Is Cuba Abandoning Its Revolutionary Marxist Economic System?

For years now the writing has been on the wall. Over the last decade two great factions within the Cuban governing elite have been debating the future course of Cuban economic development.  On the one side stood the governing apparatus of traditionalists tied to the old Soviet model of development.  This group assumed there was no flaw in the Soviet model and they were determined to show that they could succeed where the Soviet sphere failed.  On the other stood progressives, with significant elements in the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias, that increasingly looked to East Asian models of development as a means of preserving the political system while modifying the economic system to preserve political stability and the legitimacy of the leadership role of the Party.  The battle between the two sectors of the governing elite appeared to tip in favor of the Raulistas at the beginning of September, 2010, when in a carefully staged interview, Fidel Castro appeared to concede the point. And so it is important to ask, at this point, what the Cuban elite is permitting to be said about this change.  For that purpose, a recent article in the Communist Party paper may be of help. Leticia Martínez Hernández, Mucho más que una alternativa, Granma, Sept. 24, 2010.

To read the rest of the analysis, see Cuba Responds to Globalization and Reorganizes its Political Economy: Revolution, Retrenchment or Small Steps Towards Market Engagement Within a Marxist Framework Under the Leadership of a Vanguard Party Apparatus.

The U.S. Census and The List

The United States census is critically important for a number of broad and varied reasons. On top of attempting to enumerate the population of the United States, the Census also provides extensive economic data. In the best of situations the Census mobilizes beneficial changes but in one instance its data fails in drawing sufficient bold and transformative trajectories.

In particular recent data shows poverty figures are increasing and reveal a measure of past failed policies in eliminating poverty in the nation. Past measures include for example linking the nation’s farm bills with food stamps but we all know not all hungry individuals are permitted food stamps. Honestly when the USDA changed the term “hungry” and replaced it with “food insufficiency” unnecessary battle lines generated further angst for activists seeking to eliminate the hunger that plagues the most vulnerable such as the elderly and children.

While not one individual -- particularly children -- should ever confront poverty and hunger, the figures underscore an essential emphasis. Specifically poverty and its attendant harm crosses race, class and gendered lines, yet the recent news of poverty in the Latina/o community dismays. The total figures emphasize that all such circumstances must be eliminated completely from the nation. Any ideas?

I have a list but as a start poverty with its attendant harm renders imperative our continued and collective vigilance in eradicating all heinous impoverishment figures from the nation’s economic base.

In celebration of Constitution Day!

Yesterday was Constitution Day, the day we celebrate the signing of the U.S. Constitution. To highlight how the Equal Protection clause of U.S. Constitution applies to noncitizens, I authored an op-ed in my local newspaper, the Indianapolis Star. I include it below with the link to the newspaper site at the bottom. The comments to the op-ed in the site make for very interesting reading.

U.S. Constitution extends protection to immigrants
By Maria Pabon Lopez
Indianapolis Star September 17, 2010

As we celebrate today the 223rd anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution, which took place on Sept. 17, 1787, let us understand what the Constitution says about immigrants. In doing so, an examination of U.S. Supreme Court case law about immigrants and equality is instructive as well, having just ended a long summer during which the immigration debate has been raging nationwide.
I believe that a close look at the Constitution -- particularly its amendments, having over time been ratified by the states -- demonstrates the will and wisdom of the people of the United States. Take, for example, the 14th Amendment, which in Section One, Clause Two states: ". . . nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This is the Equal Protection Clause, and it mandates that the government -- both federal and state -- treat persons equally when enacting legislation. If the government treats persons unequally, the Supreme Court has devised analytical tests based on the government's reason for passing the law in order to assess whether the law complies with the Equal Protection Clause.
Notice that the clause specifically says "person," not "citizen." What this means is that the equality promise of the Equal Protection clause is available by its very terms not only to citizens of this country, but to any person, including those who are not U.S. citizens, as long as they are within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Supreme Court itself has recognized that immigrants are persons in cases that further outline what rights immigrants have in the United States.
In fact, the Supreme Court has confirmed the applicability of the Equal Protection Clause to those who are not U.S. citizens, whether they are present in the country in lawful immigration status or even if they are undocumented. The case is called Plyler v. Doe, and it is a 1982 decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that excluded children of undocumented immigrants from public schools. The court found that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause without having any rational basis for so doing.
In reaching this result in Plyler, the Supreme Court delved into the history of the enactment of the 14th Amendment. In particular, the court cited language from the 1866 congressional debate recorded at the time of passage of the Amendment as follows: "Is it not essential to the unity of the Government and the unity of the people that all persons, whether citizens or strangers, within this land, shall have equal protection in every State in this Union in the rights of life and liberty and property?'' These are the words of John Bingham, Republican congressman from Ohio, the principal framer of the 14th Amendment. So we see that the Supreme Court found not only in the letter, but also in the history, of the 14th Amendment that the guarantee of equal protection under the law applies to all persons, immigrants or citizens, in the United States.
Having reviewed the history of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court emphasized "that a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter." Thus, the court found that the 14th Amendment applies to those in the country unlawfully.
With this review of the past and present of the 14th Amendment, it is my hope that as the country continues to debate immigration matters into the fall, we will approach the discussion with a fuller understanding of the equality guarantee found in this amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20100917/OPINION01/9170321/1031/OPINION01/U-S-Constitution-extends-protection-to-immigrants

