By José de la Isla

HOUSTON — My friend Alice called while she had several hours’ layover, awaiting processing before returning to Iraq. The civilian contract worker was home on leave but is now returning.

She wanted to tell me how upset she was about Arizona. In her monologue, she had tales to tell about regional U.S. attitudes showing up in the conflict zone and how Bosnians  who are Muslims, staunch allies and contract workers  know to push back when pushed. There are stories about Filipinos who signed on for five years who will not see their families during the whole time.

She talks about her deceased mother, from a native Texan rancher family with limited English ability and her courage to speak up when that needed doing. What would she think about Arizona? How would she feel about the aspersions that she doesn’t look or sound “American” enough? It bothers Alice, and she says it will continue annoying her in Iraq.

She has to go, Alice tells me. The PA system says an assembly is about to begin before deployment.

She leaves me in mid-thought about how politics catches you. Bernard Malamud,the acclaimed author, once pronounced that to be alive is to be political. It is a hard truth to accept, especially by nice, mild-mannered apolitical people when they face astringent attitudes.

Also hard to understand is how the air for serious discussion over immigration issues got so sulfuric. The shank was already being heaved as far back as May 2006 when CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, interviewing Attorney General Alberto Gonzáles, asked: “Tell our viewers who aren’t familiar your personal story, how you got to where you are, your grandparents, your parents… I don’t know if they came here legally or illegally. But give us the story.”

Gonzáles fell into the trap. The aspersion was cast not on who Gonzáles was but who his grandparents were. He said three of his grandparents went to Texas from Mexico. Both his parents were born in Texas. But that wasn’t enough for Blitzer, who persisted: “When they came to Texas, were they legally documented, were they unlegally documented?”

Gonzáles said, “It’s unclear. It’s unclear.”

Actually it’s very clear. The Attorney General is a U.S. citizen. Otherwise, what is the CNN relevance of pursuing this questioning about a time when “docu- ments” and visas were probably not required the way they are now?

It is faintly reminiscent of the thinking that domi- nated for three centuries in the New World when a ra- cialism sought to fi nd im- pure Jewish blood among the Spanish-surnamed.

Again, the impulse is to pry into the personal, to find a “questionable” background. The purpose served is not to get an- swers but to defi ne a sus- picious class of people, then find the “legal” and “illegal” among them, as if that defi nes who’s loyal and who isn’t.

The inquisition raises the question of legitimacy, as if to ask which ones are bastards? There is also oneupsmanship here, be- cause the element of doubt feeds the suspicion. Even when someone knows the other person is licit, just by having questioned the legitimacy is to bring up an element of doubt, likely association with a disdained class, making ethnicity in a democracy matter more than respect. After all, it is all about getting the upper hand.

Even in giving, there is a lot of taking. That happened recently when Alfredo Corchado of the Dallas Morning News received the prestigious Lovejoy Award for courage in journalism for his cover- age of drug trafficking in Mexico. Twenty-one jour- nalists reporting on these stories have been murdered since 1992, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

The press release announcing the award said Corchado’s family “legally immigrated” to the United States when he was six years old.

How tasteless, unthink- ing, uncouth, demoralizing. orrected, how far will this go?

I think it’s already reached Iraq.

[José de la Isla writes a weekly commentary for Hispanic Link News Service. His 2009 digital book, sponsored by The Ford Foundation, is available free at www.Day NightLifeDeathHope.com. He is author of The Rise of Hispanic Political Power (2003). E-mail him at joseisla3@yahoo.com.

Constitutional right flies out the door

by Marti Hiken

<IT HAPPENED EARLY THIS YEAR>

The words we hear in so many movies and television shows when someone is arrested, “Read him his Miranda rights,” no longer have meaning. These rights are dead because the courts have “interpret  ed” them out of existence. Throughout our country, if you don’t say the right words during police interrogations, your rights to remain silent and to a lawyer don’t kick in. This leads to unfettered police power when any arrestee tries to protect herself in a powerless situation when confronted by the police. And in a courtroom, all your statements are admissible against you.

This is about the only phrase left to ensure that you retain your rights: “I want to remain silent. I want a lawyer.” Again, another way: “I don’t want to speak to you anymore without my lawyer being present.” It is important not to answer further questions after asserting these rights; instead, merely repeat the statement.

The reason for the Miranda warnings in the first place was that the torture and cruelty inflicted on prisoners in this country decades ago and especialy in the South, brought a public outcry. It resulted in the Miranda v. Arizona, (384 U.S. 436) decision in 1966.

