Category: Uncategorized

Of course, it’s a perfect two-step of decadence. Now that the Texas legislature has shuffled away from its historic chance to enact an educational renaissance, exactly at a moment in history when an important tide of children could be best served, here comes the Congress with boots and bullets. We’ll take our news from the horse’s mouth at the American Forces Information Services (AFIS) as posted at the Army National Guard website (–gm):

House Votes to Allow Military to Assist in Border Security

5/12/2006 – American Forces Information Service (AFIS)

By Kathleen T. Rhem

Army National Guard Offical Logo-Centered on a light blue disc edged red, a representation of the Minute Man Statute by Daniel French in bronze detailed black facing to the right, all enclosed by a blue border bearing the words ARMY NATIONAL GUARD at the top and five stars below all in white

WASHINGTON – The U.S. House of Representatives voted yesterday to allow military forces to be used in border-security operations under certain circumstances.

In a 252-171 vote, House members agreed on an amendment to the Sonny Montgomery National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Representatives also voted yesterday to name the bill after Montgomery, a retired congressman and tireless veterans advocate. Montgomery died today at age 85.

The act gives authority to the Defense Department to assign military members to assist Homeland Security organizations in preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers and illegal aliens into the United States and in inspecting cargo, vehicles and aircraft entering the United States to prevent weapons of mass destruction or other terrorist or drug trafficking items from entering the country.

The act specifies that such a move must be made at the request of the secretary of Homeland Security, who must certify that the action “is necessary to respond to a threat to national security posed by the entry into the United States of terrorists, drug traffickers, or illegal aliens.”

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman stressed that the military already has been helping other government agencies in some border-security functions, namely surveillance with unmanned aerial vehicles. “I think it’s important to understand that the United States military does provide some assistance to the states currently,” he said.

Governors in some border states use National Guard servicemembers in border-security missions, as well.

Whitman said it’s important to remember that governors have authority to mobilize their National Guard forces as they see fit as long as they pay for the mobilization from within state budgets.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 largely forbids the U.S. military from becoming involved in domestic law-enforcement actions. The Coast Guard and National Guard troops under the control of state governors are excluded from the act, however.

“This country has always had a certain level of discomfort with military doing things that are law enforcement-type activities,” a senior official said on background.

Critics of such military use point to the case of 18-year-old Ezequiel Hernandez, who was shot and killed by a U.S. Marine patrol near the Rio Grande River at Redford, Texas, in 1997. The Marines said Hernandez fired at them, and the corporal who pulled the trigger was not charged with a crime. But the case brought about widespread attention to and debate on the role the U.S. military plays in border enforcement. Similar issues have been raised about the military’s role within the United States since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The federal government also can pay for governors to mobilize their National Guard forces in the case of national emergencies. This mechanism was used during recovery efforts for Hurricane Katrina. Activated Guard forces remained under their governors’ operational control, but federal funds were used to pay for the operation.

In addition, National Guard forces can be federalized then used in the same manner as active-duty forces.

Press reports today state that Assistant Defense Secretary for Homeland Defense Paul McHale has asked defense leaders to devise options for use of military forces in border-enforcement activities. Defense officials today did not specifically confirm this, but said such a move would be consistent with contingency planning that goes on every day in the Pentagon.

“This is a building that develops options and potential courses of action,” the official said. “This is not a decision the Defense Department would make, though. Border security (and) policing are not the primary role or mission of the United States military.”

Language in the bill refers to allowing military members to assist Homeland Security assets in preventing terrorists from entering the United States. Officials have long recognized that illegal trafficking in people and weapons through Latin America poses a threat to the United States.

Rumsfeld and his Central American counterparts discussed this issue at a conference in Miami in October. All in attendance agreed that porous borders to the south can contribute to international terrorism.

“Drug traffickers, smugglers, hostage takers, terrorists, violent gangs: These are threats that are serious,” Rumsfeld said at the conference Oct. 12.

Whitman said today that the United States stresses to South and Central American neighbors the importance of border security. Ungoverned spaces and available funding for illicit activities certainly can have a relationship with terrorism, he said. “That’s why we should be concerned,” he said.

