Showing posts with label undocumented immigrants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label undocumented immigrants. Show all posts

Saturday, October 4, 2008

Hate speech rises in the media

| |

Full Story:

by Joe Torres, Stop Big Media

For many people of color, fighting against our nation's media system is a matter of life and death. Too often, the media have contributed to the racial divisions that still exist in this country by marginalizing people of color in its coverage.

A major reason why this division exists is because people of color do not control the mass dissemination of their own images. Few people of color work in our nation's newsrooms, and fewer own broadcast stations.

People of color make up more than one-third of the U.S. population but own just 3 percent of all local TV stations and 8 percent of radio outlets. Journalists of color make up only 13.5 percent of all newsroom employees working at daily newspapers and 19 percent of the local TV newsroom work force. As a result, stories about people of color are often told by journalists who know little about these communities.

Look Who's Talking About Latinos

It should come as no surprise that coverage of immigration, especially on talk radio, is often hard to categorize as anything but hateful. Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage are among the major culprits who routinely demonize Latino immigrants on their programs.

On cable TV, CNN host Lou Dobbs has used his show to crusade against undocumented immigration. More than 70 percent of his programs in 2007 discussed the issue, according to the watchdog group Media Matters.

But Dobbs has had plenty of help from his cable compadres. Bill
O'Reilly and Glenn Beck have discussed undocumented immigration on 56 percent and 28 percent of their programs, respectively, almost always with an anti-immigrant slant.

The news networks have reinforced the idea there is little to know about Latinos outside of immigration. For years, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists has documented in its annual "Network Brownout" that Latinos make up less than 1 percent of the more than 12,000 news stories that air each year on the network evening news. Undocumented immigration and crime were the dominate focus of those stories.

The rise of anti-immigrant sentiment has impacted the Latino community immensely. A Pew Hispanic study released this week found that 1 in 10 Latinos have been stopped by the police or authorities and asked about their immigration status. Half of Latinos surveyed said the situation for Latinos has gotten worse over the past year due to concerns about deportation and discrimination in other areas of their lives, like finding jobs and housing.

Talk Radio Fuels Hate Crimes

Many Latinos believe that talk radio and anti-immigration news coverage has fueled the increase in hate crimes. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) reported that while hate crime statistics are not reliable, all available data indicate a surge in violence against Latinos. According to the FBI, hate crimes against Latinos shot up by 35 percent from 2003 to 2006.

SPLC also reported in 2007 that the immigration debate has increased the number of hate groups more than 40 percent hike since 2000, to 888 today. In addition, about 250 nativist groups have been founded in the past few years, driven by the immigration debate.

The Anti-Defamation League and SPLC report that nativist groups increasingly appear on news programs as legitimate anti-immigration advocates, even though many have spouted conspiracy theories on the air – such as the claim that Mexicans want to take back the Southwest for Mexico.

"This kind of really vile propaganda begins in hate groups, makes its way out into the larger anti-immigration movement, and, before you know it, winds up in places like 'Lou Dobbs Tonight' on CNN," says Mark Potok, director of the SPLC's Intelligence Project.

Latinos Fight Back

It is a difficult fight for Latinos and other people of color to challenge large media conglomerates to improve their coverage of communities of color and to get the hate speech off the airwaves. Many of these talk show hosts are extremely popular and have a large following.

But Latino groups have been fighting back. The National Council of La Raza has launched the Web Site www.stopthehate.com, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund has created www.truthinimmigration.org to monitor and denounce hate crimes and hate speech. Meanwhile, the National Hispanic Media Coalition and its allies are strategizing how to combat speech via a campaign at www.latinosagainsthatespeech.org.

In addition, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) has called on the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to update a 1993 report on the role of telecommunications in hate crimes.

Why Media Policy Matters

Media consolidation and media policy matters in this fight. As more companies own what we watch and read, it has made it harder for people of color to gain access to the airwaves and to speak for themselves without any gatekeepers.

A study conducted by the Center for American Progress and Free Press last year found that 91 percent of conservative radio talk shows aired on 257 news/talk stations were owned by just five companies. Meanwhile, minority-owned stations were far less likely to air conservative talk shows.

It is critical for people of color to gain access to the means of communications that will allow them to speak for themselves without the permission of gatekeepers. To accomplish this, the voices of people of color must be heard in the halls of Congress and at the FCC calling for legislation to increase minority media ownership and low power FM stations, to put the "public" back into public media,

Additionally, people of color must urge lawmakers to make sure the public has affordable broadband access and fight to maintain a free and open Internet that is available to everyone.