Arizona's Immigration Stance in a Regional Perspective--Mexico Builds a Wall to Keep Central American "Ilegales" Out

The thrust of discussion of Arizona's efforts to participate in the control of its internal space, and in the process challenge the federal government's role in the policing of national borders and the management of immigration,  has tended to focus solely on Arizona, as if it existed in its own space-time unconnected with the rest of the world--and especially the world beyond American borders.   As ill advised and destructive as Arizona's efforts are, they are better understood in the context of regional efforts to control immigration.  

A principal actor in the region is not the United States, but Mexico.  It appears that Mexico is fierce in the defense of its own nationals as they cross the border northward into the United States.  However, Mexico is perhaps even more fierce than the United States right wing in the defense of its own national borders against immigration from its "south"--especially migrants from Central America, either seeking a better life in Mexico or passing through to the United States.  For these people, Mexico's elite sometimes tends to mimic the behaviors and politics of the more xenophobic of elements int he United States. Mexico thus occupies a middle place within hierarchies of power--the subaltern in its relations with the United States, and the dominant power with respect to its Central American neighbors.  And, like any dominant power, Mexico appears ready and willing to reproduce the markers of subordinating power relationships between itself and those states lower down on the hierarchies of power in the Hemisphere.  Whether it does this out of a need to serve the interests of the United States, to which it is dependent, or whether it represents the application of the ideals of power relations applied to inferior powers, is unclear. 

Now clearly, Mexico's policies are as much a reaction to that of the United States as it may be a reflection of Mexican xenophobia in the region.  Yet Mexico's enthusiasm for tactics that  would be scandalous in the United States and among Latino advocates, is disturbing.  Amnesty International has criticized Mexico for its treatment of its undocumented migrant populations.  Amnesty International, Report:  Invisible Victims: Migrants on the Move in Mexico, AMR 41/014/2010, published April 28, 2010. The Report is also available in Spanish as: VÍCTIMAS INVISIBLES MIGRANTES EN MOVIMIENTO EN MÉXICO  

And now it has been reported that the Mexican government is contemplating mimicking the United States in another way--by the building of a partition wall between Mexico and Guatemala.  This wall is meant ostensibly to control the flow of goods through Mexico, but also has an objective to  control the free passage of illegal immigrants, according to officials (who interestingly had no problem using the term in Spanish). This proposed effort has been denounced by Mexican human rights and civil society advocates.

