When I picked up my mail today, I found my new birth certificate issued by the Registro Demográfico de Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico’s Demographic Registry). As María Pabón López wrote some weeks ago, every person born in Puerto Rico who needs a birth certificate for any purpose was required to obtain a newly-issued official copy.
I have a recently-issued passport and foresee no reason to need the certificate. But I wanted to see how the process would work, given the expected high demand for the new documents, especially from those of us Boricuas on this side of the Atlantic.
The process was fairly painless and even efficient. On July 29, 2010, I filled out the application online in the site set up for this purpose by Puerto Rico’s Department of Health, which includes the Demographic Registry. I paid the modest five dollar ($5.00) fee online and waited until yesterday to receive the document. Now, less than a month later, I have my crisp new certificate in hand.
(To visit the official site to file the request go here:
https://serviciosenlinea.gobierno.pr/Salud/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fSalud%2fOrders.aspx).
But I still find it outrageous that the Puerto Rican legislature caved in to pressure from federal executive officials and passed the law that required us to get the new documents. This is yet another example of the absurdities of colonialism. If the federal officials had told, say, Florida government officers that every one of its citizens had to get a new birth certificate, the outcry about the absurdity of such a requirement and its accompanying cost to taxpayers would have derailed such a ridiculous request. But Puerto Rico does not have sovereignty to refuse such a request, and it also lacks two senators and half a dozen or so members of congress who would have called those executive branch employees to Capitol Hill to publicly rake them over the coals for even making such a ridiculous request. Federal executive overreaching is simply one of the defining characteristics of colonialism. ¡Ay bendito!
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Voces of Art, Music and Dialog From Cuba
As part of a series of innovative encounters among academics, artists and musicians in Cuba, Estado de SATS recently released a short video of some music produced from this meeting of art and ideas. Well worth a listen:
Concierto "Estado de Sats"
Video of some of the presentations, and discussion of Cuba's future can be accessed at:Fragmentos del Panel: Futuros y visiones de Cuba.
Labels:
Cuba,
education,
latino culture,
Latino Media
Youth and Border Gardens
From ace reporter Kent Patterson welcomed news that counters the masters' narrative of border violence. By now it remains clear that violence on the nation's southernmost geographical border is skewed in the media. In fact local groups are rejecting the media firestorm that proclaims the border a zone of violence. The attendant result has increasingly witnessed the ongoing militarization of the border with criticism directed at skewed and hyped up media reports infrequently published. In reality local reports show that the border is not as violent as the media and others would have us believe. So it was a welcomed respite to see a column on something of value as opposed to the daily reactionary stream of those that seek to control the dominant narrative of culture, life and economics in the nation's border regions.
Specifically, Kent's recent post focused on the Vado, New Mexico community gardens that are packed with chiles, tomatoes, eggplant and sunflowers. Trees, herbs, fruits and potted plants are also grown locally. Vado joins other low income communities that are scattered throughout the region. The payoff of this particular garden is that it is operated primarily by young students who then sell their plants every Saturday at a local farmer's market located behind the Desert Crossing Restaurant.
A further benefit for the students goes beyond cultivating, harvesting and selling their commodities. The program that sponsors the young students also teaches them money management such as operating costs and as the column underscores the students' "blossom." it further allows them to "express community pride as well as the gleanings of future political leadership."
While the Program's success is well established it operates primarily through grants and one hopes for their continued success. The gardens offer not only a counter narrative they also promote food access to healthy alternatives that fall outside dominant food distribution chains. Against the backdrop of today's food safety issues this counter narrative thereby speaks volumes for the value of the gardens and the youth of Vado.
Specifically, Kent's recent post focused on the Vado, New Mexico community gardens that are packed with chiles, tomatoes, eggplant and sunflowers. Trees, herbs, fruits and potted plants are also grown locally. Vado joins other low income communities that are scattered throughout the region. The payoff of this particular garden is that it is operated primarily by young students who then sell their plants every Saturday at a local farmer's market located behind the Desert Crossing Restaurant.
A further benefit for the students goes beyond cultivating, harvesting and selling their commodities. The program that sponsors the young students also teaches them money management such as operating costs and as the column underscores the students' "blossom." it further allows them to "express community pride as well as the gleanings of future political leadership."
While the Program's success is well established it operates primarily through grants and one hopes for their continued success. The gardens offer not only a counter narrative they also promote food access to healthy alternatives that fall outside dominant food distribution chains. Against the backdrop of today's food safety issues this counter narrative thereby speaks volumes for the value of the gardens and the youth of Vado.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Olivas on Mexican-American Legal History
In the SB 1070 litigation, a number of Mexican -American groups and individuals have brought lawsuits seeking to strike down the Arizona immigration law and vindicate their rights: for example, MALDEF v. Brewer, Salgado v. Brewer and Escobar v. Brewer. The SB 1070 litigation is not the first time that Mexican-Americans have brought legal actions to enforce their rights. In fact, Mexican-Americans have a long history of using the courts to assert and establish their civil rights. For instance, Mexican - Americans brought a lawsuit seeking to overturn legalized segregation of Mexican -Americans in public schools in Texas in 1930. For those interested in Mexican-American legal history, Professor Michael Olivas has recently posted an article reviewing a number of books dealing with the history of Mexican-American civil rights litigation: "Review Essay: The Arc of Triumph and the Agony of Defeat: Mexican -Americans and the Law." (http://ssrn.com/abstract=1658516). Among other things, Olivas writes that "the rise of this developing field of legal history" shows that Mexican-Americans "have history --and law--in our blood."
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
More On the Debate Within Cuba Over Culture and Expression
More on the debate within Cuba over homophobia. For those of you who read Spanish the following might be interesting from Alberto Roque of the Cuban health establishment:
Declaración de la Sección Diversidad Sexual de la SOCUMES sobre el artículo “Homofobia no, respeto”
El pasado 20 de Julio el periódico “5 de Septiembre” de la provincia de Cienfuegos publicó, en sus versiones impresa y digital, el artículo de opinión “Homofobia no, respeto”, firmado por el periodista Jesús Mena Aragón.
La Sección de Diversidad Sexual de la Sociedad Cubana Multidisciplinaria para el Estudio de la Sexualidad (SOCUMES) da la bienvenida a la iniciativa del periódico “5 de Septiembre” de promover la reflexión sobre estos temas. El artículo ha generado un favorable debate y ha tenido una amplia difusión mediante la mensajería electrónica y en las redes sociales de la Internet.
Sin embargo, resulta llamativo para nuestra Sección que Jesús Mena Aragón señale la existencia de “una abrumadora propaganda desatada en Cuba contra la homofobia” y que los cubanos “somos instruidos por todas las vías posibles sobre la conducta a asumir ante las preferencias sexuales de cada cual”. El autor también considera que existen “cuestiones más perentorias” que atender y remarca la idea de que en Cuba no existe discriminación basada en la orientación sexual o la identidad de género de las personas, todo ello desde su apreciación personal.
Las y los especialistas de la Sección de Diversidad Sexual de la SOCUMES respetamos las opiniones personales de Mena Aragón, pero deseamos expresar nuestro desacuerdo con los argumentos vertidos por el periodista, desde las evidencias científicas en que se sustenta el Programa Nacional de Educación Sexual y la experiencia adquirida en la labor multidisciplinaria e intersectorial desarrollada en el país durante décadas.
Coincidimos en que nuestro proyecto social socialista no educa en los prejuicios que lastran a otras sociedades, pero somos herederos de un legado cultural sexista y machista, que subyace en el imaginario popular y nutre acciones y omisiones discriminatorias. Por ello, las personas homosexuales, bisexuales y transgéneros en Cuba enfrentan aún serias limitaciones para expresar su sexualidad y disfrutar de similares derechos a los de las personas heterosexuales, reconocibles solamente para estos últimos en los marcos social, político y legislativo.
Desconocerlo y silenciar la homofobia contribuye a empeorar el sufrimiento humano de nuestras familias, cuando cualquiera de sus integrantes tiene una orientación sexual diferente a la heterosexual; lo cual suele implicar, además, la exclusión, el rechazo y el distanciamiento a estas personas.
