Will another DREAMer be deported, despite ICE’s S-Comm reforms?

|
(51)

Last week, ICE announced reforms to its controversial Secure Communities program. Civil rights advocates denounced these changes as window dressing, and the Guardian broke the news about S-Comm's importance to the FBI’s Next Generation Identification (NGI) initiative, which appears to be using S-Comm on undocumented folks to secure support for a fingerprint dragnet to cover a much broader segment of the population than undocumented immigrants. But now, even before folks have had a chance to fully process the potential civil liberties impacts of the FBI’s NGI’s initiative, comes word that Mandeep, a DREAM Act honors pre-med student at UC Davis, who was once voted “most likely to save the world” by her peers at Los Altos High in Mountain View, could be deported to India on Wednesday.


Mandeep is pursuing a degree in Neurology, Physiology, and Behavior at UC Davis. But she is undocumented, and thanks to Congress’ failure to pass the DREAM Act last year, she now faces deportation to a country she barely knows. Immigrant rights advocates note that it was only a  month ago that President Obama spoke about the importance of providing a path to citizenship for students like Mandeep.

“We should stop punishing innocent young people for the actions of their parents,” Obama said. “We should stop denying them the chance to earn an education or serve in the military.”

They note that Obama has authority to grant administrative relief, which would make qualified DREAM Act youth safe from deportation, but that he has said he can't use his executive authority in that way. So they've been sounding the alarm about Mandeep’s plight by faxing government officials about her situation.

But weren’t ICE’s newly announced S-Comm reforms supposed to provide relief for students like Mandeep?

Immigrant rights advocates say they are concerned that the reforms may not have much real impact on Mandeep because they rely on advocates and attorneys to get attention on individual cases. They note that Mandeep and her mother turned themselves into ICE this morning because they are scheduled to be deported tonight at 1am. And that ICE released them. But it is not clear what will happen next….

Meanwhile, ICE today announced the results of a seven-day targeted "Cross Check" enforcement operation that led to the arrest of more than "2,400 convicted criminal aliens and immigration fugitives" in May, as part of its promise to focus S-Comm resources on undocumented residents who have also broken criminal laws.

“The results of this operation underscore ICE's ongoing focus on arresting those convicted criminal aliens who prey upon our communities, and tracking down fugitives who game our nation's immigration system,” ICE Director John Morton said. “This targeted enforcement operation is a direct result of excellent teamwork among law enforcement agencies who share a commitment to protect public safety.”

ICE notes that everyone taken into custody as part of this latest sweep had prior convictions for crimes such as armed robbery, drug trafficking, child abuse, sexual crimes against minors, aggravated assault, theft, forgery and DUI. ICE also noted that 22 percent of the individuals were immigration fugitives-convicted criminal aliens with outstanding orders of deportation who failed to leave the country.

ICE says it conducted its first successful Cross Check operation in December 2009,  and has since conducted similar operations in 37 states, but that this seven-day operation, was the largest of its kind, and involved the collaboration of more than 500 ICE agents and officers, and coordination with the U.S. Marshals Service, the U.S. Diplomatic Security Service, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and ICE’s state and local law enforcement partners throughout the United States.

Arrestees included a 32-year-old man residing in Amesbury, Mass., from the Dominican Republic, who is a registered sex offender convicted of assault, battery on a household member, indecent assault, battery on a child, and leaving the scene/person injured; a 51-year-old man residing in Denver, Colo. from Libya convicted of first degree sexual assault against a child and assault domestic violence; a 38-year-old man residing in Orlando, Fla. from the Philippines convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer, resisting officer with violence, reckless driving and refusal to submit to blood/urine test; andaA 37-year-old residing in North Hills, Calif. from Mexico convicted of aggravated felony sex crime and rape of an unconscious victim. He was also identified as re-entering the United States after deportation. He will be removed following prosecution for illegal re-entry after deportation; and a 47-year-old man residing in Magnolia, Texas from Mexico convicted of injury to a child with intent to cause bodily injury, burglary, marijuana possession, driving while license suspended and indecency with a child by sexual contact.