Whitman also said that today’s meeting between Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Mexican National Defense Secretary Gen. Gerardo Ricardo Vega is “unrelated to any current speculation that I see in current press reporting.”

“This has been on the schedule for quite some time,” he said.

That’s what Jorge Bustamante says in the summary of his first annual report as U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights of Migrants.

The Special Rapporteur also refers to the fact that reluctance to recognize the demand for the labour of migrant workers, which is a common factor among host countries, acquires heuristic importance when it becomes clear that there is some relationship between that reluctance and the appearance of anti-immigrant ideologies often tinged with xenophobia and racism. Denial of demand is an important issue as it is one of the main factors that leads to irregular migration, a situation at the core of much of the abuse and numerous human rights
violations suffered by migrants.

By the way, it is the charge of the Special Rapporteur, “To request and receive information from all relevant sources, including migrants themselves on violations of the human rights of migrants and their families;”

See Reports of the Special Rapporteur for Migrant Rights (2006)

THE ORIGINS OF THE “ELIMINATE THE GRINGO” QUOTE

By Jose Angel Gutierrez

Originally published en espanol in La Estrella newspaper of Fort Worth, reprinted by permission of author.

I was the head of the Mexican American Youth Organization (MAYO) in Texas in 1969 having just return from military duty during the Vietnam War. I held a press conference in San Antonio, Texas on April 11, 1969 to announce our organizational plans.

This is what I said:

“MAYO had found that both federal and religious programs aimed at social change do not meet the needs of the Mexicanos of this state.

“Further, we find that the vicious cultural genocide being inflicted upon La Raza by gringos and their institutions not only severely damage our human dignity but also make it impossible for La Raza to develop its right of self-determination.

“For these reasons, top priority is given to identifying and exposing the gringo. We also promote the social welfare of Mexicanos through education designed to enlarge the capabilities of indigenous leaders.

“We hope to secure our human and civil rights, to eliminate bigotry and racism, to lessen the tensions in our barrios and combat the deterioration of our communities.

“Our organization, largely comprised of youth, is committed to effecting meaningful social change. Social change that will enable La Raza to become masters of their destiny, owners of their resources, both human and natural, and a culturally and spiritually separate people from the gringo.

“Only through this program, we of MAYO, see the possibility of surviving this century as a free and complete family of Mexicanos. We will not try to assimilate into this gringo society in Texas, nor will we encourage anybody else to do so.

“Rather, MAYO once again asks of friends here and across the nation to assist us in our efforts. We intend to become free as a people in order to enjoy the abundance of our country and share it with those less fortunate.

“MAYO will not engage in controversy with fellow Mexicanos regardless of how unfounded and vindictive their accusations may be. We realize that the effects of cultural genocide takes many forms—some Mexicanos will become psychologically castrated, others will become demagogues and gringos as well and others will come together, resist and eliminate the gringo. We will be the latter.”

Questions followed the press statement, particularly from Kemper Diehl, a reporter with the San Antonio Express News. He wrote an article on the press conference and printed his version of an exchange:

Q: What do you mean by ‘eliminate the gringo?’

A: “You can eliminate an individual in various ways. You can certainly kill him but that is not our intent at this moment. You can remove the base of support that he operates from be it economic, political, social. That is what we intend to do.”

Kemper Diehl wrote more: “Gutierrez was again pressed as to intentions of killing gringos ‘if worst comes to worst.’ He replied ‘If worst comes to worst and we have to resort to that means, it would be self-defense.’ ” Gutierrez went on to be quoted as detailing attempts on his life and property just a few years before.

For the record, this was a press conference 38 years ago! It was not a press conference held yesterday much less statements made by me in my class room at the university. Since immigration and anti-Mexican attitudes are now the talk of the day particularly on national radio and television I have been resurrected.

Lastly, about 2 years ago Alan Wall that works and lives in Mexico put together words as if they were mine and posted them on VDARE.com claiming they were mine. Soon these quotes appeared in many extreme right wing websites. Two months ago David Horowitz included me in a list of the 101 Most Dangerous Professors in the United States and cited these Allan Wall quotes as his evidence. Reporters today are now citing them over and over again today.