Los derechos sexuales y reproductivos se ejercen, son legítimos e inalienables a cada ser humano y es responsabilidad de los Estados y los gobiernos ofrecer las garantías para el ejercicio pleno de ellos por sus ciudadanos y ciudadanas. Todos, incluyendo el derecho al disfrute de una vida más plena en lo económico o en la participación en las políticas, son perentorios. Ninguno es más importante que el otro.
La Campaña Educativa por el Respeto a Libre Orientación Sexual e Identidad de Género en Cuba integra los aportes bien documentados de investigaciones realizadas en el país y en el mundo sobre los efectos nocivos de la homofobia, el daño a la salud que puede generar -incluso a las personas heterosexuales-, y en el disfrute pleno de todos los derechos. Nuestra sección expresa su disposición a seguir participando y aportando elementos, desde la investigación científica y la capacitación, que permitan su avance de forma integral.
Invitamos a otros medios de comunicación a promover la reflexión y el debate sobre estos temas, e instamos a sus profesionales a recibir capacitación sobre diversidad sexual y homofobia. Sin dudas tendrán más herramientas para superar sus prejuicios y desarrollar su trabajo por una nación con mayor igualdad, solidaridad, responsabilidad y respeto.
11 de agosto de 2009
Sección Diversidad Sexual
SOCUMES
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Yale Professor Opines on Congress's proposed Hearings on Birthright Citizenship...
Below is a recent op-ed by Yale Professor Peter Schuck concerning Congress' proposed hearings concerning the possible elimination of birthright citizenship for children of undocmented immigants as a means to curb so-called illegal immigration. Below his op-ed, is my response posted on several law profesor listservs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/opinion/14schuck.html
Birthright of a Nation
By PETER H. SCHUCK
NY Times
August 13, 2010
DESPITE persistent calls for comprehensive immigration reform, the hot debate today is about an old issue: birthright citizenship.
The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, provides that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...” This language has traditionally been interpreted to give automatic citizenship to anyone born on American soil, even to the children of illegal immigrants.
Congress plans to hold hearings this fall on a constitutional amendment to change that language, something even moderate Republican senators like South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham support. With a new study showing that undocumented mothers account for a disproportionate number of births, even some Democrats might find it hard to stand opposed to altering the citizenship clause.
Fortunately, the history of the clause suggests an effective, pragmatic solution that should appeal to both parties.
The clause’s purpose was to guarantee citizenship for former slaves — a right Congress had enacted in 1866 — and to overrule the infamous Dred Scott decision, which had denied blacks citizenship and helped precipitate the Civil War.
But the clause also excluded from birthright citizenship people who were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This exclusion was primarily aimed at the American-born children of American Indians and foreign diplomats and soldiers, categories governed by other sovereign entities.
The citizenship clause reflected a new American approach to political membership. Under common law dating back to the early 17th century, national allegiance had been perpetual, not consensual. Our country contested this assumption during the War of 1812 after the British impressed Americans into the Royal Navy, insisting that they remained the king’s subjects.
By 1868, Congress had come to view citizenship as a mutual relationship to which both the nation and the individual must consent. This explains why it passed — one day before the citizenship clause was ratified — the Expatriation Act, allowing Americans to shed their American or foreign citizenship.
Particularly relevant to today’s controversy was the floor debate on the citizenship clause. It suggested that the American-born children of resident aliens would indeed be citizens, a suggestion confirmed in an 1898 Supreme Court decision involving the son of a resident Chinese couple.
Congress did not, however, discuss the status of children of illegal immigrants — at the time, federal law didn’t limit immigration, so no parents were here illegally.
Nevertheless, it is hard to believe that Congress would have surrendered the power to regulate citizenship for such a group, much less grant it automatically to people whom it might someday bar from the country. The Supreme Court has never squarely held otherwise, although it did assume, without explanation, in a brief 1982 footnote that the American-born children of illegal immigrants were constitutional citizens. This history suggests that Congress can act on birthright citizenship without a constitutional amendment.
Fast-forward to today to an America with 11 million illegal immigrants. If the Constitution permits Congress to regulate their children’s citizenship by statute, what should that statute provide?
This question is much harder than the zealots on both sides suggest. The argument against any birthright citizenship is that these children are here as a result of an illegal act and thus have no claim to membership in a country built on the ideal of mutual consent.
In the extreme case of “anchor babies” — children born after a mother briefly crosses the border to give birth — the notion of automatic citizenship for the child strikes most people as not only anomalous but also offensive. No other developed country except Canada, which has relatively few illegal immigrants, has rules that would allow it.
At the same time, we rightly resist punishing children for their parents’ crimes. Without birthright citizenship, they could be legally stranded, perhaps even stateless, in a country where they were born and may spend their lives. And because more than a third of undocumented parents have a least one American child, ending birthright citizenship would greatly increase the number of undocumented people in the country.
Fortunately, these strongly competing values, combined with the notion of mutual-consent citizenship, suggest a solution: condition the citizenship of such children on having what international law terms a “genuine connection” to American society.
This is already a practice in some European countries, where laws requiring blood ties to existing citizens have been relaxed to give birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who have lived in the country for some time — Britain, for example, requires 10 years and no long absences from the country.
Congress should do likewise, perhaps conditioning birthright citizenship on a certain number of years of education in American schools; such children could apply for citizenship at, say, age 10. The children would become citizens retroactively, regardless of their parents’ status.
Other aspects of the larger immigration debate would continue, of course. But such a principled yet pragmatic solution to the birthright citizenship question could point the way toward common ground on immigration reform.
Peter H. Schuck, a professor of law at Yale, is a co-editor of “Understanding America: The Anatomy of an Exceptional Nation.”
Here is my response posted on the immigration professors listserv:
Thank you Stephen for informing this group of Professor Schuck's op-ed. I think it is terribly important for legal experts to take part in this important debate. As you might expect, I am one of those progressive citizenship scholars that is troubled by the consequences of Schuck's position.
While the position for allowing Congress to change longstanding constructions of the Fourteenth Amendment has some historical support, I find such an approach to be politically as well as legally troubling. As citizenship scholars have long written about, western constructions of citizenship have repeatedly been used to limit access to political membership to disfavored groups( as we all know--African-Americans, Indigenous people, and territorial island people, and LGBT communities, just to name a few).
To have Congress in the Twenty-First Century use the malleable construct of citizenship to deny individuals that have long been considered full members of society, see i.e., Plyler, would be just another example of the members of the privileged class deciding who could be allowed in the political club known as Americans. To do such a thing to a group, with no voting rights because of their age, among other reasons, would be another example of selective use of our inclusive rhetoric associated with citizenship (this position on my part is not new as my recent book Citizenship and Its Exclusions takes issue with some of Schuck's previous positions on the inclusiveness of citizenship in the United States).
I hope to one day discuss and perhaps even debate these matters on a panel or other public forum with Schuck and others of similar views. Thanks again for your input.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/opinion/14schuck.html
Birthright of a Nation
By PETER H. SCHUCK
NY Times
August 13, 2010
DESPITE persistent calls for comprehensive immigration reform, the hot debate today is about an old issue: birthright citizenship.
The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, provides that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...” This language has traditionally been interpreted to give automatic citizenship to anyone born on American soil, even to the children of illegal immigrants.
Congress plans to hold hearings this fall on a constitutional amendment to change that language, something even moderate Republican senators like South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham support. With a new study showing that undocumented mothers account for a disproportionate number of births, even some Democrats might find it hard to stand opposed to altering the citizenship clause.
Fortunately, the history of the clause suggests an effective, pragmatic solution that should appeal to both parties.
The clause’s purpose was to guarantee citizenship for former slaves — a right Congress had enacted in 1866 — and to overrule the infamous Dred Scott decision, which had denied blacks citizenship and helped precipitate the Civil War.
But the clause also excluded from birthright citizenship people who were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This exclusion was primarily aimed at the American-born children of American Indians and foreign diplomats and soldiers, categories governed by other sovereign entities.
The citizenship clause reflected a new American approach to political membership. Under common law dating back to the early 17th century, national allegiance had been perpetual, not consensual. Our country contested this assumption during the War of 1812 after the British impressed Americans into the Royal Navy, insisting that they remained the king’s subjects.
By 1868, Congress had come to view citizenship as a mutual relationship to which both the nation and the individual must consent. This explains why it passed — one day before the citizenship clause was ratified — the Expatriation Act, allowing Americans to shed their American or foreign citizenship.