“ICE is focused on smart, effective immigration enforcement that prioritizes efforts first on removing those serious criminal aliens who present the greatest risk to the security of our communities, such as those charged with or convicted of homicide, rape, robbery, kidnapping, major drug offenses and threats to national security. ICE also prioritizes the arrest and removal of those who game the immigration system including immigration fugitives or those criminal aliens who have been previously deported and illegally re-entered the country, “ ICE stated.

Hmm. It sure sounds like Mandeep doesn’t fit ICE’s criminal alien profile or priorities any more…

Comments

Shouldn't really matter if an illegals will "save the world" or not (certainly NOT). Since ICE has wimped out and caved to the illegals and their whiny, racist advocates (who cry at every enforcement effort) ICE's new "criteria" is way too broad now. Every illegal has a sob story and a reason why they should be able to stay and they will now use the new "reforms" as an excuse to why they should remain. Illegal is illegal and once found, all should be deported immediately, Not a legal citizen? Then you are gone, no questions asked and no excuses needed. This is Obama's way to appease the Hispanics and illegals and also escape from having to fully enforce immigration laws. Just another weasel move on his part.

Posted by Illegals Suck on Jun. 21, 2011 @ 1:21 pm

My kudos to this poster! Illegals suck and they whine and complain and get the ultra liberal activists to cry along with them. ICE needs to grow a pair and kick their illegal asses back where they came from. With a nice bruise or two on the ass to take home with them.

Posted by Ken Howard on Jun. 21, 2011 @ 1:55 pm

If you read what ICE is actually saying, you'll note that they only have so much money to spend on deporting folks. And it seems to make sense to spend that money on folks who have done really nasty stuff. And not on folks who were brought here as kids and have studied hard or are willing to serve in the U.S. military--and thus might end up saving your or my life one day.

Posted by sarah on Jun. 21, 2011 @ 7:12 pm

I agree with your main point, Sarah, but tell me... how exactly would the US military ever save my life?

Posted by Greg on Jun. 21, 2011 @ 7:28 pm

Hey,

I'm for removing every border in the world. That'd be a first, huh? Wonder what would happen if labor could cross borders as easily as capital?

Giants down 0-8. Why is God angry with them?

h.

Posted by Guest h. brown on Jun. 21, 2011 @ 7:45 pm

To "Just a minor quibble" You ask how the US military would ever save your life? Damn, do you really think the US would be in existance without the military? I mean, it's possible you'd still be alive, if you call living under a Nazi regime being alive. Don't you realize that without the military America wouldn't be the free society it is? We'd either be dead, speaking German or maybe Russian, but we wouldn't be free.

Posted by Barry on Jun. 21, 2011 @ 8:00 pm

And how exactly did any of the wars we got involved in secure our freedom? Even WWII is debatable. We helped free a lot of people in other countries in that one, but I doubt that Russia and/or Germany would have really mounted a full-on land invasion of the United States.

Posted by Greg on Jun. 21, 2011 @ 10:23 pm

To "h brown":
Another one of those "open borders" idiots, huh? I bet you don't think of yourself as an American, just a citizen of the world. Why don't you go to some other part of the world then. We don't need you.

Posted by Barry on Jun. 21, 2011 @ 8:03 pm

Once you get rid of all of those illegals are you and your buddies planning on heading out to the fields to pick our crops? Or maybe you can do drywall and work 12 hours a day? Maybe working in a slaughterhouse sounds good to you - backbreaking work which causes lots of injuries. Just curious which job currently held by an illegal you're planning on taking.

Posted by Lucretia "Secretia" Snapples on Jun. 21, 2011 @ 8:22 pm

Sorry to break it to all the teabaggers out there, but here's the reality:
1. By 2050, white people are going to be a minority in the United States.
2. California is well on its way to becoming a Latino majority state long before that.
3. And there is Nothing You Can Do To Stop It.

So you have a choice -you can grow up and accept the reality, adapt and learn that espanol, or you can continue to whine and wet your diapers.

Me... I'm cool with it. Being bilingual (trilingual actually) has helped me immensely in my professional life.

And I'm also kind of happy that a large segment of the right refuses to adapt to the changing demographics. Why, you might ask?

Very simple:
1. All the English-only extremists out there make my skills more rare, and therefore more valuable, so more work prospects for me that aren't available to them.
2. Being virulently anti-immigrant, the Republican right pushes away a growing voter bloc and ensures that they become a permanent minority. They've already relegated themselves to permanent minority status in California in just one short generation. At some point they'll do so in the country as a whole.