MIGRACIONES-AMÉRICA LATINA: Otro muro en la ruta a EEUU
Por Danilo Valladares

GUATEMALA, sep (IPS) - Viajar sin documentos a Estados Unidos desde América Latina supone una verdadera odisea, eludiendo delincuentes comunes, leyes contra las migraciones y narcotraficantes. Pero ahora, además, parece que también habrá que sortear un nuevo muro: esta vez entre Guatemala y México.
El intendente de aduanas de la guatemalteca Superintendencia de Administración Tributaria, Raúl Díaz, afirmó que, para impedir el paso de balseros con contrabando, el sureño estado mexicano de Chiapas pretende construir un muro en la costa del fronterizo río Suchiate, similar al ya avanzado en la frontera sur de Estados Unidos.
"Podría también evitar el libre paso de inmigrantes ilegales", admitió el funcionario.
El río Suchiate es utilizado para ingresar productos mexicanos al mercado guatemalteco sin pagar impuestos, pero, a su vez, es atravesado por miles de centroamericanos y sudamericanos con destino a Estados Unidos en busca de oportunidades y sin la documentación requerida.
Unas 500.000 emigrantes cruzan cada año el territorio mexicano sin permiso, según la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos de México (CNDH).
La intención de construir el muro fronterizo ha provocado una ola de rechazo en sectores sociales y gubernamentales por considerarlo una medida "sin sentido", la cual "no evitará" que las personas crucen la frontera "sin papeles" para llegar al Norte.
"Vemos con mucha preocupación la iniciativa del gobierno mexicano, porque los emigrantes están en una situación de altísima vulnerabilidad, como lo demostró la matanza de Tamaulipas, donde murieron cinco guatemaltecos", dijo a IPS Erick Maldonado, secretario ejecutivo de la Consejo Nacional de Atención al Migrante de Guatemala.
La crueldad a la que usualmente son sometidos miles de indocumentados quedó al desnudo el 23 de agosto, cuando 72 emigrantes procedentes, además de Guatemala, de El Salvador, Honduras, Ecuador y Brasil fueron brutalmente asesinados en la localidad de San Fernando, en el oriental estado de Tamaulipas, supuestamente a manos de la mafia criminal Los Zetas.
Además, un total de 9.758 secuestros de inmigrantes fueron denunciados en México entre septiembre de 2008 y febrero de 2009, según la CNDH.
La idea de amurallar la frontera guatemalteca con México "va a empeorar la situación de la población emigrante, porque nuestros connacionales tienen necesidades y siempre logran pasar en nuevos puntos ciegos que carecen de controles migratorios y de seguridad, lo cual implica mayores riesgos", señaló Maldonado.
La vulnerabilidad de la población latinoamericana, principalmente de América Central, que emigra "sin papeles" a Estados Unidos ha permanecido a flote en los últimos meses no sólo por el recrudecimiento de la violencia plasmada en la matanza de Tamaulipas, sino también por las medidas legales en su contra.
Tal es el caso de la ley SB1070, promulgada el 23 de abril por el sudoccidental estado estadounidense de Arizona, la cual autoriza a la policía a capturar a cualquier persona de la que tengan una "sospecha razonable" sobre su estatus migratorio.
A esta serie de barreras a la inmigración se ha sumado la construcción del muro en la frontera de México y Guatemala.
Sin embargo, las autoridades de Guatemala no han recibido hasta ahora ninguna comunicación del gobierno mexicano al respecto.
No obstante, Maldonado expresó el lunes su preocupación por esta medida al delegado mexicano de migración en el país, Alejandro Martínez.
El rechazo al proyecto llegó incluso a Casa Presidencial. "Los muros nos los saltamos y no son la solución a los problemas", dijo escuetamente sobre el asunto el vicepresidente de Guatemala, Rafael Espada.
La intención del estado de Chiapas trajo a colación la polémica construcción del muro perimetral de 1.126 kilómetros que bordea el río Bravo que realiza Estados Unidos en su frontera con México para contener la llegada de indocumentados.
"El aumento terrible del costo de polleros (traficantes de personas) y la corrupción de las autoridades es el fruto de los muros que Estados Unidos pretende construir y ha construido en la frontera. Este caso lo podemos trasladar en esta situación y los resultados serán los mismos", dijo a IPS el sacerdote Francisco Pellizari, de la Casa del Migrante.
Según el religioso, los muros son un "error histórico" de varios países en el mundo que no han ayudado a resolver las migraciones.
"Se supone que es para detener la migración pero eso no ha dado resultado y sí ha provocado un derrame económico y el desvío del flujo migratorio por caminos más inhóspitos que provocan miles de muertes", señaló.
Erick Zúñiga, alcalde del occidental municipio de Ayutla, más conocido como Tecún Umán, fronterizo con México, dijo a IPS que el estado de Chiapas ya comenzó con la construcción de la barrera, la cual "parece un muro para evitar que el río Suchiate se desborde".
En todo caso, "ningún muro impedirá las migraciones. Eso no impedirá que las personas pasen al otro lado porque la gente va en busca de oportunidades de empleo y un futuro para su familia", explicó.(FIN/2010).  Danilo Valladores, Migraciones-América Latina: Otro Muro en la ruta a EEUU, Visiones de IPS (Inter Press Service) (Sept. 15, 2010).