Particularly relevant to today’s controversy was the floor debate on the citizenship clause. It suggested that the American-born children of resident aliens would indeed be citizens, a suggestion confirmed in an 1898 Supreme Court decision involving the son of a resident Chinese couple.
Congress did not, however, discuss the status of children of illegal immigrants — at the time, federal law didn’t limit immigration, so no parents were here illegally.
Nevertheless, it is hard to believe that Congress would have surrendered the power to regulate citizenship for such a group, much less grant it automatically to people whom it might someday bar from the country. The Supreme Court has never squarely held otherwise, although it did assume, without explanation, in a brief 1982 footnote that the American-born children of illegal immigrants were constitutional citizens. This history suggests that Congress can act on birthright citizenship without a constitutional amendment.
Fast-forward to today to an America with 11 million illegal immigrants. If the Constitution permits Congress to regulate their children’s citizenship by statute, what should that statute provide?
This question is much harder than the zealots on both sides suggest. The argument against any birthright citizenship is that these children are here as a result of an illegal act and thus have no claim to membership in a country built on the ideal of mutual consent.
In the extreme case of “anchor babies” — children born after a mother briefly crosses the border to give birth — the notion of automatic citizenship for the child strikes most people as not only anomalous but also offensive. No other developed country except Canada, which has relatively few illegal immigrants, has rules that would allow it.
At the same time, we rightly resist punishing children for their parents’ crimes. Without birthright citizenship, they could be legally stranded, perhaps even stateless, in a country where they were born and may spend their lives. And because more than a third of undocumented parents have a least one American child, ending birthright citizenship would greatly increase the number of undocumented people in the country.
Fortunately, these strongly competing values, combined with the notion of mutual-consent citizenship, suggest a solution: condition the citizenship of such children on having what international law terms a “genuine connection” to American society.
This is already a practice in some European countries, where laws requiring blood ties to existing citizens have been relaxed to give birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who have lived in the country for some time — Britain, for example, requires 10 years and no long absences from the country.
Congress should do likewise, perhaps conditioning birthright citizenship on a certain number of years of education in American schools; such children could apply for citizenship at, say, age 10. The children would become citizens retroactively, regardless of their parents’ status.
Other aspects of the larger immigration debate would continue, of course. But such a principled yet pragmatic solution to the birthright citizenship question could point the way toward common ground on immigration reform.
Peter H. Schuck, a professor of law at Yale, is a co-editor of “Understanding America: The Anatomy of an Exceptional Nation.”
Here is my response posted on the immigration professors listserv:
Thank you Stephen for informing this group of Professor Schuck's op-ed. I think it is terribly important for legal experts to take part in this important debate. As you might expect, I am one of those progressive citizenship scholars that is troubled by the consequences of Schuck's position.
While the position for allowing Congress to change longstanding constructions of the Fourteenth Amendment has some historical support, I find such an approach to be politically as well as legally troubling. As citizenship scholars have long written about, western constructions of citizenship have repeatedly been used to limit access to political membership to disfavored groups( as we all know--African-Americans, Indigenous people, and territorial island people, and LGBT communities, just to name a few).
To have Congress in the Twenty-First Century use the malleable construct of citizenship to deny individuals that have long been considered full members of society, see i.e., Plyler, would be just another example of the members of the privileged class deciding who could be allowed in the political club known as Americans. To do such a thing to a group, with no voting rights because of their age, among other reasons, would be another example of selective use of our inclusive rhetoric associated with citizenship (this position on my part is not new as my recent book Citizenship and Its Exclusions takes issue with some of Schuck's previous positions on the inclusiveness of citizenship in the United States).
I hope to one day discuss and perhaps even debate these matters on a panel or other public forum with Schuck and others of similar views. Thanks again for your input.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Is Florida the next Arizona?
From Commondreams.org:
Florida Immigrant Crackdown Aims to Outdo Arizona Laws
State attorney general Bill McCollum promises harshest anti-illegal immigration legislation yet.
by Ed Pilkington
Florida's attorney general on Wednesday promised to introduce laws emulating - and exceeding - the draconian clampdown on undocumented immigrants recently attempted by Arizona.
'Arizona is going to want this law,' says Florida Attorney General and GOP gubernatorial candidate Bill McCollum. Architects of the plan boast they will be the harshest anti-illegal immigration laws yet, a claim that could have an incendiary effect in Florida given the state's high proportion of Latinos. (WILFREDO LEE / AP)
The proposed legislation would put the sunshine state at the forefront of the anti-immigrant moves rapidly sweeping across the US.
Architects of the plans boast they will be the harshest anti-illegal immigration laws yet, a claim that could have an incendiary effect in Florida given the state's high proportion of Latinos.
Bill McCollum, Florida's attorney general, is the main proponent of the clampdown. He said the legislation would "provide new enforcement tools for protecting our citizens and will help our state fight the on-going problems created by illegal immigration. Florida will not be a sanctuary state for illegal aliens."
Under the proposals, police would be required to investigate the immigration status of anyone they stopped whom they suspected of being illegally in the country. Any suspects lacking papers would be liable to up to 20 days in jail after which time they would be handed over to the immigration services for deportation.
In an innovation that goes beyond anything tried in Arizona, the Florida law would allow local courts to impose longer prison sentences and tougher bail conditions on anyone committing a crime in the state who is found to be undocumented.
Critics of the increasingly hostile mood of local politicians in states across America towards illegal immigrants accuse them of pandering to popular white prejudices towards Hispanics in order to garner electoral support.
In Florida's case, McCollum is currently embroiled in a close electoral fight to gain the Republican party's nomination for governor of the state ahead of elections in November.
His Republican rival for the candidacy, Rick Scott, accused McCollum of devising policy specifically for electoral gain. His spokesman told the Miami Herald: "It's clear the only way to get McCollum to take any action on anything is when he's down in the polls."
McCollum and his supporters in Florida are highly mindful of the fact that Arizona's attempt to force the police to check on the immigration status of suspected undocumented workers has been blocked by the federal government in a legal dispute that is likely to go all the way to the supreme court.
McCollum claims to have avoided a similar challenge from the Obama administration by being more specific about the circumstances under which officers are obliged to check immigration papers.
In particular, McCollum said the proposed new rules would avoid any whiff of racial profiling against Hispanics - an accusation widely levelled at Arizona where the vast majority of undocumented residents are Mexican.
Under the planned law, police would need to have a concrete reason for suspicion such as an altered driving licence or an admission from the suspect that they were in the country without permission.
"It's not how you look, it's not what you say," McCollum said.
Despite his insistence that his proposals would be less likely to provoke federal intervention, they are likely to face a challenge. The Obama administration is alarmed that immigration policy is spinning out of its control as individual states seek to make their own rules.
Florida Immigrant Crackdown Aims to Outdo Arizona Laws
State attorney general Bill McCollum promises harshest anti-illegal immigration legislation yet.
by Ed Pilkington
Florida's attorney general on Wednesday promised to introduce laws emulating - and exceeding - the draconian clampdown on undocumented immigrants recently attempted by Arizona.
'Arizona is going to want this law,' says Florida Attorney General and GOP gubernatorial candidate Bill McCollum. Architects of the plan boast they will be the harshest anti-illegal immigration laws yet, a claim that could have an incendiary effect in Florida given the state's high proportion of Latinos. (WILFREDO LEE / AP)
The proposed legislation would put the sunshine state at the forefront of the anti-immigrant moves rapidly sweeping across the US.
Architects of the plans boast they will be the harshest anti-illegal immigration laws yet, a claim that could have an incendiary effect in Florida given the state's high proportion of Latinos.
Bill McCollum, Florida's attorney general, is the main proponent of the clampdown. He said the legislation would "provide new enforcement tools for protecting our citizens and will help our state fight the on-going problems created by illegal immigration. Florida will not be a sanctuary state for illegal aliens."
Under the proposals, police would be required to investigate the immigration status of anyone they stopped whom they suspected of being illegally in the country. Any suspects lacking papers would be liable to up to 20 days in jail after which time they would be handed over to the immigration services for deportation.
In an innovation that goes beyond anything tried in Arizona, the Florida law would allow local courts to impose longer prison sentences and tougher bail conditions on anyone committing a crime in the state who is found to be undocumented.