Keep at it guys. You're doing a heck of a job!

Posted by Greg on Jun. 21, 2011 @ 11:08 pm

Left wing George Wallace racialism.

Posted by matlock on Jun. 22, 2011 @ 4:49 am

I know you're not a teabagger, matlock. There's not a single thing I wrote that you can factually dispute. I'll go even further than that -my guess is that you personally aren't losing too much sleep over California's undisputably changing demographics. You just hate progressives, so you have to disagree whenever you encounter one, for the sake of disagreeing.

Posted by Greg on Jun. 22, 2011 @ 7:24 am

The US is becoming a majority-minority nation, not one where "whites are a minority." Threatening whites with the loss of jobs unless they learn Spanish is counterproductive. Research shows that most Hispanic immigrants want to learn English and that their children use English far more than Spanish. So while Greg may delight in being able to order his tacos in the Mission in Spanish, it's not going to be a necessity for many monolingual Americans to learn Spanish anytime soon (although I agree that more people should learn a second language, I myself speak two other languages in addition to English).

People like Greg think they're doing the Hispanic community a favor when they spread alarmist claptrap like this but they're not. Threatening and belittling have become the favored tactics of the right, they should not become the favored tactics of the left.

Posted by Lucretia "Secretia" Snapples on Jun. 22, 2011 @ 7:35 am

"The US is becoming a majority-minority nation, not one where "whites are a minority." "

And this is different... how???

"Research shows that most Hispanic immigrants want to learn English and that their children use English far more than Spanish."

That's fantastic. I'm an immigrant too and I mostly use English. But the fact remains that many people never master English for whatever reason. I think it's racist and paternalistic to force everyone to commnicate in English like the teabaggers want to do. It's great to learn it, but people shouldn't be punished if they don't. And from the perspective of English speakers who work with these communities, it's much more productive to communicate with them in their language than carp and criticize.

"So while Greg may delight in being able to order his tacos in the Mission in Spanish, it's not going to be a necessity for many monolingual Americans to learn Spanish anytime soon (although I agree that more people should learn a second language, I myself speak two other languages in addition to English)."

Not a necessity. Just very helpful. Oh, and I don't like tacos.

"People like Greg think they're doing the Hispanic community a favor when they spread alarmist claptrap like this but they're not."

Alarmist??? I'm not alarmed at all. I welcome the change for all the reasons I stated.

"Threatening and belittling have become the favored tactics of the right, they should not become the favored tactics of the left."

Just pointing out reality, that's all. It's too bad that some people feel threatened by that. I was about to write that I feel sorry for those people... but I don't.

Posted by Greg on Jun. 22, 2011 @ 8:11 am

It's where no one ethnic group is in the majority. Is that difficult for you to understand? Majority-minority would mean that no single ethnic group is over 50% of the American population.

Others probably view your views, such as saying they'd better learn Spanish or else, as alarmist. How is that any different from Nativists telling Hispanics they'd better learn English, or else?

Your "reality" is not the same as other's reality. You'd do well with a more humble approach to evangelizing your views. Telling people they'd better do this or that while mumbling about unspecified consequences if they don't isn't likely to bring a lot of people around to your POV.

Posted by Lucretia "Secretia" Snapples on Jun. 22, 2011 @ 8:37 am

IF majority-minority means that no single ethnic group constitutes 50% of the population,
AND we can stipulate that <50% of something constitutes a minority of that something,
AND we can stipulate that caucasians are an ethnic group,

THEN it follows that "majority-minority" is the same thing as saying caucasians will be a minority of the population.

This isn't rocket science.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt on the circumcision threads. I figured your logic circuits were just temporarily incapacitated due to an overload of religious dogma. But I'm really beginning to wonder whether you're actually capable of any logical thought at all.

Posted by Greg on Jun. 22, 2011 @ 10:22 am

You seem to, as usual, have very little understanding of how what you're saying is perceived by the very people you're trying to persuade. Very little understanding or very little concern - or maybe a combination of both.

Telling whites (and Asians and Native Americans and African-Americans) to learn Spanish because soon they'll be a linguistic minority, or else, is guaranteed to offend and anger people. You seem not to care, in the same way that your minions on the circumcision threads seem to not care that Jew-baiting and insulting religion has turned off massive numbers of voters to their cause.

