrants. 

A second point, was the issue of political pandering by Obama. Some argued that Obama's decision to defer action on the deportation of some unauthorized immigrants was reacting to this pressure and the pressure from Dreamers who were occupying some of his campaign offices. They suggested that Obama's act was purely political, but pragmatically for them it was a step in the right direction. 

This raised a third area of doubt, because the order did not represent any sort of permanent change. Obama had a longstanding position that discretion should be used with regards to unauthorized immigrants who had no criminal records. Despite that he still holds the dubious distinction of deporting record numbers of unauthorized immigrants compared to other administrations. Actually, some wondered if anything changed at all because his current announcement is really just "old wine in a new wineskin." 

These previous points relate to the issue of the President's commitment to immigration reform and  Latinos more generally. Despite promises of comprehensive immigration reform that would occur in his first year in office, he did nothing to move the issue forward. When the less comprehensive DREAM Act reached Congress for a vote, he expended very little, if any political capital to get it passed. When called out by immigration reform advocates regarding his lack of support, Obama has proven "testy" and even "hostile." An extended Washington Post piece cites numerous examples of Obama's defensiveness around immigration issues, and a seeming overall unwillingness to change his actions, leading some to question where he really stands on the issue.

Romeny's political reaction was muted at first, but he finally proposed some potential reforms to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) yesterday. Ironically, despite calling the president's immigration policy unconstitutional, he proposed very similar unilateral executive policies as part of his immigration stance. Overall, though, he presented little of substance in the way of immigration reform, perhaps showing that he still stands on his simplistic "self-deport" platform.

Perhaps Romney believes that his immigration and Latino trump card is Marco Rubio. An article by African American writer Earl Ofari Hutchinson seems to suggest this might be true. In this article I think that Mr. Hutchinson's lens is clouded by the Black-White binary paradigm that pervades American thinking. Latinos are really diverse and complex. While there are some trends such as being opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage, IN GENERAL, when you look at Latino sub-groups, such as generational status, age, specific country of origin, these overall trends disappear; One trend that does seem to trump that complexity and gives Latinos something to stand together on is immigration; we are all still pretty closely tied to our immigrant roots AND many people (using the Black-White paradigm) assume that Latino is synonymous with immigrant. Because we realize that having our nativity questioned is a big source of bias, we tend toward favoring immigration reform that might remove that stigma. We would probably be much more likely to vote on that issue alone, as the Obama bump in the last week shows. That is much more a reason for us to vote as a bloc than whether someone with a Spanish surname was on the ticket of either party. While Rubio may offer some moderate views that are agreeable to Latinos, especially given his Democratic past and love of hip-hop (sarcasm), he too has been pretty much in the background in terms of his immigration stance, with the public still awaiting the immigration reform legislation that he said he would be putting forward a while ago. 

All of this is to say that immigration will certainly be a big deal this election. And, with the Census releasing more evidence of the ever-growing Latino population, it really is time that politicians of both parties stop talking and start acting. 

Whose America?

For those Latinos who live in the United States and have visited their ancestral homelands, they may have encountered friends or relatives as I have who enjoy utilizing the following gambit: “So, what nationality are you?” Naively, a Latino might say that he or she identifies with the country they are visiting. So, twelve-year old me telling my cousins in Mexico City that I am “Mexican” is met with uproarious laughter. “How cute, he thinks he is Mexican.” They may follow up with questions like, “Really, you’re Mexican, so what do you eat?” “Tacos,” I might say, “chorizo con huevos, enchiladas, tortas, frijoles, mole.” Again, laughter that is enough to make even the most radical Chicano separatist exclaim, “Well, then I’m American!” In spite of every playground argument I’ve had, every ignorant teacher who asks where I am from, all which tell me that I am not of this country, only in it, to paraphrase a repeated saying by African American leaders, in that moment I conclude that I am not Mexican either; so, I say I am American. But that is the trap. The argument up to this point was only a prelude to the main event.