Critics of the increasingly hostile mood of local politicians in states across America towards illegal immigrants accuse them of pandering to popular white prejudices towards Hispanics in order to garner electoral support.
In Florida's case, McCollum is currently embroiled in a close electoral fight to gain the Republican party's nomination for governor of the state ahead of elections in November.
His Republican rival for the candidacy, Rick Scott, accused McCollum of devising policy specifically for electoral gain. His spokesman told the Miami Herald: "It's clear the only way to get McCollum to take any action on anything is when he's down in the polls."
McCollum and his supporters in Florida are highly mindful of the fact that Arizona's attempt to force the police to check on the immigration status of suspected undocumented workers has been blocked by the federal government in a legal dispute that is likely to go all the way to the supreme court.
McCollum claims to have avoided a similar challenge from the Obama administration by being more specific about the circumstances under which officers are obliged to check immigration papers.
In particular, McCollum said the proposed new rules would avoid any whiff of racial profiling against Hispanics - an accusation widely levelled at Arizona where the vast majority of undocumented residents are Mexican.
Under the planned law, police would need to have a concrete reason for suspicion such as an altered driving licence or an admission from the suspect that they were in the country without permission.
"It's not how you look, it's not what you say," McCollum said.
Despite his insistence that his proposals would be less likely to provoke federal intervention, they are likely to face a challenge. The Obama administration is alarmed that immigration policy is spinning out of its control as individual states seek to make their own rules.
The Future of Whiteness in the United States, Revised
Since at least the 1990 Census we have been treated to a regular parade of predictions that white North Americans will lose their traditional majority status sometime in the early 21st Century. But now that prediction has been revised—pushed back by nearly a decade to mid-century—because the recent economic calamities, together with anti-immigration policies and practices, have slowed down the flow of persons coming into the United States, including those who are brown. Currently, the total U.S. population is just over 300 million people, two-thirds classified as “non-Hispanic whites.” The new Census projections predict that total population will rise to nearly 400 million by 2050, with whites making up exactly half of that total. Blacks will remain at 12% while Hispanics increase from 15% to 28% and Asians from 4.5% to 6%. However, actual shifts in national demographics will be determined by the interplay of many factors, from the economic to the cultural to the natural and the legal...This data underscores what really is at stake in the current hullabaloo over immigration law and policy: for how much longer will this richly diverse country remain under the rule of a single racial/ethnic group?
As we know from the early experience with immigration law in this country, which from the very beginning restricted citizenship to “white” immigrants, this group has used its control over public policy since then to reinforce its domination of the country, its culture, and its economy. For how much longer will this history continue? The answer to this query will be determined by the complex of factors in play right now—including the reshaping of immigration law and policy, which is all over the nation’s headlines once again: under a “zero immigration” scenario, in which the country effectively refuses to take in any new immigrants, whites would be predicted to remain solidly in the majority by 2050, with nearly 60% of the population, while the Hispanic figures would increase to only 21% by that time...As in so many cases, the numbers tell the story.
Link:
http://www.thegrio.com/news/white-americans-majority-to-end-by-mid-century.php
By Frank Valdes
As we know from the early experience with immigration law in this country, which from the very beginning restricted citizenship to “white” immigrants, this group has used its control over public policy since then to reinforce its domination of the country, its culture, and its economy. For how much longer will this history continue? The answer to this query will be determined by the complex of factors in play right now—including the reshaping of immigration law and policy, which is all over the nation’s headlines once again: under a “zero immigration” scenario, in which the country effectively refuses to take in any new immigrants, whites would be predicted to remain solidly in the majority by 2050, with nearly 60% of the population, while the Hispanic figures would increase to only 21% by that time...As in so many cases, the numbers tell the story.
Link:
http://www.thegrio.com/news/white-americans-majority-to-end-by-mid-century.php
By Frank Valdes
Thursday, August 12, 2010
The Politics of Indigenous People in the Caribbean
For many years, political elites,especially in Cuba and Puerto Rico, have assumed the extinction of the indigenous populations of those islands, or at least their absorption into a mixed population that served as the basis of a new "indigenous" people who could then be mobilized to face outside threats, usually the North American. I have written about this in the context of the construction of a "Cuban" politically and culturally useful ethno-racial type. See, e.g., Larry Catá Backer, From Hatuey to Che: Indigenous Cuba Without Indians and the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, American Indian Law Review, Vol. 33, 2009.
A group in Puerto Rico has been working to destabilize these assumptions, as well as the racism and cultural privileging inherent in these ideologically driven histories. They have produced a film speaking to these issues noted on the United Nations Radio Spanish language Website.
Una película sobre la extinción del pueblo Taíno, oriundo del Caribe, explora el tema de la autodeterminación de la identidad indígena y las raíces de la población en Puerto Rico. Pero además reflexiona sobre la negación de los orígenes indígenas, un problema actual inspirado en el racismo y la exclusión de esos pueblos.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Latino Immigrant Heads the ABA and creates Commission to study Latino legal issues
Stephen N. Zack, a Miami, FL lawyer who emigrated from Cuba in 1961 when he was 14 years old is now the President of the 400,000-member American Bar Association ("ABA"). The ABA is the world's largest voluntary bar association and a leading national legal professional organization.
After receiving the gavel from outgoing ABA President Carolyn Lamm at the ABA convention in San Francisco earlier this week, Mr. Zack shared his vision: “Today, I would like to talk to you about four responsibilities: preservation of the justice system, civic education, protecting human rights, and preparing for disaster.” President Zack further outlined his view that “[e]very day, our nation becomes more divided with respect to civil rights,” and introduced his Committee on Hispanic Legal Rights and Responsibilities. President Zack noted that , “We are a nation of immigrants. Our basic freedoms are based on the principle that the minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority.”
Miami lawyer César L. Alvarez, also a Cuban-American, will chair the Hispanic Legal Rights and Responsibilities commission, which will hold public hearings in major U.S. cities with large Latino populations. The commission will analyze whether the legal system is addressing the needs of Latinos.
President Zack has stated that "[w]e need to find out the facts and we need to see how the system is working or not working to make sure that Hispanics are fully integrated and treated equally within our justice system.''
Once the commission conducts the hearings and analyzes its findings, these may result in a report akin into the one issued this past spring by the ABA's Commission on Immigration. The ABA supports the creation of a new immigration court system, and many other measures designed to improve consistency, fairness and efficiency in immigration law proceedings.
These are welcome developments and great news for the Latino community and the legal community as well.
After receiving the gavel from outgoing ABA President Carolyn Lamm at the ABA convention in San Francisco earlier this week, Mr. Zack shared his vision: “Today, I would like to talk to you about four responsibilities: preservation of the justice system, civic education, protecting human rights, and preparing for disaster.” President Zack further outlined his view that “[e]very day, our nation becomes more divided with respect to civil rights,” and introduced his Committee on Hispanic Legal Rights and Responsibilities. President Zack noted that , “We are a nation of immigrants. Our basic freedoms are based on the principle that the minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority.”
Miami lawyer César L. Alvarez, also a Cuban-American, will chair the Hispanic Legal Rights and Responsibilities commission, which will hold public hearings in major U.S. cities with large Latino populations. The commission will analyze whether the legal system is addressing the needs of Latinos.
President Zack has stated that "[w]e need to find out the facts and we need to see how the system is working or not working to make sure that Hispanics are fully integrated and treated equally within our justice system.''
Once the commission conducts the hearings and analyzes its findings, these may result in a report akin into the one issued this past spring by the ABA's Commission on Immigration. The ABA supports the creation of a new immigration court system, and many other measures designed to improve consistency, fairness and efficiency in immigration law proceedings.
These are welcome developments and great news for the Latino community and the legal community as well.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Ethnic/Raza Studies and "Power Brokers"
Close on the heels of Governor Brewer's extra-jurisdictional anti-immigrant legislation the state's schools Superintendent Tom Horne also joined by Brewer supporters set their sights on the State's Ethnic Studies Programs. In sum, they are seeking to eliminate diversity in education and in essence drive the histories of the Indigenous, Blacks and Latinas/os and others from the State's educational structures. Even more critically and thus raising the alarm bells is that Arizona's actions are not isolated and ethnic studies are rendered vulnerable to yet other politicians that are joining the bandwagon of hate.