Posted by Lucretia "Secretia" Snapples on Jun. 22, 2011 @ 10:42 am

the simple mind resorts to semantics.

Posted by Greg on Jun. 22, 2011 @ 5:19 pm

US population, they will still have the vast majority of the money and power. You can see that simply by looking at the States that are already less than 50% white, e.g. Texas and California.

So, Greg, my response to being a minority myself is "So what?". It's being in the right minority that matters.

Posted by Walter on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 6:56 am

Here's where I'm coming from...
Think of the voting patterns of minorities, and think of the voting patterns of white people in this country. Heck, just think of how it would be to live in the lily white states like Kansas or Nebraska. I wouldn't want to live there. If the only people voting were white, we'd have a permanent Republican majority, which in practice means a permanent evangelical Christian majority. There would be no place for people like me in this country. Now I may not agree with every minority group on every single issue, but that's not the point. The point is that I differ from the dominant power structure in this country enough to understand that my lot lies with other people who differ from it -whether it be ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, religious minorities, whatever. I am able to *survive* in this country only on account of this country's diversity, so as far as I'm concerned, the more minorities, the better.

And yes, as both you and Eric alluded to, mere numbers don't automatically mean that the dominant power structure changes. But it's a necessary prerequisite.

Posted by Greg on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 8:17 am

personal view. If one generalizes that viewpoint, however, there's a danger that we start to think of white voters as somehow less desirable for no other reason than non-white voters tend to vote more like you do. That's a dangerous direction to go too far in.

From there, it's only a short step to reverse racism, where one instinctively takes the anti-white viewpoint, and gleefully celebrate every setback for the white majority.

Given that SFBG and almost all SF liberals are lily white, can you start to see the inconsistency of advocating such things here?

Posted by Walter on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 11:26 am

sorry greg, i hate to break it to you, first, only the west was suppose to be a minority majority by 2050, nebraska and conneticut are still VERY white, and the was a prediction, made back in 2000, alot has happen since then, 9/11 wich declared America the #1 terrorist attraction of the world, the worst ressession in history, wich alone has sent alot of people with hispanic heritage back to their country of origin, and of course the big kahuna, Arizona sb1070 law wich since its passing back in 2010 has seen a decrease in the hispanic population, actually making white birth rates higher once again, last i heard about 700,000 hispanics illegal & legal left the state, and other states are getting ready to pass it as well, Georgia, alabama, and south carolina have and already have seen a decrease in the hispanic community and are continuing to see. And (R)-Russel Peirce of Arizona, and Gov, Jan Brewer are already in the process if making a Anchor baby law wich repells the 14th Admt. wich will ultimintley decrease the hispanic population even more than it is now, it will decrease the population a great deal, and im sure other states will draft it after Arizon, it will pass and there's nothing ypu can do about it. ;)

Posted by Guest on Jul. 10, 2011 @ 6:02 pm

Opinion:

For the last 8-9 years i've watched the PBS Newshour where they show the photos and names of the soldiers who've died in recent times in our wars.

They show their rank, name, age and military division.

How come so many, anecdotally, in my experience are from California, under 21 and Latino?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 22, 2011 @ 12:30 am

I went to the farewell ceremony when my son deployed to Iraq in 2007. And yes, there were plenty of Latinos represented in the 800 soldiers who left that day. And when my son was sworn in as a U.S. citizen in Kuwait, when his unit finally left Iraq in 2008, the majority of those being sworn in alongside him were from Latin America. So, wake up those of you castigating immigrants from south of the border. Increasingly, they are the ones fighting your wars.

Posted by sarah on Jun. 22, 2011 @ 11:48 am
har

The people fighting these wars should be the offspring of the people who voted for it, democrats. Are any Pelosi relatives over there fighting it out for her Bay Guardian voters and apologists?

You're English right, any offspring of yours are English too right? They could have just gone to the middle East at the behest of the once loved by the left in the USA, Tony Blair. You do know that the English Government has sent troops to the middle East? As had a few other sainted socialist type western European governments and Canada, why are you complaining about the USA?

I would love it if the USA couldn't fight its war due to a lack of people joining up.