In that decision, the Court attempted to strike the appropriate balance between law enforcement interests in obtaining a confession and a suspect’s Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate him- self. “….[T]he decision mandated that the suspect be informed prior to any custodial interrogation that he has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney and that no inter- rogation can occur until the suspect waives these rights. Moreover, the sus- pect can assert these rights any point during the inter- rogation and, if he does, questioning must imme- diately cease.” (Strauss, Marcy, “The Sounds of Silence: Reconsidering the Invocation of the Right to Remain Silent Under Mi- randa,” “William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal,” March 2009. In her article Strauss lists the status of the courts’ interpretations of Miranda warnings state- by-state.)

Custodial police in- terrogations can go on for hours on end and the Miranda Court “recog- nized that they were so inherently coercive as to create a presumption that a resulting confession was involuntary unless the suspect was explicitly told prior to questioning that he need not answer questions and that he had the right to consult with an attorney for advice.” (Ainsworth, Janet, “‘You have the right to remain silent…’ but only if you ask for it just so: the role of linguistic ideology in American police interro- gation law.” The Interna- tional Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, Vol. 15.1, 2008, p. 3)

The problem is that “ambiguous” statements aren’t enough, and in actuality, everything you say will be interpreted by the courts to be ambiguous other than the sentences: “I want to remain silent. I want a lawyer.” Invoking the Miranda rights means clear, unequivocal and unambiguous declarations in the interrogation room. Of course, in jail there is a power disadvantage in that the tempo, timing, and level of brutality are set by the police.

So, no hedged or indi- rect language invokes the rights.

• No theoretical comments about the availability of counsel, such as “Could I get a lawyer?” or “May I call a lawyer?”
• No language that softens the demand for a lawyer:
• “It seems like I need a lawyer.”
• No logistic questions:“Could you get me my wallet and bring my lawyer’s business card to me?”
• No imploring ambiguous language:“I don’t want to talk about it.” or “I won’t talk anymore.”
• No being and remaining silent (you must be defi nite and utter words)
• No combining demands:“Screw you, talk to my lawyer.” or “I don’t feel like I can talk with you without any attorney sitting right here to give me some legal advice.”bleaker, however, in the case Davis v. United States (1994) U.S. 452:

– “Give me a lawyer” or “I want a lawyer” are not deemed by the police or courts as kicking in your constitutional rights. (Note that wanting and requesting a lawyer is not the same thing as your right to remain silent by taking the Fifth.)

– Refusing to sign a form indicating a waiver of your rights when coupled with incriminating statements to the police does not invoke your rights. (The incriminating statements obtained by the police are proof that your rights were waived.) To state simply: Make an incriminating  statement and your rights are waived.

Underlying all of this is that judges now have no compunction regarding the role of unlimited and brutal interrogation, torture, and intimidation by the police. They also ignore the context that language plays when someone communicates in an abusive situation. Finally, the social context of the arrestee and his intentions become blurred by language. Losing our Miranda rights is simply another step in the wrong direction.

Marti Hiken is the exec- utive director of Progressive Avenues. She can be reached at mlhiken@comcast.net

by the University of Michigan

NN ARBOR, Mich.— In findings that took the experimenters three years to believe, University of Michigan engineers and their collaborators have demonstrated that light itself can twist ribbons of nanoparticles.

The results are published in the current edition of Science.

Matter readily bends and twists light. That’s the mechanism behind optical lenses and polarizing 3-D movie glasses. But the opposite interaction has rarely been observed, said Nicholas Kotov, principal investigator on the project. Kotov is a professor in the departments of Chemical Engineering, Biomedical Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering.

While light has been known to affect matter on the molecular scale, bending or twisting molecules with sizes of a few nanometers, it has not been observed causing such drastic mechanical twisting to large particles.

The nanoparticle ribbons in this study were between one and four micrometers long. A micrometer is one-mil- lionth of a meter.

“I didn’t believe it at the beginning,” Kotov said. “To be honest, it took us three and a half years to re- ally fi gure out how photons of light can lead to such a remarkable change in rigid structures a thousand times bigger than molecules.”

Kotov and his col- leagues had set out in this study to create “superchi- ral” particles—spirals of nano-scale mixed metals that could theoretically fo- cus visible light to specks smaller than its wavelength. Materials with this unique “negative refractive index could be capable of pro- ducing Klingon-like invis- ibility cloaks, said Sharon Glotzer, a professor in the departments of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering who was also involved in the experiments. The twisted nanoparticle rib- bons are likely to lead to the superchiral materials, the professors say.