Chicana/o Studies exposed me and provided inter alia on the inequities of farm laborers that were ignored in mainstream education. To my dismay farmworkers were also commonly ignored (until recently) on the outside of academic investigation decades after earning my undergraduate degree.
Although during childhood, I was exposed to the unfairness and enslaved conditions of farmworkers, Chicana/o Studies underscored new ways of learning, sophisticated political nuances, and the subject of class warfare. It gave me the tools to assess critically and ask the myriad of questions that the nation's farm bills and methods of food production with a focus on those at the bottom of the food chain obligate. Try and reconcile the welfare handouts large corporate entities receive without regard to those at the bottom. For example, the welfare form of handouts also known as subsidies has induced a realm of harm on the poor and the workers that provide so much for those of us that like to eat. Reference the http://www.ewg.org website to locate the agricultural enterprises in your state that receive more than their fair share of public funds for a clue as to the nature of agricultural disparities.
Yet Brewer and other politicians as well as self-perceived "power brokers" would remove alternative ways of learning, teaching and seeking transformation for all communities in distress. Their actions require that we as a group remain vigilant on any ill-driven tactic to remove studies of those long disenfranchised.
Against the above backdrop and ultimately this post respectfully ask our communities to support the efforts of the educators and students who are supporting ethnic studies. Begin by going to their website http://ethnicstudiesweekoctober1-7.org and sign up!
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Hate Marches On
Despite the injunction blocking much of Arizona's draconian Senate Bill 1070 legislation, and the threat of significant litigation and expense ahead, a Texas newspaper reported last week that two Texas lawmakers intend to push forward with bills inspired by Arizona. http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/07/29/2371938/texas-lawmakers-to-proceed-with.html.
This week, the word in Oregon is that a Latino state representative, Republican Sal Esquivel, may introduce similar legislation in Oregon. Oregon is drowning in unemployment and painful government cuts are commonplace. Although Texas has weathered the economic crisis somewhat better, I can't believe these legislators would set in motion laws that are legally dead on arrival, at least in the opinion of most scholars of consequence. Much as I appreciate the business for my former students and the legal community, passing controversial legislation sure to spark a wildfire of legal response doesn't seem prudent, especially during a financial crisis.
Of course, the legislators will contend they are trying to issue a clarion call to Congress to rescue the states from the supposed costs of undocumented immigration. Pete Wilson said the same thing in championing California's Proposition 187 that a federal court ultimately derailed. If so, a far cheaper route, and one insulated from legal attack, would be to pass a state resolution imploring Congress to act to better enforce the borders, whatever that means.
Instead, I think these legislators intend warfare on the Latino immigrant population and beyond. Just as we don't tend to do the math on warfare abroad, or even internally for such campaigns as the war on drugs, I believe that when it comes to Latinos, some people are willing to spend anything to keep demographic and cultural change at bay. But they are swimming against the current and history will recognize them as wasting our money, and poisoning our cultural well. Let's not wait for future generations to judge us for our shameful treatment of immigrants seeking a piece of the American dream. Our best hope is that Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 is swept swiftly into the dustbin of history and that other states keep their collective heads and hearts in the right place.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Dolores “Lolita” Lebrón, 1919-2010, QEPD (RIP)
Puerto Rican Nationalist Dolores “Lolita” Lebrón Sotomayor was born in Lares, Puerto Rico, on November 19, 1919. She passed away in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on August 1, 2010.
I do not abide violence as a matter of principle, even to promote Puerto Rican independence. I further object to the acts of Nationalist violence in which Lebrón participated on practical grounds because they were used to justify a disproportionate police response that only undermined Puerto Rico’s hopes for political status change.
But I have respect for the dedication and sacrifice of some of the nationalists, and for Lebrón in particular, since she did not cause injury and was disproportionately singled out for a politically-long sentence (she was thirty-four at the time of the attack on congress, was sentenced to fifty years in jail, and spent over twenty-five years at the Federal Women’s Prison in Alderson, Virginia). She conducted herself according to principle and with dignity in prison and upon her release. After her sentence was commuted by President Carter, as explained below, she became a non-violent political activist, and a potent symbol of Puerto Rican desire for fair treatment by the U.S. and of the desire of some of us for an independent island nation.
Lebrón reportedly became politically aware and active as a result of the Masacre de Ponce (Ponce Massacre), which I describe in my book: “on Palm Sunday, March 31, 1937, the pro-independence Puerto Rican Nationalist Party marched through the streets of Ponce. The mayor had initially granted a permit for the march but had tried to rescind it at the last minute after Governor Blanton Winship “ordered the chief of police, Colonel Orbeta, to tell the mayor” to do so. After a shot of “undetermined origin,” the police fired into the crowd, killing nineteen people, including two policemen. “A later inquiry by the American Civil Liberties Union “concluded that there had been a ‘gross violation of civil rights and incredible police brutality.’” The incident is known in Puerto Rico as the Masacre de Ponce (Ponce Massacre). (Pedro A. Malavet, America’s Colony: The Political and Cultural Conflict between the United States and Puerto Rico at 91 (NYU Press 2007) (citing Arturo Morales-Carrión, Puerto Rico: A Cultural and Political History (New York: American Association for State and Local History, 1983)).
Lebrón took part in the attacks carried out by the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party in Washington, D.C. “The nationalists … staged two attacks in Washington, D.C., during the 1950s. Coinciding with the uprising in Puerto Rico, on November 1, 1950, nationalists “Griselio Torresola and Oscar Collazo, attempt to assassinate President Harry S. Truman at Blair House in Washington. Torresola is killed and his partner and three police officers are wounded. . . . [White House Police Officer Leslie Coffelt died of his wounds in hospital later that night.] On March 1, 1954, four . . . nationalists [Rafael Cancel Miranda, Irving Flores, Andrés Figueroa Cordero, and Lebrón] fire 30 shots from the U.S. House visitors’ gallery, wounding five congressmen.” (Id. at 92, citing “Blast Rips World Trade Center in N.Y.; 5 Dead, Hundreds Hurt,” Los Angeles Times, February 27, 1993, sec. A, 1 (includes a timeline of attacks tied to Puerto Rican nationalists)).
Lebrón was carrying a weapon but fired only one shot into the air before displaying a Puerto Rican flag and reportedly yelling that she had not come to kill anyone, but rather to die for Puerto Rico that day. I am glad that she lived and had the opportunity to die in her own country, even if it is not yet free.
Emma Brown wrote for the Washington Post:
Lolita Lebron, a Puerto Rican nationalist known to some as a terrorist and to others as a near-mythic freedom fighter for her violent attack on the U.S. Capitol more than a half-century ago, died Aug. 1 at a hospital in San Juan of complications from respiratory disease. She was 90.
Ms. Lebron was called both fanatical and fearless for her efforts to draw attention to the cause of independence for her home island, claimed by the United States as spoils after the Spanish-American War and made an American commonwealth in 1952.
LeBron bought a ticket from New York to Washington on March 1, 1954. She and three fellow nationalists lunched at Union Station and then walked to the Capitol. They made their way to the House gallery. A security guard asked whether they were carrying cameras; they were not.
But they did have pistols. And in a crusade for Puerto Rico’s independence that Ms. Lebron saw as no different from the uprising by America’s 13 colonies against England in the 18th century, the four nationalists opened fire in the House chambers as more than 240 members of Congress debated an immigration bill.
“Viva Puerto Rico libre!” Ms. Lebron screamed. Chaos swirled as she unfurled a Puerto Rican flag. Five congressmen were struck by bullets, including 35-year-old Alvin Bentley, a Republican from Michigan who was hit in the chest.
Rep. James Van Zandt (R-Pa.) and a gallery spectator managed to wrestle away the assailants’ guns. Arrested and handcuffed, the four nationalists were photographed outside the Capitol in an image splashed across newspaper front pages.
In the photograph, a striking Ms. Lebron wears a set jaw and a stylish skirt and jacket. She had expected to die that day, and police found a note in her purse along with a tube of lipstick and Bromo-Seltzer pills.
“My life I give for the freedom of my country,” the note read. “The United States of America are betraying the sacred principles of mankind in their continuous subjugation of my country.”
‘I am a revolutionary’
The shooting and its aftermath captivated Washington for weeks. Ms. Lebron and her fellow attackers had unleashed 29 bullets, leaving scars still visible at the Capitol, but none of the five injured congressmen died.