It's also interesting that effete liberals make this "it's Latinos fighting your wars" argument, meaning that the effete liberals have a zero understanding of the people they claim to speak for. Effete liberalism is so comical, claiming to speak for a group of people who could care less about soft core paternalistic racialism. These paternalized people (based purely on Bay Guardian speculation) join up to fight in wars that progressives oppose, while the progressives claim to speak for these same people????

The sophisticate wine and cheese "leadership" along with the self appointed moralistic fifth column claim whole races, while the individual members of these races have the gall not to obey the paternalistic dictates.

Posted by matlock on Jun. 25, 2011 @ 2:47 am

Great post Sarah! Your readers can send a fax to their reps to halt Mandeep's deportation here~

http://americasvoiceonline.org/blog/entry/dreamer_voted_most_likely_to_s...

Posted by Lisa on Jun. 23, 2011 @ 6:35 pm

sorry greg, i hate to break it to you, first, only the west was suppose to be a minority majority by 2050, nebraska and conneticut are still VERY white, and the was a prediction, made back in 2000, alot has happen since then, 9/11 wich declared America the #1 terrorist attraction of the world, the worst ressession in history, wich alone has sent alot of people with hispanic heritage back to their country of origin, and of course the big kahuna, Arizona sb1070 law wich since its passing back in 2010 has seen a decrease in the hispanic population, actually making white birth rates higher once again, last i heard about 700,000 hispanics illegal & legal left the state, and other states are getting ready to pass it as well, Georgia, alabama, and south carolina have and already have seen a decrease in the hispanic community and are continuing to see. And (R)-Russel Peirce of Arizona, and Gov, Jan Brewer are already in the process if making a Anchor baby law wich repells the 14th Admt. wich will ultimintley decrease the hispanic population even more than it is now, it will decrease the population a great deal, and im sure other states will draft it after Arizon, it will pass and there's nothing ypu can do about it. ;)

Posted by Guest on Jul. 10, 2011 @ 6:04 pm

You might want to read this, Mr. spelling-and-grammar-challenged Teabagger:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110623/D9O1HG5G0.html
"For the first time, minorities make up a majority of babies in the U.S., part of a sweeping race change and growing age divide between mostly white, older Americans and predominantly minority youths that could reshape government policies."

Since the average age is around 35-36, the overall US population should be majority-minority slightly ahead of projections, in the late 2040s.

As for repealing the 14th Amendment, good luck with that. I may be an immigrant, but I know enough about the US constitution to know that it takes more than a lame duck governor of a backwater state, and a tinfoil-hat state senator from Mesa to amend it.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Pearce may not even be a state senator much longer. The AZ Secretary of State has just certified enough signatures for a recall election.

And by the way, doesn't it embarass you that I as an immigrant have a much better command of your language than you do?

Posted by Greg on Jul. 10, 2011 @ 6:58 pm

'Guest' get with the 21st century.

The term is Latino - not 'Hispanic' (the latter which is seen as patronizing, and Europeanizing).

And many world citizens of Mexican descent prefer Chicano.

ps: Greg's right, you're wrong, and non whites will outnumber whites by 2050.

(Though if we take South Africa as an example, majority numbers will not necessarily translate into political power. There's work to be done...)

Posted by Eric Brooks on Jul. 10, 2011 @ 7:28 pm

Licking his chops and knitting the names of his enemies in anticipation of getting the guillotine chopping.

Extremists usually spend a lot of time doing that, and not accomplishing much else besides. And they always end up marginalized and eating their own - much like the SF Green Party has done.

Posted by Lucretia "Secretia" Snapples on Jul. 10, 2011 @ 9:38 pm

"The term is Latino - not 'Hispanic' (the latter which is seen as patronizing, and Europeanizing). And many world citizens of Mexican descent prefer Chicano."

- Eric Brooks

Whatever happened to women?

Don't you mean Latino/Latina and Chicano/Chicana?

Posted by Arthur Evans on Jul. 10, 2011 @ 10:17 pm

Wow... Arthur... That is -so- clever. Boy! You -really- got me on that one! How could any of us -ever- think our way around your profound intellect and razor sharp wit.

The mind boggles...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 12:16 am

as well as "Latino", although if you dug further you'd discover that the two words have slightly different meanings and so are not directly interchangeable in all cases. "Hispanic" means deriving from the Hispania, i.e. the Iberian peninsula, i.e. Spain or Portugal. "Latin" is a more generic terms referring to those whose ethnicity derives from Latin or Central America. There is considerable overlap and either word can usually be used.