Because of this the FBI came to see me and warn me that some people want to kill me. I cannot stop crazies from believing these lies. This will pass. In the meantime realize that the white hate aimed against me now is really the same white hate aimed at all of us of Mexican ancestry residing in the US.

Jose Angel Gutierrez is a home-grown civil rights hero of Texas history. We are honored to have his permission to post these selected writings. Special thanks to Roberto Calderon for forwarding these works.–gm

 

It is in each of our interests to find ways to work more fully together so that, in the global economy, we will be able not just to survive, but to flourish. We cannot succeed absent greater North American integration, or without more rapid Mexican development, which, as a consequence, is in our strategic interests to promote.
–from the Executive Summary of “A Compact for North American Competitiveness” (April 2005)

There is perhaps no relationship between the United States and any other nation so encumbered by history, geography, and culture—and so graced with opportunity—as the US relationship with Mexico.

Yet despite the complex nature of this relationship, or perhaps as a result of it, virtually every attempt historically to put the bilateral relationship on a sound footing for the longer term has been frustrated by missed signals, mutual provocations, and external events unrelated to a common agenda.

It was with this in mind that in the second half of the 20th century the US Council of the Mexico-US Business Committee (MEXUS), in conjunction with its counterpart Mexico Council, committed to formulating and advancing a common agenda that would be mutually rewarding for the people and governments of the United States and Mexico. Only by rationalizing the existing relationship, it was felt, would both nations be able to direct their energies toward mutually rewarding activities, rather than constantly working to overcome the latest real or perceived slight.

After all, with a shared border of almost 2000 miles, the United States and Mexico were going to
be neighbors, whether they liked it or not. The only question was whether they would also be
partners and friends.

Out of such thinking during the 1980’s came the idea for a set of common goals and principles for both governments to observe in regulating cross-border trade and investment. In just a few years this initiative resulted in the US-Mexico Framework Agreement, and then, with the addition of Canada, blossomed into the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Negotiation of NAFTA was a signature achievement of the first Bush Administration, and passage on a bipartisan basis was a signature accomplishment of the Clinton Administration. Not only did MEXUS play a
critical role in the conceptual work that led to NAFTA, its members also wore out significant shoe leather on Capitol Hill, ultimately leading to successful passage. It was an achievement of which MEXUS is justifiably proud.

But the agenda is far from complete. In fact, as much remains to be done in the next ten years of NAFTA, if not more, than the first 10 years. In particular, as China comes on line economically, MEXUS will continue to seek new and creative ways to advance the North American competitiveness dialogue.

Founded in 1948, the Mexico-US Business Committee (MEXUS) is the oldest binational private sector business organization with a focus on economic, commercial, and political relations in North America. As a forum for senior business leaders to interact regularly with their counterparts in government, MEXUS was critical in the conceptualization, promotion, passage, and emplementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement….

The US Council of MEXUS is a standing committee of the Council of the Americas, and plays an active leadership role in public policy discussions that shape North American economic relations….

Excerpts from “A Compact for North American Competitiveness: A Strategy for Building Competitiveness within North America” (April 2005)
http://www.americas-society.org/coa/publications/papers.html

Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The emergence of China, India, and others in the global marketplace has caused anxiety among observers, but only in relatively few instances are coordinated steps being taken to gain full economic and political advantage of this new world. That is particularly true within North America, defined as the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Since NAFTA went into effect in 1994, only rarely have North American leaders envisioned and sought the competitive benefits accruing with greater regional economic integration. To the extent such efforts have occurred, it has generally been within the context of “making
NAFTA work better.”

To be sure, NAFTA can work better, and it should, particularly in terms of the dispute resolution process. But the original trade agreement was only the first step. If North American economic integration ends with NAFTA, we will soon find ourselves at a
competitive disadvantage with Asia, because the relative gains from NAFTA have already largely been eroded by the Chinese and, to a lesser extent, Indian economic explosions.

Significant work must be done in the face of the looming competitiveness challenge from Asia. In response and consistent with the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America announced by Prime Minister Paul Martin, President George Bush, and President Vicente Fox on March 23, 2005, the US Council of the Mexico-US Business Committee proposes a Compact for North American Competitiveness as a means to address these issues.