Ms. Lebron sat quietly during most of the trial, breaking her silence to tell the jury in a fiery 20-minute speech that she was “being crucified for the freedom of my country.” She was sentenced to more than 50 years in prison.
In a move widely suspected to have been part of a prisoner swap to release CIA agents jailed in Cuba, President Jimmy Carter granted clemency to Ms. Lebron, two of her co-conspirators and a nationalist who had tried to kill President Harry S. Truman.
Released in 1979 after serving 25 years in prison, Ms. Lebron embarked on a tour of Puerto Rican population centers in the United States. She was also received in Havana as a guest of President Fidel Castro.
The attack came four years after a failed attempt by Puerto Rican nationalists to assassinate Truman. It gave Ms. Lebron a place among the most famous of Latin American revolutionary figures, including Che Guevara and Pancho Villa.
“I am a revolutionary,” she said at the time. “I hate bombs, but we might have to use them.”
Lolita Lebron was born Nov. 19, 1919, in Lares, a Puerto Rican village where, in 1868, local men rose up against Spanish colonists in a legendary rebellion known as El Grito de Lares, “the cry of Lares.”
Her father was a coffee farmer and her mother was a homemaker. Ms. Lebron, crowned “Queen of the Flowers of May” as a teenager, left Puerto Rico for a better life in New York in 1940. She left behind a baby daughter, who later died. Ms. Lebron’s granddaughter is writer Irene Vilar. A complete list of survivors could not be confirmed.
Working as a seamstress in the garment district, Ms. Lebron lived in grinding poverty and found herself the object of racial discrimination. “They told me it was a paradise,” Ms. Lebron said in a Washington Post interview in 2004. “This was no paradise.”
She began corresponding with Harvard-educated Puerto Rican nationalist Pedro Albizu Campos after he was jailed for his part in the 1950 plot against Truman. Albizu Campos reputedly tapped Ms. Lebron to lead the siege against Congress as a last-ditch effort for independence.
Ms. Lebron in turn inspired other nationalists to violence. Between 1974 and 1983, Puerto Rico’s Armed Forces of National Liberation set off dozens of bombs in Chicago and New York, killing six people and injuring more than 100.
But the independence movement did not gain momentum in Puerto Rico. When voters were asked in 1998 whether they wanted the island to become a state or an independent nation or retain their semiautonomous status, the prevailing response was “none of the above.” Independence won 2.5 percent of the vote.
Renouncing violence
After returning home to Puerto Rico, Ms. Lebron became a symbol of nationalist pride. She continued to protest U.S. involvement on the island, but she renounced violence, saying her change of heart was rooted in religious revelations she had while she was in jail.
In 2001, she was arrested at age 81 while protesting the U.S. military’s use of Vieques, a neighboring Caribbean island, as a bombing range. She was sentenced to 60 days in jail for trespassing. The bombing range was later closed.
Her pledge of nonviolence was tested in 2005 when the FBI shot and killed Filiberto Ojeda Rios, the Puerto Rican leader of a paramilitary pro-independence group. Ojeda Rios was wanted in connection with the 1983 robbery of an armored-truck depot in Connecticut. As angry crowds gathered in the streets, Ms. Lebron spoke out.
“She had a tremendous impact,” Juan Manuel Garcia Passalacqua told the Chicago Tribune in 2006. “Young people were protesting in the streets, and there was talk of getting revenge. But Lolita told people, ‘No violence!’—and there was none.”
Emma Brown, A fervor for Puerto Rico's freedom led her to violent act at U.S. Capitol, The Washington Post, B-4, August 2, 2010.
See also Sara M. Justicia Doll, Lolita Lebrón se Armó por Valor por su Ideal, Primera Hora, 2 Agosto 2010.
I do not abide violence as a matter of principle, even to promote Puerto Rican independence. I further object to the acts of Nationalist violence in which Lebrón participated on practical grounds because they were used to justify a disproportionate police response that only undermined Puerto Rico’s hopes for political status change.
But I have respect for the dedication and sacrifice of some of the nationalists, and for Lebrón in particular, since she did not cause injury and was disproportionately singled out for a politically-long sentence (she was thirty-four at the time of the attack on congress, was sentenced to fifty years in jail, and spent over twenty-five years at the Federal Women’s Prison in Alderson, Virginia). She conducted herself according to principle and with dignity in prison and upon her release. After her sentence was commuted by President Carter, as explained below, she became a non-violent political activist, and a potent symbol of Puerto Rican desire for fair treatment by the U.S. and of the desire of some of us for an independent island nation.
Lebrón reportedly became politically aware and active as a result of the Masacre de Ponce (Ponce Massacre), which I describe in my book: “on Palm Sunday, March 31, 1937, the pro-independence Puerto Rican Nationalist Party marched through the streets of Ponce. The mayor had initially granted a permit for the march but had tried to rescind it at the last minute after Governor Blanton Winship “ordered the chief of police, Colonel Orbeta, to tell the mayor” to do so. After a shot of “undetermined origin,” the police fired into the crowd, killing nineteen people, including two policemen. “A later inquiry by the American Civil Liberties Union “concluded that there had been a ‘gross violation of civil rights and incredible police brutality.’” The incident is known in Puerto Rico as the Masacre de Ponce (Ponce Massacre). (Pedro A. Malavet, America’s Colony: The Political and Cultural Conflict between the United States and Puerto Rico at 91 (NYU Press 2007) (citing Arturo Morales-Carrión, Puerto Rico: A Cultural and Political History (New York: American Association for State and Local History, 1983)).
Lebrón took part in the attacks carried out by the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party in Washington, D.C. “The nationalists … staged two attacks in Washington, D.C., during the 1950s. Coinciding with the uprising in Puerto Rico, on November 1, 1950, nationalists “Griselio Torresola and Oscar Collazo, attempt to assassinate President Harry S. Truman at Blair House in Washington. Torresola is killed and his partner and three police officers are wounded. . . . [White House Police Officer Leslie Coffelt died of his wounds in hospital later that night.] On March 1, 1954, four . . . nationalists [Rafael Cancel Miranda, Irving Flores, Andrés Figueroa Cordero, and Lebrón] fire 30 shots from the U.S. House visitors’ gallery, wounding five congressmen.” (Id. at 92, citing “Blast Rips World Trade Center in N.Y.; 5 Dead, Hundreds Hurt,” Los Angeles Times, February 27, 1993, sec. A, 1 (includes a timeline of attacks tied to Puerto Rican nationalists)).
Lebrón was carrying a weapon but fired only one shot into the air before displaying a Puerto Rican flag and reportedly yelling that she had not come to kill anyone, but rather to die for Puerto Rico that day. I am glad that she lived and had the opportunity to die in her own country, even if it is not yet free.
Emma Brown wrote for the Washington Post:
Lolita Lebron, a Puerto Rican nationalist known to some as a terrorist and to others as a near-mythic freedom fighter for her violent attack on the U.S. Capitol more than a half-century ago, died Aug. 1 at a hospital in San Juan of complications from respiratory disease. She was 90.
Ms. Lebron was called both fanatical and fearless for her efforts to draw attention to the cause of independence for her home island, claimed by the United States as spoils after the Spanish-American War and made an American commonwealth in 1952.
LeBron bought a ticket from New York to Washington on March 1, 1954. She and three fellow nationalists lunched at Union Station and then walked to the Capitol. They made their way to the House gallery. A security guard asked whether they were carrying cameras; they were not.
But they did have pistols. And in a crusade for Puerto Rico’s independence that Ms. Lebron saw as no different from the uprising by America’s 13 colonies against England in the 18th century, the four nationalists opened fire in the House chambers as more than 240 members of Congress debated an immigration bill.
“Viva Puerto Rico libre!” Ms. Lebron screamed. Chaos swirled as she unfurled a Puerto Rican flag. Five congressmen were struck by bullets, including 35-year-old Alvin Bentley, a Republican from Michigan who was hit in the chest.
Rep. James Van Zandt (R-Pa.) and a gallery spectator managed to wrestle away the assailants’ guns. Arrested and handcuffed, the four nationalists were photographed outside the Capitol in an image splashed across newspaper front pages.
In the photograph, a striking Ms. Lebron wears a set jaw and a stylish skirt and jacket. She had expected to die that day, and police found a note in her purse along with a tube of lipstick and Bromo-Seltzer pills.
