by José de la Isla

HOUSTON – National Council of La Raza president Janet Murguia sat down with The San Diego Union-Tribune’s editorial board, right before her organization’s national convention in that city which concluded July 12. In 40 years, NCLR has grown into the nation’s largest Hispanic-American civil rights organization.

Recently the group has stood up to media and organized groups that perpetuate hate speech aimed at immigrants. While others mamby-pamby around, acting as if violent words and deeds are the same as a college dorm debate, Murguia and her group took on the bad guys.

They used words of instruction and clarification. They held meetings with media executives in New York and educated the public through a website (www.wecanstopthehate.org).

Yet, Rubén Navarrette, a columnist on the editorial board, got distracted by a side issue, which is interesting, but with little bearing on the main concern — advocacy for the right things.

It seems he gave credence to how some people get themselves worked up because of the organization’s name, the National Council of La Raza.

Sometimes critics claim “la raza” means “the race.” To this mindset, the Latino group sounds like a race-supremist movement. Simple advocacy is turned on its head this way and characterized as possibly having some other agenda.

Do you see the misconception? The deception?

The term “la raza” has been a matter of long-standing concern, Murguia acknowledges: “We take a lot of heat for our name.” Whatever name this important group goes by, however, is not a misnomer, even though it may cause problems for the misinformed.

To start with, “raza” in Spanish does not simply mean “the race.” How is it possible to mean “the race” if Hispanics are of all races?

Scientists and knowledgeable people may substitute phenotype, cline and similar terms to refer to genetic differences. In our society, which doesn’t like talking about class and status differences and inequalities as interlinked, we use the word “race” to imply all kinds of differences. Our past national history is an encyclopedia about this. But the Spanish term “raza” means more than its biased translators insist. It is not a clone term for the English word “race.”

To understand the Spanish word’s meaning requires a bit of sophisticated understanding.

Any Spanish dictionary shows “raza” to mean “breed,” “people,” “race,” and “strain.” It is not a single confl ated term implying social values. Mostly it is a metaphorical term, not a technical one.

Think about it in the same way the Navajo, who call themselves Diné, use their group term to mean “people.”

We should not be at a loss because one language does not necessarily have an exact clone or jerry-rigged equivalent word in another language.

This issue came up back in the 15th century when the early Bible translators found English did not possess all the concepts they needed for the King James Version. So they borrowed words from Latin and Greek to bring biblical concepts into English.

In the same way, the assumption in the editorial room was that “raza” was a concept to get away from.

In fact, it might be a concept to get closer as a way to encourage nearness to increasingly socially diverse, interchanging, inter-communicating, class fl exibility and globalizing communities.

What’s disconcerting about the editorial board episode is that a good chance to explain and educate was missed. Sometimes, a symptom of social Alzheimers is detectible from the inability to adapt and change. For our own health, we need to come up with a term that means, “how to avoid hard-headedness when it’s to our own disadvantage?”

[José de la Isla writes a weekly commentary for Hispanic Link News Service. He is author of The Rise of Hispanic Political Power (Archer Books). Email joseisla3@yahoo.com]. ©2008

by Lewis Seiler and Dan Hamburg

“The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist.” – Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943.

Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of “an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs.”

Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton  subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.

According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of “all removable aliens” and “potential terrorists.”

Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to taxpayer gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of “new programs” require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?

Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), “Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies,” gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the fi rst time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to “a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state offi cials cannot maintain public order.”

The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefi nite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of “terrorist” organizations, or who speaks out against the government’s policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.

Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure “continuity of government” in the event of what the document vaguely calls a “catastrophic emergency.” Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure “continuity of government.” This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.

U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic “war on terror.”

Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to “examine and report upon the facts and causes” of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it.

According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it.

A clue as to where Harman’s commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who “engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights” as terrorists. Other groups in the cross.

What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?

The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president to use the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law. Lewis Seiler is the president of Voice of the Environment, Inc. Dan Hamburg, a former congressman, is executive director.

This article appeared on the San Francisco Chronicle’s Open Forum on Feb. 4, 2008.

by Grazia Salvemini

Workplace enforcement, more so than border enforcement, is what’s needed to help the United States develop a true comprehensive immigration policy, contends national authority Wayne Cornelius, director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at University of California at San Diego.

Basing his assessment on a four-year UCSD study of immigration patterns from Mexico, Cornelius recommends that the United States provide more legal and better assimilation opportunities, including legalization of most undocumented workers presently residing here, and helping Mexico develop alternatives to immigration through social projects.

He and other experts discussed the report’s findings with Hispanic Link News Service and other media during a June 10 teleconference.

For the survey, a team of students interviewed more than 3,000 Mexican migrants and potential migrants over the past four years. Their written report concluded, “Tens of billions of dollars have been invested in the border enforcement build-up since 1993, with little concern about its efficacy.”

The study’s summary noted that 4,700 migrants have died in clandestine border crossings since 1995. It found that increasing numbers of those who succeed in crossing are reluctant to return to Mexico for family visits because of the rising expense and turmoil of having to reenter the United States. Many now bring families and put down roots, Cornelius explained, stating, “Border enforcement has clearly accelerated this trend.”

Though the number of hours the Border Patrol spends patrolling the U.S. land boundary with Mexico has increased, Cornelius said apprehensions have been falling since the second half of 2006. He attributes this not just to more border enforcement, but to reduced circulatory trips, the increased use of coyotes (people smugglers), more crossings through legal ports, and the U.S. recession.

That many undocumented Mexican migrants no longer return home frequently for family reunions or traditional community celebrations creates a serious economic void, Cornelius says.

The report calculates:

• One out of five migrants enters the United States through designated crossing stations, the preferred mode of entry as it reduces physical risk.
• While many try to cross in the San Diego sector, fewer than half are apprehended, with 92 percent-98 percent eventually succeeding on subsequent tries.
• Three out of five migrants now rely on coyotes. Cornelius says the use of coyotes “virtually guarantees success.” However, their fees, which past studies showed averaged $978 in 1995, have doubled and tripled since then. During the UCSD study period, they averaged $2,100.

Cornelius adds that the tens of thousands of coyotes work in a “decentralized industry.” Many operate on referrals from previous customers, family and friends. They are often paid upon successful delivery. Therefore, it is in their best interest that their customers reach the United States safely.

Joining Cornelius in assessing U.S. immigration enforcement strategies, Kevin Appleby, director of Offi ce of Immigration and Refugee Policy with the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops, calls U.S. responses to the dilemma “a dark period in immigration history.”

Migrant families are coming to avoid separation, he emphasizes, saying family unity must be considered in weighing new legislation.

“Economic development is the Church’s answer to a border wall,” he says. Immigration analyst Tamar Jacoby calls the UCSD research findings that border enforcement as we’ve been doing it doesn’t work “shocking.” She also recommends more vigorous workplace enforcement, stating that a “lesson for policy is realism could really help.”

The study, entitled “Controlling Unauthorized Immigration from Mexico: The Failure of ‘Prevention through Deterrence’ and the Need for Comprehensive Reform,” can be accessed on-line at www.immigrationpoli­cy.org.

(Grazia Salvemini, based in Washington, D.C., reports for Hispanic Link News Service.) ©2008