Trying to make the perfectly valid word "Hispanic" into yet another word disallowed by the PC nazi's is as disingenuous as it is factually false.

Posted by Walter on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 7:19 am

Interesting argument Walter, but not true.

Your explanation actually begins to get to the heart of the matter but then falls short.

The key here is that 'Spanish' and its derivative 'Hispanic' suggests the colonizer Spain, which the Latino world broke away from through its uprisings for independence (just as the U.S. broke from Britain).

So calling someone in the western hemisphere 'Hispanic' is like calling english speakers in the western hemisphere 'British'. First, it doesn't make sense, and second, it lumps Latinos in with their former European colonizers.

Hispanic used to be tolerated by the Latino community, but no longer.

Nearly all Latinos do not like it.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 9:54 am

Eric, there are many regional differences in self-referential nomenclature amongst Spanish speaking people, both within the US and Latin America.

One size does not fit all.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 10:42 am

an entire new form of political correctness.

Here is a white internet warrior opining about what white people like him should and should not call people who themselves neither think nor care about what a bunch of whiney, white liberals call them.

Talk about inventing a problem where there isn't one. Eric might as well argue it's racist to speak English in the US because it's an acknowledgement that our origins come from England.

It's really so sad to see intelligence go to waste like this.

Posted by Walter on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 11:29 am

Don't take my word for it. Just ask Latinos what -they- think.

Unlike yourself, I have done so already, and that's how I discovered (a -long- time ago) that most spanish speaking people in the U.S. prefer the term Latino. With the exception that many in California and the Southwest prefer Chicano as a way to indicate that they are Mexicans living on land stolen, first by Spain, and then by the U.S.

To your point about english. You are clearly failing to make an obvious and key distinction and realization.

All spanish speakers call themselves spanish -speakers- because that is their -language- not their identity, culture, or home region.

When I describe what language I speak, I say that I am an english speaker. It is impossible for me to do otherwise. But, I of course do not say that I am 'English' because I am -not- English. When I describe what my homeland is, I say California. When I am asked to describe my ostensible identity, I say anglo referring to my cultural origins in the Angles and Saxons in ancient Europe.

In -exactly- the same way, Latinos -all- correctly state that they are spanish -speakers- simply because that is their language. But they don't say that they are 'Spanish' (i.e Hispanic) because it isn't accurate. But when asked who they -are- they will say either where they are from, or use the fundamental identity term Latino in the same way that I would use the term Anglo.

The terms Latino and Anglo take one's identity -out- of the realm of the 16th century colonizers and place identity in a more fundamental origin that predates the global colonial era.

Come on man. A grade school child could understand this.

Why can't you?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 12:24 pm

Since Spain came first? Those "Mexicans living on stolen land, first by Spain then by the United States" wouldn't have even been here had it not been for Spain. Unless you're talking about Native Americans, which you're not since you're specifically mentioning Spanish-speakers.

Oh - and FYI. Northern New Mexicans consider themselves Spanish and not "Mexican." Which you'd know if you bothered to do any research into this issue and didn't spend all your time spouting trite, 70's radical phrases.

Your thinking is so easy to dismember - piece by piece.

Posted by Lucretia "Secretia" Snapples on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 1:06 pm

Lucretia Alert "How can they be Mexican but not Spanish?" = empty BS

Posted by vigilante on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 5:03 pm
Posted by Lucretia "Secretia" Snapples on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 5:11 pm

The native tribes of California pre European's had nothing to do with the people from Mexico claiming this area as their confiscated homeland.

Your left wing racialism is so creepy.

Look at the top right map.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_Native_Americans#California

Posted by Guest on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 1:59 pm

Are you guys kidding...?

Most spanish speakers who are residents California, the Southwestern U.S. and Mexico are are of mixed descent; part European and part indigenous.

The following is not a simple concept but it is easily understandable, even by the two of you.

1) Pre 1492 there were indigenous people only.

2) After 1492 Spain took over, and the Spanish, other Europeans and indigenous people in that entire region extensively inter-mixed with eachother.