“My life I give for the freedom of my country,” the note read. “The United States of America are betraying the sacred principles of mankind in their continuous subjugation of my country.”
‘I am a revolutionary’
The shooting and its aftermath captivated Washington for weeks. Ms. Lebron and her fellow attackers had unleashed 29 bullets, leaving scars still visible at the Capitol, but none of the five injured congressmen died.
Ms. Lebron sat quietly during most of the trial, breaking her silence to tell the jury in a fiery 20-minute speech that she was “being crucified for the freedom of my country.” She was sentenced to more than 50 years in prison.
In a move widely suspected to have been part of a prisoner swap to release CIA agents jailed in Cuba, President Jimmy Carter granted clemency to Ms. Lebron, two of her co-conspirators and a nationalist who had tried to kill President Harry S. Truman.
Released in 1979 after serving 25 years in prison, Ms. Lebron embarked on a tour of Puerto Rican population centers in the United States. She was also received in Havana as a guest of President Fidel Castro.
The attack came four years after a failed attempt by Puerto Rican nationalists to assassinate Truman. It gave Ms. Lebron a place among the most famous of Latin American revolutionary figures, including Che Guevara and Pancho Villa.
“I am a revolutionary,” she said at the time. “I hate bombs, but we might have to use them.”
Lolita Lebron was born Nov. 19, 1919, in Lares, a Puerto Rican village where, in 1868, local men rose up against Spanish colonists in a legendary rebellion known as El Grito de Lares, “the cry of Lares.”
Her father was a coffee farmer and her mother was a homemaker. Ms. Lebron, crowned “Queen of the Flowers of May” as a teenager, left Puerto Rico for a better life in New York in 1940. She left behind a baby daughter, who later died. Ms. Lebron’s granddaughter is writer Irene Vilar. A complete list of survivors could not be confirmed.
Working as a seamstress in the garment district, Ms. Lebron lived in grinding poverty and found herself the object of racial discrimination. “They told me it was a paradise,” Ms. Lebron said in a Washington Post interview in 2004. “This was no paradise.”
She began corresponding with Harvard-educated Puerto Rican nationalist Pedro Albizu Campos after he was jailed for his part in the 1950 plot against Truman. Albizu Campos reputedly tapped Ms. Lebron to lead the siege against Congress as a last-ditch effort for independence.
Ms. Lebron in turn inspired other nationalists to violence. Between 1974 and 1983, Puerto Rico’s Armed Forces of National Liberation set off dozens of bombs in Chicago and New York, killing six people and injuring more than 100.
But the independence movement did not gain momentum in Puerto Rico. When voters were asked in 1998 whether they wanted the island to become a state or an independent nation or retain their semiautonomous status, the prevailing response was “none of the above.” Independence won 2.5 percent of the vote.
Renouncing violence
After returning home to Puerto Rico, Ms. Lebron became a symbol of nationalist pride. She continued to protest U.S. involvement on the island, but she renounced violence, saying her change of heart was rooted in religious revelations she had while she was in jail.
In 2001, she was arrested at age 81 while protesting the U.S. military’s use of Vieques, a neighboring Caribbean island, as a bombing range. She was sentenced to 60 days in jail for trespassing. The bombing range was later closed.
Her pledge of nonviolence was tested in 2005 when the FBI shot and killed Filiberto Ojeda Rios, the Puerto Rican leader of a paramilitary pro-independence group. Ojeda Rios was wanted in connection with the 1983 robbery of an armored-truck depot in Connecticut. As angry crowds gathered in the streets, Ms. Lebron spoke out.
“She had a tremendous impact,” Juan Manuel Garcia Passalacqua told the Chicago Tribune in 2006. “Young people were protesting in the streets, and there was talk of getting revenge. But Lolita told people, ‘No violence!’—and there was none.”
Emma Brown, A fervor for Puerto Rico's freedom led her to violent act at U.S. Capitol, The Washington Post, B-4, August 2, 2010.
See also Sara M. Justicia Doll, Lolita Lebrón se Armó por Valor por su Ideal, Primera Hora, 2 Agosto 2010.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Challenges for Cuban Family and Society: Alberto Roque on Homophobia in Cuba
Dr. Alberto Roque Guerra a medical doctor associated with the Cuban National Center for Sexual Education (Centro Nacional de Educación Sexual (CENESEX)), has recently circulated the following paper that is worth reading for those interested in the state of Cuban law, society and culture with respect to the rights and assimilation of sexual minorities in Cuba:
Silencio y homofobia en Cuba, dos males de nuestro tiempo
Por: Alberto Roque Guerra
La sexualidad es parte de la personalidad de cada ser humano y se construye mediante complejos procesos que operan a nivel consciente e inconscientemente en la medida en que nos desarrollamos como personas. De forma ideal, dicha construcción debiera interactuar con otros aspectos de forma armónica y enriquecedora del desarrollo de la personalidad. La diversidad es el denominador común en su expresión, independientemente de los preceptos morales, culturales y religiosos de cada sociedad. Sin embargo, desde edades muy tempranas, las expresiones de la sexualidad humana se convierten en rehén de los mencionados preceptos; cada ser humano tendrá que ajustarse a una normativa rígida enmarcada en lo que hemos identificado como género.
Nuestras identidades sexuales y el significado de nuestros cuerpos sólo tienen cabida en las normas heterosexistas (heteronormatividad), basadas en relaciones de poder, donde lo masculino heterosexual dispone y manda, y predetermina una dicotomía entre lo masculino y lo femenino. El resto de las diversas expresiones han sido negadas, estigmatizadas, violentadas, cercenadas y excluidas predominantemente a lo largo de la historia de la humanidad. Muchas, incluyendo a la sexualidad femenina heterosexual, se han visto obligadas a la expresión silenciosa, al confinamiento de lo privado.
Recluir las expresiones de la sexualidad al espacio privado es un acto cruel que limita la libertad plena de las personas. Es una violación y una negación al disfrute pleno de los derechos sexuales que todo ser humano tiene desde el momento de su nacimiento. Es igualmente grave la negación o la disimulación de la discriminación basada en la orientación sexual o la identidad de género de las personas.
El silencio es un arma contra toda expresión “diferente” a las normas socialmente impuestas, es en esencia discriminatorio y excluyente. Resulta llamativo y nada nuevo cómo se combinan en nuestra sociedad cubana contemporánea la homofobia y el silencio. Semejante asociación representa también un peligro equiparable a la homofobia basada en la agresión física o verbal.
Coincido con muchas personas en que hemos transitado favorablemente por un largo proceso de asimilación de las nuevas interpretaciones de las ciencias referentes a la sexualidad. Dentro los dinámicos y radicales cambios que se produjeron en las primeras décadas de la Revolución cubana se reconocieron los derechos plenos de las mujeres y se cuestionaron las bases de poder patriarcal en su relación con las mujeres cubanas heterosexuales. Sin embargo, el machismo, sinónimo de poder patriarcal, no se ha erosionado lo suficiente; sus fundamentos siguen intactos. Las y los defensores de su poder se atribuyeron el derecho supremo a aplicar y a apoyar políticas discriminatorias hacia las personas homosexuales durante las primeras tres décadas de la Revolución cubana.
Afortunadamente, esta contradicción con el sentido humanista y de igualdad de la Revolución, ha sido superada en gran medida en la actualidad. Ejemplos de ello es la despenalización de la homosexualidad desde 1997, la inclusión del trabajo con mujeres lesbianas y bisexuales en la Federación de Mujeres Cubanas (FMC) y los avances innegables en la atención integral a las personas transexuales, por mencionar sólo algunos.
La educación sexual en Cuba ha contribuido a lo que denomino erosión del poder patriarcal. En la actualidad, el Programa Nacional de Educación Sexual incluye un enfoque de género, que desarticula el enfoque binario (masculino y femenino) imperante en nuestra sociedad, además de incluir los temas relacionados con la diversidad sexual. Sin embargo, los prejuicios no superados de los decisores en el área de la educación cubana limitan su aplicación de forma transversal en todos los niveles de enseñanza.