English Version:

GUATEMALA CITY, Sep 15 , 2010 (IPS) - Travelling without documents to the United States from Latin America can turn into an odyssey, in which migrants have to elude common criminals and drug traffickers along the way, not to mention the laws on migration. But now another obstacle is emerging: a wall between Guatemala and Mexico.

According to the head of customs for Mexico's tax administration, Raúl Díaz, in order to stop boats carrying contraband, the southern Mexican state of Chiapas is building a wall along the border river Suchiate, similar to the one the United States is building along its southern border with Mexico.

"It could also prevent the free passage of illegal immigrants," admitted the Mexican official.

Smugglers use the Suchiate River to move products across an international border without paying duty taxes, but at the same time, thousands of Central and South Americans cross the river in their attempts to reach the United States in search of opportunity -- and without the required documents.

Some 500,000 migrants cross Mexican territory without permission each year, according to Mexico's National Commission on Human Rights (CNDH).

The intention to build a border wall has triggered a wave of opposition from civil society and government organisations, with charges that it is a "senseless" measure that will not succeed in preventing undocumented migrants from crossing the border on their way north.

"We are watching the Mexican government's initiative with concern because the migrants are in a situation of highest vulnerability, as demonstrated by the massacre in Tamaulipas, where five Guatemalans died," Erick Maldonado, executive secretary of Guatemala's National Council on Migrants, told IPS.

The cruelty to which undocumented migrants are often subjected was laid bare Aug. 23, when 72 people coming from Guatemala, as well as El Salvador, Honduras, Ecuador and Brazil, were brutally murdered in San Fernando, a town in the eastern Mexican state of Tamaulipas. They were presumably killed by the Los Zetas drug cartel, which is also involved in kidnapping and exploiting migrants.

In addition, a total of 9,758 kidnappings of migrants were reported in Mexico from September 2008 to February 2009, according to the CNDH.

Putting up a wall on the Guatemala-Mexico border "is going to make the migrants' situation worse, because to meet their needs they are always going to find blind points where there are no migration or security controls, which implies greater risks," said Maldonado.

The vulnerability of the Latin Americans, and especially Central Americans, who emigrate "without papers" to the United States has remained at the forefront in recent months, not only because of intense violence like the Tamaulipas massacre, but also because of government measures taken to fight illegal migration.

Law SB1070, enacted Apr. 23 by the southwestern U.S. state of Arizona, authorises police to inquire into the immigration status of any person based on "reasonable suspicion." Critics say the legislation leads to racial profiling and violations of civil liberties.

The long line of obstacles that migrants face on their way to the United States gets longer with the construction of the wall on the Mexico-Guatemala border.

However, the authorities in Guatemala have yet to receive any information from the Mexican government about the wall.

Nevertheless, Maldonado expressed his concern this week to Mexico's migration representative in Guatemala, Alejandro Martínez.

Opposition to the project has even reached the highest circles: "Walls we can jump over; they are not a solution to the problem," was the terse comment from the vice-president of Guatemala, Rafael Espada.

The Chiapas state's intention to build a wall in some ways echoes the United States' controversial construction of the 1,126-kilometre wall along its southern border river -- known as Río Grande in the U.S.; Río Bravo in Mexico -- to prevent entry of undocumented immigrants.

"The dramatic increase in the cost of 'polleros' (human traffickers) and the corruption of the authorities is the result of the walls the United States plans to build and has built along the border. We can transpose the Guatemala case to this situation and the results will be the same," Catholic priest Francisco Pellizari, of the Casa del Migrante (Migrant House), told IPS.

According to the priest, walls are a "historic error" in many countries around the world, and have failed to resolve the problems associated with migration.

"They are supposedly intended to halt migration, but that hasn't happened. Instead they have triggered an economic haemorrhage and a shift in the migratory flow to inhospitable routes that lead to thousands of deaths," he said.

Erick Zúñiga, mayor of the western Guatemalan municipality of Ayutla, better known as Tecún Umán, bordering Mexico, said the state of Chiapas has already begun construction of the barrier, which he said "looks like a wall to prevent the Suchiate River from flooding."

In any case, said the mayor, "no wall will prevent migration. It won't stop people from crossing because they are going in search of job opportunities and a future for their families." (END)   Danilo Valladores, Another Wall Blocks Route to US, Visiones de IPS (Inter Press Service) (Sept. 15, 2010).