“So, you are American?” “What country is that?” “There is no country America.” “Your country does not have a name, so you take a name that belongs to all of us.” “No,” I argue, “Our name is the United States of America.” “But that is not a name,” they say. “That only describes your location and government. We are the United States of Mexico. Mexico is the name. The United States part only describes how our government runs and the same is for you.” “OK then,” I say, “I am American, you’re right about the United States part, but that doesn’t change that I am American just like you are Mexican.” Now the fireworks fly, because this was the trap all along. “No, we are both American.” “No you are not, you’re Mexican.” “No,” my cousin says, “I am American, just like you.” We both live in North America, so I am American too.” “And Brazilians are American and Ecuadorians and Argentines, and so on…” And because I am only twelve and don’t really speak Spanish well enough to continue the conversation, and because it seems that I was destined to lose, and honestly it does seem that my cousin has a point, the conversation ends.  

I have heard this line of reasoning many times and it is at this point a bit tired and cliché, but I have taken it for granted that it is not really a conversation worth having. I imagined that the argument was also a bit disingenuous, an attack meant to put down Americans in at least one way, when materially and in terms of power they have so much. Much to my chagrin, I saw the seeds of the same recently on a Facebook status update of a graduate student I know, “I learned today that America does not have a real name, but nobody questions that. Think about it.” I believe it was the “think about it” part that actually got me thinking. Could it be true that the U.S. of A. does not have an official name and if not, so what?

Upon a quick Google search I learned that our country’s official name is outlined in the Articles of Confederation, section I, ratified in 1777, where it states: “The Stile of this Confederacy shall be ‘The United States of America’". I posted this as a response to the initial FB post, to which I got a response that followed the “who is American” line of argument I described above. To paraphrase how the student elaborated, American hegemony leads it to believe that it has power and dominion over the Americas. That belief manifests itself in the way that “Americans” believe that they have exclusive right to the demonym, when it can apply to people of all of the Americas, North, South and Central.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it just doesn’t work out chronologically. The signatories of the Articles of Confederation were members of a colony themselves. They were the subjects of British hegemony at that time. They decided to create an independent federation of states to be free of British rule and taxation. There is no way they could have had the foresight to know that they would be an imperial power even greater and at times more oppressive than the monarchy they lived under.

As was noted in a previous post, the U.S. has been screwing Latin America for a while, despite public relations efforts that try and support the contrary. The most recent time happening in both literal and figurative terms. So, trying to return the favor and sticking it to the U.S. can be fun for our friends south of the border; but if they loathe us so much why would they want to share a moniker with us, and if we actually decided to call them Americans, would they even respond? I think energy would be better used to show the innumerable other ways that the U.S. has intervened in Latin America to its own advantage rather than focusing on such a trivial issue as I just have.

Mariachi Americano

Tomorrow is my birthday and because it falls in the middle of the week, my wife and I decided to celebrate a few days early on Sunday by going out for dinner and some live music. A few weeks ago, I read a Facebook update from “Our Tiempo,” an entertainment blog that stated there would be a free show of Mariachi El Bronx at the Double Door here in Chicago. Upon seeing the words “free,” “mariachi,” and the “Bronx” strung together I had to read more.  After reading the post and a few other online sources I learned that Mariachi El Bronx is an iteration of the punk band The Bronx. A few years ago, the Southern California band put together some songs in the mariachi style, along with other Mexican styles such as jarocho and norteño. As they state on their website, “mariachi music is every bit as much of a soundtrack to southern California as punk.” They have a couple of albums now that are completely in these styles.

Compelled further by the story, I had to take an actual listen to their music. I was excited, but reserved my enthusiasm out of fear that their music would be too punk, an unsuccessful mash-up of genres, or simply just bad music. I was more than pleasantly surprised after watching about a dozen of their tracks on YouTube; I even became a little obsessed, finding spare moments to give their music another listen whenever I could. This is a band that has appeared on both Conan and David Letterman, and as you can see by Letterman’s reaction, they have a real wide-ranging appeal and incredibly, play music that is really “beautiful.”

One of the trademarks of Mariachi El Bronx is that they don complete mariachi suits when playing, and that they also play traditional Mexican instruments like the vihuela and the guitarrón. While they include a couple of Latino/Mexican-American members, including the son of David Hidalgo from Los Lobos, they are mostly a bunch of white guys and an Asian on violin (seems like a stereotype, but it’s true). Again, doubt can easily be raised about the authenticity of the motives of this group of musicians: is it parody? Is it a cheap imitation? A gimmick?