To begin the experiment, the researchers dispersed nanoparticles of cadmium telluride in a water-based solution. They checked on them intermittently with powerful microscopes. After about 24 hours un- der light, the nanoparticles had assembled themselves into flat ribbons. After 72 hours, they had twisted and bunched together in the process. But when the nanoparticles were left in the dark, distinct, long, straight ribbons formed.

“We discovered that if we make fl at ribbons in the dark and then illuminate them, we see a gradual twisting, twisting that in- creases as we shine more light,” Kotov said. “This is very unusual in many ways.”

The light twists the rib- bons by causing a stronger repulsion between nanopar- ticles in it.

The twisted ribbon is a  new shape in nanotechnol-ogy, Kotov said. Besides superchiral materials, he envisions clever applica- tions for the shape and the technique of creating it.

Sudhanshu Srivastava, a postdoctoral researcher in his lab, is trying to make the spirals rotate.

“He’s making very small propellers to move through fluid—nanoscale submarines, if you will,” Kotov said. “You often see this motif of twisted structures in mobility organs of bacteria and cells.

This newly-discovered twisting effect could also lead to microelectromechanical systems that are controlled by light. And it could be utilized in lithography, or microchip production.

Glotzer, and Aaron Santos, a postdoctoral researcher in her lab, performed computer simulations that helped Kotov and his team better understand how the ribbons form. The simulations showed that under certain circumstances, the complex combination of forces between the tetrahedrally- shaped nanoparticles could conspire to produce ribbons of just the width observed in the experiments. A tetrahedron is a pyramid-shaped, three-dimensional polyhedron.

“The precise balance of forces leading to the self-assembly of ribbons is very revealing,” Glotzer said. “It could be used to stabilize other nanostructures made of non-spherical particles. It’s all about how the particles want to pack themselves.”

Letter by National Association of Hispanic Journalist

Washington — The National Association of Hispanic Journalists called on the U.S. government to reverse its decision to deny a visa to Colombian journalist Hollman Morris so he can join this fall’s class of the prestigious Nieman fellowships at Harvard University.

With this request, NAHJ joins the chorus of human rights and civil liberties organizations and fellow journalists throughout Latin American and the United States who have raised concerns about the denial of a visa for Morris. The veteran journalist, whose work has been praised by U.S. State Department officials, received the 2007 Human Rights Defender Award from Human Rights Watch.

Morris was denied a visa under the USA Patriot Act’s “terrorist activities” section. Some human rights groups question whether the Obama Administra- tion was influenced by Colombian President Al- varo Uribe’s government, a frequent target of Morris’ journalistic work. Human rights groups say Colom- bia’s intelligence agencies have started a campaign to discredit Morris by tying him to the Revolutionary Armed Forced of Colom- bia (FARC), the country’s largest rebel group.

“Mr. Morris is a dis- tinguished journalist who, at great personal risk, has strived to report in an unbiased fashion o the bloody conflict tearing apart his country,” NAHJ stated to U.S. Ambassa- dor in Colombia William Brownfi eld and Assistant Secretary of State Janice Lee Jacobs in a letter signed by NAHJ President Michele Salcedo.

“His television pro-gram “Contravía” docu- ments the suffering of victims of human rights abuses committed by all parties, whether they be left-wing guerrillas, Co- lombian armed forces or paramilitary units,” the letter stated. “To accu- rately report the facts he – as would any reputable journalist – had to establish links with representatives of all those groups.

In the letter, NAHJ acknowledges that Mor-ris’ investigative journal- ism has bothered some in the government and “it is well documented that he, his collaborators and his family have been the targets of orchestrated harassment, surveillance and threats.”

Other colleagues from Colombia have been cho- sen for this prestigious fel- lowship. Colombia’s Presi-dent-elect Juan Manuel Santos was a Nieman Fel- low in 1988. And there is precedent for U.S. govern- ment offi cials to rescind a similar type of visa denial. Eight years ago, Stanford University successfully appealed the denial of a visa for Alberto Molano, a columnist for Bogotá’s El Espectador, chosen to be a Knight Fellow.