The report suggests the contours of the problem and even its relation ship to Hemispheric issues of drug interdiction and trade flow management.  All of these lead inevitably to the United States and through Mexico.  It is possible that Mexico must adopt the approach to these policy issues that reproduce precisely those activities which, when undertaken by the United States, produces the greatest outrage within the Mexican elite.  Apparently that elite is doping more than seeking to  dismantle those barriers to migration and trade that separate Mexico from the United States--for while that project of deconstruction is being undertaken, a project of barriers is being constructed on Mexico's southern border every bit as restrictive and aggressive as the one with respect to which Mexico complains in its own and in the American press. Understood in this more regional context, the difficulties of campaigns against Arizona's efforts to impede migration in and through its own borders become clearer.  Those who join with Mexico and other elements in the dismantling of barriers to movement between states ought to be aware that selective spot lighting, while producing some measurable benefits may not ultimately produce substantive results and might, to some extent, produce perverse results. 

Ashcroft v.Iqbal Takes a Toll in SB 1070 Litigation

I earlier blogged that the U.S. Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal has established a tough new pleading standard -- the plausibility standard. I said then that Latinos/as and other minorities would find it difficult to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim and thereby satisfy the new standard. This has come to pass in the SB 1070 cases. In Escobar v. Brewer, the plaintiff, a Latino police officer, alleged among other things, that he had standing to bring the legal action because "as a Hispanic residing in Arizona" he was "exposed to all the dangers that [SB 1070] presents." Despite this, the district court dismissed the case for failing to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim. The court's opinion is here: (http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_083110_EscobarVsBrewerOrderGrantingBrewerMtD.pdf).

America's Toughest President?

Last week I blogged about the federal Department of Justice lawsuit against Sheriff Joe. Since then, speculation has emerged whether Arizona’s iconic lawman plans a run in the 2012 presidential race. Over the weekend he addressed a Republican committee in New Hampshire as a lunch keynote speaker, sparking the rumor.

Candidates who build their campaigns around hate for immigrants have found some isolated success at the local level, as well as in some state races such as Pete Wilson’s reelection in California in 1994 built around his support for Proposition 187. But at the national level, at least, their campaigns have fizzled. Just ask Pat “we need an immigration time-out” Buchanan and Tom “defend the border against undocumented immigrant terrorists” Tancredo. I worry, though, about the appeal to the Fox-entranced masses of something like a Palin/Arpaio ticket. Watching most media these days gives the impression that we are under siege from criminal immigrants, who arrive with backpacks stuffed with illegal drugs to exploit our wealth and public services, while beheading the rich and dumping their bodies in the desert. The reality that many of us have detailed is that the undocumented immigrants are the ones exploited in labor at the margins of society. U.S. border cities are among our safest cities despite, and probably because of, the immigrant influx. And in Oregon, where anti-immigrant sentiment is blossoming, crime statistics released today by the FBI show violent crime here has dropped to the lowest rate since 1969, with property crime down to 1966 levels.

We don’t need the prison culture that Arpaio would bring to any public office. Rather, we need better funded schools and meaningful job growth and economic opportunity. Joe, we don’t need your bloated ego in the White House or anywhere inside or near the Beltway. You’ve got plenty to do in Maricopa County chasing down Jan Brewer’s incessant phantoms and delusions.

Lozano et al. v. City of Hazleton: Another Blow to Local Regulation of Undocumented Persons

On September 9, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit issues its long anticipated opinion in Lozano et al., v. City of Hazleton, Case 07-3531(appeal from the Middle District of Pennsylvania). The opinion, written by Chief Judge McKee (on a panel with Judges Nygaard and Siler (Sr. Judge, 6th Cir., sitting by designation))  is worth careful consideration in its own right, but it may be as valuable for pointing to a possible resolution in state efforts, like those of Arizona, to regulate undocumented workers and others.  The local regulations at issue related to employment and housing.  For an insightful analysis, see Professor Ruthann Robson's posting at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Third Circuit Declares Hazelton Immigration Ordinances Unconstitutional (Sept. 9, 2010).  I suspect we have not heard the last of this case.  It may well provide a useful vehicle for a revision of the  law of preemption, which itself might now serve as the battlefield for conflicts over the extent of state power and the nature and structural limits of federalism.