Upon seeing them live, I had my answer. These guys are real honest to goodness punk mariachis, from their ostrich skin boots, upholstered belts and customized belt buckles, to their ability to drink Tecate and play music, these guys played original Mexican music sung in English that is no less authentic than La Negra or Guadalajara.

The reaction from a really diverse crowd in terms of age, ethnicity, and gender was amazing. People were singing along, shouting out gritos, dancing and moshing. The love that the band received and gave was great. And as proof of their "mariachi-ness" I felt no less pride on hearing them play, with the bass thumping through my chest, than if I were hearing mariachis play at a wedding.

What I took away was that culture from south of the border has really mixed with American culture in an incredible way that still maintains an authentic identity. Gustavo Arellano, the writer of the “Ask a Mexican” column in the OC Weekly, and author of a recent book on Mexican cuisine in the U.S. makes the argument that mash-ups and iterations of Mexican food are all authentic and prove the strength of Mexican culture. Rather than decrying what is authentically Mexican or not, these evolutions are beyond flattery and show the adaptability and resilience of a culture whose essence remains. It also shows its allure beyond natives to the point that is able to incorporate them into the mix. The Mexican philosopher José Vasconcelos called the Mexican people “La Raza Cósmica,” or the cosmic race, a race of the future, because of their cultural ability to develop and persist in this way.

This idea comes at a time when there have been two important demographic developments; first, Mexican migration to the U.S. has come to a virtual halt, and second, that minority births, many of those Latino, are now outnumbering white births in the U.S. While it may seem that there is a possibility for a decline in the presence of the Mexican culture because of the first shift, it seems that the salsa is out of the bottle, because what it means to be American is not a change that will happen when those newborns come of age, it is a change that is already here-and it sounds like mariachi music—in English.

All the News that's Print to Fit?

During a poignant scene in the 1988 movie Stand and Deliver, math teacher Jamie Escalante, who became famous for his students’ success on the Advance Placement calculus test, confronts Educational Testing Service agents investigating alleged cheating among his students.  Escalante, as portrayed by Edward James Olmos, implies that his East Los Angeles students’ cultural heritage has more to do with the investigation than any actual cheating.  “There are two kinds of racism, Mr. Escalante,” one agent replies, “singling out people because they’re members of a particular group, and not singling out people because they’re members of a particular group.”  I thought about this construction of race again this past week when reading Sun-Times columnist Alejandro Escalona’s piece about the recent release and publication of Cosmopolitan for Latinas, an English-language periodical based on the original Cosmopolitan magazine.

Mr. Escalona argues in his column that the continued growth of English-language media outlets is a cause for celebration in that major companies not only recognize the purchasing power of Latinos but also the diversity of Latino populations, an ever-increasing number of which whose first language is English instead of Spanish.  Other such high-profile demonstrations exist and have for a while.  Ever hear of the Latin Grammys?  As such, the growth of English-language news and entertainment media for Latino audiences is seen as an integration of Mexican- and similar national-origin populations’ in the United States.

Marketing such media solely to and for Latinos, however, is narrow and shortsighted.  Doing so further balkanizes these target audiences.  If the information these outlets convey is important for one group, is it also not important for the larger population regardless of national, racial, or ethnic heritage?  I think so.  Further, the larger segment of society is somewhat poorer for not knowing about issues confronting the rest, being aware of their concerns, or otherwise being exposed to aspects of their culture.  The Latin Grammys, for example, may reward musical achievement while celebrating Latin music, but do not do enough to expose non-Latino audiences to that very same music.  Relatedly, English-language Latino news and entertainment media will inform an audience but not one large enough to make a lasting impression.

Before celebrating the ever-increasing presence of Spanish-language and English-language media marketed to Hispanic, Latino, and similar populations, we should consider first who and what is excluded by its very nature.

Chicano, Mexican, or Other?