At the heart of the Compact lies a grand bargain: the United States and Canada will work closely with Mexico to mobilize additional public and private sector resources to advance Mexico’s development. In exchange, Mexico will commit to a robust program of
second-generation reforms in regulatory harmonization, the rule of law, and infrastructure
improvements, including education, which will create conditions necessary to attract the long-term domestic and direct foreign investment that ultimately drives development.

Within this general framework, specific (non-exclusive) areas for concentration would
include border security and efficiency, energy security, and increasing labor mobility. The
Compact would have at its core the following:

• Promotion of policies in all three nations designed to unlock the full development and job creation potential of the private sector.

• Establishment of a Development Fund for Mexico, with proportional contributions from all three nations, so long as Mexico commits to implementation and
benchmarking of a mutually-agreed reform agenda.

• Support for the integration of all factors of production, including labor, through a robust, enforceable temporary worker program.

• Aggressive promotion of research and development through the identification of specific opportunities for joint cooperation and cross-border investment.

The key question is, why? Why should the United States and Canada care about Mexican development beyond a general humanitarian instinct or a fear of the potential of increased export of illegal activities (migration, narcotics, security threats) brought on by
potential economic uncertainty on our southern border?

The answer is simple to articulate, but extraordinarily difficult to achieve. If the United States and Canada plan to compete with China and other emerging economies by the time Asia reaches greater economic
maturity in 2020 or 2030, both nations will have to put in place now the economic and commercial frameworks to take full advantage of economic efficiencies that would naturally accrue with creation of a larger internal North American market, harmonization of cross-border business practices and regulations, and a reduction in both risk and the cost
of capital. Labor must also be seen increasingly as the irreplaceable input in global economic production and knowledge-based economies, and trained and utilized fully at its most effective potential use. Doing so will bring economic benefits to all three North American nations.

But this paradigm requires increased development in Mexico. Put another way, Mexico’s development directly impacts US national strategic objectives. Both nation

al security and economic security—which is itself a national strategic imperative—require
our southern neighbor to be democratic and politically stable, economically healthy, and increasingly to see its own interests aligned more fully with ours. Canada faces similar realities with Mexico, if less intensively.

It is in each of our interests to find ways to work
more fully together so that, in the global economy, we will be able not just to survive, but to flourish. We cannot succeed absent greater North American integration, or without more rapid Mexican development, which, as a consequence, is in our strategic interests to promote.

MEXUS is committed to improving North American competitiveness as a strategic imperative for the United States. The time to begin is now.

Jennifer L. Pozner
WIMNonline.org

As I write this, I’m watching an important segment on “To The Contrary,” PBS’s weekly women’s political and current affairs debate show, on the underreported issue of sexual assault as an exceptionally regular aspect of border crossing for women immigrants.

According to T.O.C. host Bonnie Erbe:

“New studies by the United Nations Development Fund for Women show sexual abuse on the rise among women illegally crossing the U.S. border from Mexico. Rape is so common it’s viewed as the price of admission to America. Some even take birth control before crossing to avoid pregnancy… So-called ‘border bandits’ prey on those crossing the U.S. Mexican border illegally. Women are more vulnerable because their percentages have risen among illegal immigrants. They’re also leaving behind more children in Mexico and Central American countries. If caught and returned, they’re often physically abused again in the Mexican border towns where U.S. agents leave them.”

To give viewers a deeper understanding of the impact of immigration on undocumented women, Erbe interviewed Marijke Velzeboer-Salcedo, chief, Latin America and the Caribbean section of the U.N. Development Fund for Women, who explained that:

“Between 60 % 70% of women do experience some abuse, of the women who cross the border alone (because some of the women do cross the border with their husbands or their families). But many of the women do go alone and we know that among the Mexican nondocumented immigrants, 45% are women. And in Guatemala it’s 35% and it’s rising.”

With some exceptions, much immigration coverage in recent months has focused on male activists leading protests, undocumented men working as day laborers, male DJs at Spanish-language radio stations informing listeners about the importance of attending immigration demonstrations, and the like. But as this To The Contrary segment illustrates, there are serious reasons why women’s perspectives are needed in immigration coverage–and serious ways to frame immigration as specifically relevant to women.

View original