3) The now mixed population then kicked out Spain. (Upon kicking out Spain, the Mexican people had gained a new identity independent of Europe or the U.S.) However shortly afterward the U.S. took Texas, California, etc. from Mexico.

4) Most Mexicans did not recognize the U.S. forced claim that they were now 'Americans' north of the Rio Grand and 'Mexicans' south. In their own eyes, they were a unified essentially indigenous people without a border.

5) Much later during the people's revolutions around the 1960's, such Mexicans both north and south of the 'border' sought a revolutionary term to by which to accurately describe their identity.

The term they adopted is Chicano.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicano

Posted by Eric Brooks on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 4:56 pm

Because the term "indigenous people" was certainly in heavy use around the Mexican-American war, and people certainly thought of themselves as citizens of nations vs. citizens of their local cities and villages - the Internet being what it was then and all.

Posted by Lucretia "Secretia" Snapples on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 5:43 pm

The natives in California were never part of the people you were talking about, meaning people coming here from Mexico today. Maybe some Siberian or Greenland Inuits can have you rework history for them too? Maybe some Russians can have some new found rights to Northern California all the way to Alaska. Where does it stop?

Texas and California broke away and then joined the union. They probably got some help from the USA though.

This is also very interesting considering your views on the behavior of Jews returning to Israel.

Nothing really coherent here but the doctrine.

Posted by matlock on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 6:23 pm

True Marc, this stuff is very arbitrary.

I have a friend whose family is from Spain who identifies as a Gitana (a Spanish Roma culture). So I call her a Gitana.

In the case of Latinos, I defer to simply using the term by which most of them prefer to be described.

Doubtless that term will evolve, but for right now, that is where it sits for most spanish speaking 'Americans'.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 12:31 pm

The distinction is not arbitrary, rather regional.

In Texas, the preferred term was Chicano when I lived there, Hispanic was also used. In New Mexico, Hispano/Hispanic is used most often. In California, Latino is most common. I'm not talking about what language the leftist activists but what was in common usage.

And since these are Spanish words, if there is one man in the group, then it takes the masculine form. Not my idea but grammatically correct.

Each Latin American nation has its own version of the Spanish language, with distinct idioms, accents and speaking patterns.

Hopefully, with the US economy running off the cliff and generating so few jobs and with the US unable to make living conditions miserable in the global south, the economic pulling that drives so much immigration will diminish.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 8:41 pm

All points taken, but what I'm getting at is that there has been a decided general shift in the U.S. away from 'Hispanic' and to 'Latino'.

Though not quite as derogatory as the term 'negro', almost every Latino I've known for decades has a roughly similar reaction to the term 'Hispanic' as demeaning. Almost across the board do not want to be called 'Hispanic' which is seen as archaic.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 10:13 pm

Eric, you should not make the mistake of generalizing your Northern California experience onto the three other border states.

Negro was the last term used by white people to describe black people. Black was the term used by African Americans to take control of their naming from whites. Malcolm X used the term "negro" in his speeches:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQe9nUKzvQ

Of course southerners did not use the word negro to refer to their house or field slaves.

To my mind, the term "negro" really expresses how white people were trying to preserve their privileges while simultaneously trying to appear to not be racist as using the N word would connote. Growing up in Texas in the mid 1970s, my Jim Crow raised teachers would split the difference, calling them "nigrəs," as if the mere juxtaposition of letters was sufficient to give them cover for their hate.

Black friends of mine use the term to this day in the formation "Head Negro In Charge" to mean black control freak. I'll use it to connote barely concealed white fear of blacks, as in "you know, those Noe Valley families will never send their kids to public schools or ride the Muni, because they might have to, you know, be with the neeeegroes, but I'm not racist or anything like that."

Posted by marcos on Jul. 12, 2011 @ 7:04 am

Where do you get a keyboard with an upside-down "e"???

Posted by Greg on Jul. 12, 2011 @ 7:54 am

African Americans very commonly referred to themselves as 'negro' (essentially tolerating the term because they had little choice) all the way to the Civil Rights Era when they finally said, enough, we don't accept this archaic term anymore.

The same is happening with the term 'Hispanic'. I've spent a lot of time in the U.S. mid-west and have known Latinos from all over the country and they almost all seem agreed on ditching 'Hispanic' for Latino.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Jul. 12, 2011 @ 9:58 am