With Cinco de Mayo (a.k.a. the Fifth of May) just around the corner, it is time for that annual effort by Mexicans and non-Mexicans alike to determine what it means to be Mexican in America.  Unfortunately around this time of year that usually winds up being more about an inordinate amount of fools, louts, and assorted douche bags downing shots of Cuervo with Corona chasers and wearing comically oversized sombreros in a ridiculous celebration of what they mistakenly think is Mexico’s independence day.

Other, somewhat more reasonable attempts come from prominent public figures or various celebrities of Mexican descent who assume the role of cultural emissary in their efforts to describe for the uninitiated what it means to be Mexican in America.  To wit, we have Cheech Marin's latest entry into this ongoing dialog.  Mr. Marin, you will remember, made his career as an actor and comedian by playing upon the tired stereotype of the marijuana-smoking, drug-dealing, lay-about stoner Mexican.  So forgive my cynicism at his recent effort in The Huffington Post at answering the question “What is a Chicano?”

Sadly, what Mr. Marin completely ignores about the origin of the term "Chicano" is its roots in Marxism and how the early proponents of the term [who mostly were college students] affiliated with and held particular affinity for the working classes.  Thus, I would submit that a Mexican American who earns a PhD in Chicano Studies and teaches it at a university for 20 years, as Mr. Marin describes, ceases to be a "Chicano" because he or she has ascended the American status and occupation ladder.

Eva Longoria, who recently was tapped by President Obama’s re-election campaign as an appeal to a Latino voting bloc, serves as prime example of what I am talking about.  In describing how she is particularly situated for her new political responsibilities, Ms. Longoria cites her recent scholarly pursuit of a Master's degree in Chicano Studies at Cal State Northridge.  “I really wanted a better, more authentic understanding of what my community has gone through so I can help create change,” she naively has stated.  Unfortunately, Ms. Longoria’s “community” is one of famous models, actresses, and former NBA wives - anyone of whose life struggles Chicanos have not confronted.

And in case anyone is wondering, I do not self-identify as a Chicano.  As an academic with a PhD in History, I long ago admitted that I was pursuing a middle-class life style and thus cannot in good conscious say I am of the working class.  As an educator, I hope to create more opportunities for others – be they Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano, or even celebrities.  In so doing, I hopefully am informing people’s understandings of what it means to be Mexican in America to a greater degree than Mr. Marin, Ms. Longoria, and others of their ilk.

The Real Story Behind the Secret Service Prostitution Scandal

Most of the media coverage surrounding President Obama’s visit to Cartagena, Columbia during the April 14^th weekend has centered on the alleged boorish behavior and subsequent resignations of several Secret Service agents, particularly members of the President’s advance team.  Sadly, few media outlets have reported why the President was in Colombia in the first place.  With its tabloid-like focus on sex and prostitution, U.S. news outlets continue to contribute to people’s poorly informed understandings of U.S. foreign policy or the role the United States plays in the affairs of its neighboring countries.

According to the White House’s website, President Obama was in Cartagena to attend the Sixth Summit of the Americas.  While there, the President finalized negotiations on a free trade agreement that takes effect on May 15^th, agreed to continue joint efforts to fight drug trafficking, discussed ongoing initiatives for energy interconnectedness, and agreed to extend visas of Columbians in the US by ten years.

The Summits of the Americas are arranged by the Organizationof the American States, an international body whose current configuration dates to 1948.  Latin American and Caribbean nations comprise most of the OAS membership, but Canada and the United States are member nations too.

That the current OAS’ origins date to the late 1940s should not surprise for a couple of reasons.  For one, the administrations of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman still were engaged in the Good Neighbor Policy to some extent during that time.  The Good Neighbor Policy was an attempt to reverse the prior foreign policies of the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 and its related Roosevelt Corollary of 1910, by stating that the United States no longer would interfere in the affairs of independent Latin American states, but would instead work more cooperatively as partners.  For another, the emergence of the Cold War necessitated the U.S. establishing collective security on a regional basis.  Economical and military alliances with Latin American nations in the interest of U.S. national security seemingly made sense at the time.

Despite its diplomatic overtones and military implications, however, most people think of the Good Neighbor Policy - if they think about it at all - as a cultural exchange between the United States and Latin American countries.  Unfortunately for American audiences, this exchange likely resulted in establishing Latin Americans as campy or cartoonish characters that confirmed existing stereotypes as embodied by Carmen Miranda and Chiquita bananas, or as depicted in by the Walt Disney Company.