“Mr. Morris has been granted visas to visit the United States in the recent past to attend academic and journalistic events. He should not be denied one now,” NAHJ stated.

by Jennifer Chappels

Fremont, Nebraska, pop. 25,000, jumped on the anti-immigrant bandwagon June 21 when residents passed an ordinance designed to preven undocumented persons from renting property or getting a job.

No date has been set for the law to take effect.

“Fremont is an example of ‘If Washington won’t, Nebraskans will,’” said Bob Dane, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which supports tougher enforcement.

Approximately 2,000 residents are Latino, a number that has grown considerably in the last two decades. The city offered no estimate as to how many are undocumented.

Ann Morse, director of the Immigrant Policy Project at the National Conference of State Legislators, told Weekly Report, “When I talk to legislators, they say this is their way of signaling they want federal immigration reform to happen — that they care deeply about the issue, they’re working within the parameters they have, sometimes at the edge, trying to get federal attention.

Fremont is also signaling it isn’t necessary for a state to be tangent to a national border for it to want immigration reform. People within the city are deeply divided over the issue. One opponent, Kristin Ostrom, said, “Unfortunately, people have voted for an ordinance…that says to the Hispanic community that the Anglo community is saying they are not welcome here.”

Laurel Marsh, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Nebraska, said, “If this law goes into effect, it will cause discrimination and racial profiling against Latinos and others who appear to be foreign– born, including U.S. citizens.

Marsh viewed the ordinance as un-American, unconstitutional and in violation of federal law. She said that ACLU Nebraska will challenge it in court before it goes into effect. Other cities such as Hazleton, Pa., and Farmers Branch, Texas, are already involved in drawn-out legal battles involving anti-immigrant ordinances. South Carolina, Minnesota,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Michigan are considering legislation that will mimic Arizona’s stance on the issue.

In other related news:

NALEO survey sees big Latino turnout Likely in November

by Alex Galbraith

A National Associa- tion of Latino Elected and Appointed Offi cials survey projects a hefty Latino voter turnout for California, Texas, Florida and Colorado during their midterm elec- tions this year. The survey also reveals what issues will help Latinos steer their votes toward one candidate or another.

Of the 1,600 Hispanic registered voters surveyed by NALEO — 400 in each of the four states — 75 per- cent said they intend to vote in November, a drastic shift in a usually low-turnout non -presidential election year.

Though candidates may stir troubled waters by speaking against certain is- sues, the 2010 litmus test for Latinos is immigration.

“The issue of immigra-tion has a clearimpact on the importance of these elections to Latino voters,” said a state- ment from Latino Research and Communications, the company responsible for the survey. “46 percent of voters claim they are more likely to vote due to the immigration issue.”

Of the voters surveyed, 27 percent said that a candidate’s stance on im- migration reform was the most important issue, with 33 percent saying immigra- tion was in their top three concerns.

An additional 40 per-cent of respondents said they would withhold their vote from a candidate they would normally support should the candidate’s stance on an issue differ from their own.

Unemployment ranked as the secondmost impor- tant issue to Latinos. Some 15 percent said it was the most important issue and 22 percent said it was in their top three.

The majority of re-spondents agreed that candidates weren’t making enough of an effort to con- nect with their Hispanic constituents. No candidate in any state received more than 35 percent agree- ment with the question: “Has this candidate made an effort to reach Latino voters?”

“When it comes to reaching out to these voters,”said a statement from LRC, “all of the can- didates have some work to do.” Hispanic Link.

­ The cop who killed Oscar Grant during the verdict. (photo by NEWS SERVICES)

After a long wait for justice by the family of Oscar Grant, who was killed by a BART police officer in 2009, finally a verdict was reached in Los Angeles on Thursday, July 8: guilty of involuntary manslaughter, which carries a lighter sentence than murder.

“Involuntary manslaughter: unacceptable! We demand justice for Oscar Grant!,” cried thousands of people around the state, while riot police attacked protesters who marched denouncing the verdict as another injustice committed by the legal system against people of color and the poor.

Violence did not wait. Commercial shops were looted and windows smashed by angry demonstrators for the result of the judgment.

According to the San Francisco Bay Area Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild (NLGSF), “The verdict is a painful example of what we already know, the criminal justice system treats white, police officers with deference and poor people of color with hostility, said Carlos Villarreal, the NLGSF executive director.

However, in a written statement, the Youth Speak Out Against Police Abuse, made a guilty or not verdict irrelevant.

statement, the Youth Speak Out Against Police Abuse, made a guilty or not verdict irrelevant.