La Campaña por el Respeto a la Libre y Responsable Orientación Sexual ha desencadenado un incipiente debate sin precedentes en la historia de la Nación. Entre las opiniones contrarias más destacables tenemos la que denuncia “una homosexualización de la sociedad cubana que condiciona la conducta homosexual en los niños”. La obnubilación mental que produce los prejuicios homofóbicos no les permite apreciar que la mencionada campaña sólo persigue educar en el respeto y la igualdad entre los seres humanos. Su esencia incluye la validez de todas las expresiones sexuales, incluyendo la heterosexual y las expresiones transgéneros. Sus objetivos apelan al pleno reconocimiento de la igualdad y la no discriminación como principios fundamentales de los derechos humanos.
En un medio de prensa digital cubano leí un artículo titulado “Homofobia no, respeto” donde su autor, Jesús Mena Aragón, apela al silencio de la homosexualidad como expresión de respeto y minimiza, en un tono casi pueril, los efectos de la homofobia en Cuba. El autor no parece advertir, desde su limitada visión, que las personas homosexuales y transgéneros en Cuba estamos en “desventaja social” en relación al resto de la población cubana. El texto entre comillas no es mío, lo sugirió un oficial de la Policía Nacional Revolucionaria en una pregunta que me realizara durante una actividad de capacitación. Me limitaré solamente a expresar en este texto algunas de los desafíos sociales que enfrentamos:
· Las parejas del mismo sexo no tenemos reconocimiento legal, por lo que se limita los derechos patrimoniales de uniones amorosas legítimas y el derecho a la adopción bajo argumentos no demostrados por evidencias científicas y sí legitimados por los prejuicios.
· Imposibilidad de contraer matrimonio, construcción en mi opinión heterosexista y de demostrados orígenes religiosos, pero importante para muchas personas homosexuales y transgéneros.
· Imposibilidad de mostrar afectos en público, aun cuando no está penalizado por la Ley.
· Imposibilidad de las parejas lesbianas de tener acceso a las técnicas de reproducción asistida.
· Limitación para ocupar altas responsabilidades políticas y sociales. Salvo honrosas excepciones, y de no estar explicitado en ningún reglamento o Ley, en la práctica se aplica con impunidad.
· Imposibilidad de pertenecer a cualquier cuerpo armado de la nación y silenciamiento de las expresiones sexuales diferentes a la heterosexualidad en los miembros de sus filas.
· Prejuicio generalizado dentro de las filas de Partido y de la Juventud Comunista de que la homosexualidad no es compatible con los principios de la moral socialista. Afortunadamente en este aspecto hemos avanzado, pero mientras no se permita el ingreso de personas transgéneros (travestis y transexuales) y no se explicite en los estatutos y reglamentos la no discriminación por estos motivos, seguirá siendo discriminatorio. Muestras de ello son los avances en los temas de la religión y en la eliminación de las medidas que sancionaban a los miembros del Partido que “perdonaban el engaño amoroso de sus esposas” (a las mujeres militantes engañadas por sus esposos raras veces se les aplicaban medidas disciplinarias cuando optaban por el perdón).
· Violencia verbal y física en las escuelas hacia los niños y niñas con expresiones de género no coincidentes con su sexo biológico (asignado al nacer).
· Imposibilidad de las personas transgéneros de acceder al empleo y la educación superior al vestirse con ropas diferentes a las del género en sus documentos de identidad. La discriminación laboral hacia las personas homosexuales se practica de forma más sutil, ej. burlas, comentarios, acoso laboral o imposibilidad para ocupar cargos administrativos o a ser promovidas o promovidos.
· Reconocimiento de la identidad de género de las personas transexuales y de sus derechos sexuales, sólo cuando sean sometidas a una cirugía de reasignación sexual.
· Asedio policial hacia las personas homosexuales y transgéneros en sitios públicos.
· Acceso a algunos sitios de recreación por parejas, solo se permiten de hombre y mujer, nunca del mismo sexo o en solitario. Por más que me esfuerzo, no le encuentro la lógica a semejante medida de las administraciones en un país que desterró para siempre los clubes y espacios exclusivos para ricos y que cuenta con tan pocos sitios para el recreo y el esparcimiento.
Es esencial entonces romper el silencio y promover el debate sobre estos temas. Es imprescindible visualizar la homofobia y sacarla definitivamente de nuestras mentes. Es también importante que se garantice la plena expresión de las sexualidades diferentes a la heterosexualidad y la inclusión de estas garantías sociales en las políticas de nuestro país. Debieran incluirse de forma explícita en nuestro código penal leyes que condenen la discriminación basada en la orientación sexual y la identidad de género, así como el reconocimiento pleno de otros modelos válidos de familia –no solo la familia nuclear o heteroparental- en las leyes civiles.
Cómo se puede apreciar, tenemos mucho que trabajar y que avanzar en el respeto y reconocimiento de estos derechos. Contrario a lo que plantea Mena Aragón en su artículo, el alcance de la Campaña es aún insuficiente y el debate no ha tomado la intensidad ni la profundidad necesarias.
Considero además que estos temas de alcance social, que también incluye la lucha contra la discriminación racial y de la mujer, deben tener tanta prioridad como los desafíos políticos y económicos que enfrenta la Nación. Retrasarlos o postergarlos es un acto de injusticia y se volverá contra nosotros mismos.
For those interested in following these issues, Dr. Roque Guerra maintains a blogs worth reviewing, La diversidad es natural and http://aroqueg.blogspot.com/ (a space to debate issues of sexuality and sexual diversity). For remarks in English and Spanish, see, Dr. Alberto Roque Guerra, Challenges to the Cuban Family and Society, May 16, 2010, Remarks given at the opening of the panel on the family and society during the observation of World Anti-Homophobia Day, 2010 (A CubaNews translation. Edited by Walter Lippmann).
A "TAKE OUR JOBS" Reminder
Arizona's ill-advised anti-Brown SB 1070 legislation is difficult to distinguish from the increasing hate bias actions across the nation that are facing our Latina/o communities and others impacted by immigration driven policies. By its actions Arizona is collapsing broad based immigration complexities into narrow minded approaches as to who is "permitted" in the nation. (Hmmm in a state with a large Indigenous population and others causes me to ask whether anyone has seen the purported "citizenship" credentials of those who promulgated SB 1070?).
To underscore the madness of SB1070 and the broad scope of bias it is engendering against all of us, an attorney with the New York based Center for Constitutional Rights was arrested while serving as an observer during the protests against SB1070. She along with the other attorneys were wearing hats and T-shirts that identified them as legal observers. Local attorney Antonio Bustamante who had organized the team of thirty volunteer attorneys stated: "she didn't intend to get arrested. . . I don't know why it happened. Maybe because they can't read." Whether or not they can read reveals that the State is doing all it can to diminish the health and safety of its residents by its promotion of racially biased legislation.
At this juncture one more emphasis is obligated. It is not difficult to surmise that Arizona's anti-immigration campaign is intending to drive out all individuals who appear "foreign sounding" or "foreign looking." Accordingly, this post serves as a reminder. Specifically, during the winter seasons California farmworkers head to Arizona to harvest its lettuce and other crops. If the State continues in its rabid race-based approach even where it lacks jurisdiction area farmers will face labor shortages. Why? Because anyone coming in the cross hairs of a state that refuses to acknowledge its jurisdictional limitations shows we can trust that no one will be safe from questioning "where are your papers" from officials lacking immigration training thereby causing many to probably flee the State.
To prepare the State all interested parties who argue that immigrants take their jobs are greatly encouraged to help out the region's owner operators of key food commodities. They are always crying the blues over the lack of domestic based workers. To apply applications can be pulled from the United Farm Workers "TAKE OUR JOBS" campaign site available at http://www.takeourjobs.org. Reference also Professor Steve Bender's July post on the Campaign with specifics on the nature of agricultural employment.
In the meantime be forewarned! The legislative framework of agricultural employment is tethered to ancient 1930s legislation that offers very few protections for those working in the fields or in agriculture generally. (see the National Labor Relations Act).
So if hired don't forget to take with you plenty of water, a portable potty, a first aid kit and if possible a cell phone. Why a cell phone? Well while a good sturdy hat is also in order it can only do so much against the heat and in the case of heat stroke the nearest hospital will be miles away from the fields. A good cell phone could come in handy with calling for assistance---something sorely lacking when seventeen year old Maria Isabel Vasquez Jimenez lost her life to heat stroke while employed in a California field. (Reference the http:www.ufw.org website).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