The Good Neighbor Policy’s usefulness for subsequent Presidential administrations diminished during the Cold War, as Latin American countries became proxy sites of fighting between the United States and any perceived Communist threat, with the fear of Communists in Latin America resulting in at least one U.S. President circumventing Congress to shape his foreign policy.

As it turns out, then, U.S. involvement with Latin American countries did not start with President Obama’s Colombian visit or with his advance team soliciting prostitutes.  Rather, the U.S. has been screwing Latin America for decades.

Latino Canadians

I was in Vancouver over the weekend attending the American Educational Research Association Conference there. I presented a paper that looks at the development of ethnic identity among Mexican-descent youth in New York City and how these youth come to equate low educational achievement with being Mexican; I argued that the data I collected shows that it is not surprising given some of the discriminatory messages they hear from teachers, and from mixed messages that their parents send, in terms of advocating hard work and a strong Mexican identity, but also with an explicit message that says, “don’t be like me.” I am sure I will have future opportunities to expand on this research that came out of my dissertation, but being in Canada offered me some time to ponder more important things: sports and Latinos.

I ran into a friend from graduate school who is now a professor at the University of Toronto. Rubén Gaztambide-Fernandez was actually a few years ahead of me in our doctoral program. Since arriving in Canada, he became interested in the large number of Latin-American descendants who call Canada home. When we met in passing he let me know that Latino Canadians have been around for over 50 years, yet few people have taken note, and now Rubén finds himself at the forefront of this area of inquiry.

Walking through Canadian streets a few days later, my wife and I were looking for souvenirs for our children and I immediately thought that I’d like to buy my three-year-old son a Canadian hockey jersey or maybe even a mini-hockey stick. Just as my son was entering consciousness a couple of years ago, my hometown Chicago Blackhawks won the Stanley Cup. After a long drought, and fan indifference, Chicago was taken by hockey fever, especially given the dismal state of our other sports teams. One of my close friends, who is Mexican, noted that he felt some ambivalence about the fair-weather fans, especially the Latinos who had taken to the sport, swept up in the championship fervor, when the sport goes virtually unknown in our homelands whose climate is not the most hospitable to hockey. Regardless, my own Mexican family was taken by the success of the Blackhawks and my son and daughter both reveled in the contagious “Chelsea Dagger” that became the team’s anthem that year. For our son, “hockey” became one of the first two-syllable words he would utter with great enthusiasm anytime he saw my father and I watching a game on television.

One of the more popular players on the Blackhawks the year they won was Dustin Byfuglien, who was also notable as one of the few African Americans in the sport. On our search for a pint-sized jersey, I also ran into a few hockey sticks and then my mind drifted at the thought of buying our son one and it being the beginning of his journey to break ethnic and racial barriers in the great sport of our northern neighbors. This led me to wonder whether there was a Latino presence on hockey teams, given their presence in Canada.

Well, it was with a literal bang that I found out. Watching a much less captivating Blackhawks team last night, I saw the awful hit that Blackhawk player Marian Hossa took from Raffi Torres of the Coyotes. It knocked Hossa unconscious and earned him an immediate trip to the hospital. Once I learned from the evening news that Hossa was fine, I began to wonder about the Hispanic surnamed Torres. A quick search on Wikipedia taught me that Canadian-born Torres is in fact of Mexican and Peruvian descent. So, apparently ethnic barriers have already been broken in hockey, although it is probably still a matter of time before we hear about Los Blackhawks, although Coyotes is already a name with Mexican roots.

To carry a theme from the last few blog posts relating the perceived versus actual solidarity of Latinos, I was none too happy to learn of Torres’s ancestry, although it took little time for me to move beyond my ambivalence, as it is hard to stand with someone who could perpetuate such an unsportsmanlike and brutal hit, in addition to other egregious off the ice antics. So, the evidence continues to mount that we can we Latinos are a diverse and complex group that is difficult to generalize under one umbrella.

My wife put the kibosh on the hockey stick, by the way. Hockey, she said, is just too violent, Latino or otherwise.