While it won't be easy for people of color to hold the FCC, corporate media and media personalities accountable for their actions, facing daunting challenges is nothing new for communities of color. It is a struggle, however, we must win for the good of our communities and for the good of our nation.

Friday, October 3, 2008

Gustavo Arellano: My dad, the illegal immigrant

Millions of Americans point to Ellis Island as the place where their family was first introduced to the United States. Others trace their ancestry to ships that dropped anchor centuries ago in New England. Still more greeted Lady Liberty by way of airplanes and a visa.

My father? He fondly remembers the comfortable space in the trunk of a Chevy Bel Air that was his ticket to the American dream.In 1968, Dad left his dying village of Jomulquillo, in the Mexican state of Zacatecas, to join his three older brothers in East Los Angeles.

Friday, October 3, 2008

Gustavo Arellano: My dad, the illegal immigrant

The Dallas Morning News
11:33 AM CDT on Friday, October 3, 2008

Eighteen years old, impetuous and with a fourth-grade education, Lorenzo Arellano would have had to do months' worth of paperwork to enter the United States legally – and there was still no guarantee that he'd be allowed to enter. Youth and a growling stomach have little patience, so my father paid a white woman – a U.S. citizen – to sneak him into the United States. In Tijuana, he squeezed into the Chevy's trunk alongside a cousin and another man and prayed.

The Bel Air passed across the U.S.-Mexico border with no problem – the agents just waved it through. It sped north on Interstate 5 for an hour until it came to the Border Patrol checkpoint just south of San Clemente. The car slowed to a crawl, then stopped. A moment of tension. The migra gave the Chevy the OK to leave.

"We made it!" the other man whispered to Dad and his cousin. They wouldn't speak another word until the woman finally stopped in Chinatown, where two of my uncles greeted young Lorenzo by taking him to a bar and drinking long into the night.

That wasn't the only time Papi entered the United States illegally. Twice, he climbed a fence from Tijuana and ran through the desert east of San Ysidro. Once, he spent a month in jail for using false documents. Perhaps Dad's most dramatic border crossing was when he crawled through a sewage-filled pipeline for about an hour to San Ysidro, in total darkness and with others ahead and behind him. The sewer emptied out near a McDonald's – insert your own Big Mac joke here.

My father, now a naturalized citizen, never tires of telling these stories to anyone who'll listen – his eyes light up, he gestures wildly and a smile always cracks wide. And, frankly, neither do I. Although millions of Americans might consider Dad a repeat violator of national sovereignty, I see in his borderland adventures the pluck of the Pilgrims, the resolve of a homesteader, the type of pioneer ethos that has fueled this country for so long. Frederick Jackson Turner was wrong; the American frontier will never close, not as long as there are people like my father who were and are willing to cross deserts, stuff themselves into cars, float across water – just for the chance to establish themselves in this country and thrive.

Almost every Mexican family I know has followed the same trajectory we have: illegal entry, rough times, hard work leading to success and assimilation for the kids, with the 1986 amnesty helping mucho.

Twenty-nine years of living among illegal immigrants and their American-born children has taught me this truism. And that's why my father's example is crucial and I'll retell it again and again. His story isn't important because it's special; it's important because it's the rule rather than the exception, a rule few want to believe and that therefore must be repeated as often as possible.

I'm glad that my father entered this country illegally. If he had come "the right way," our family's success would've been chalked up as just another example of immigrant can-do. But as an illegal, his accomplishments (as well as mine and my siblings') contradict the conventional wisdom regarding undocumented Mexicans that's been prevalent for this decade. My father's repeated breaking of immigration law is further proof that this country can and does rehabilitate all of her huddled masses, whether legal or not.

Personally, his stories motivate me. If my father could leave his life back in the rancho and risk everything at age 18, I have no excuse to whine about anything. And his stories reward me with the pleasure of watching anti-immigrant loons stumble for words when I ask them to explain how my father and my family could've excelled considering that we come from alien stock.

Dad isn't perfect by any means – indeed, he's suffered through most of the pathologies that many people attribute to illegal immigrants: Alcoholism. Fecundity. Lack of education. Failure to fully assimilate. It doesn't matter. The life he's crafted for himself is no different from your typical white, middle-class Valley resident who rails about the Mexican invasion.

Does my pride in Dad's outlaw past mean I support a free-for-all at the border? No. We deserve an accurate account of who enters and leaves the United States. We deserve immigrants who don't cheat the system, don't commit crimes against others, who better their communities and don't become burdens. But the traits embodied by Dad and so many more immigrants that spurred them to enter this country illegally – courage, an indomitable spirit, the ambition to seek a better lot in this country – are to be lauded and copied. (And spare me the letters about the illegal-entry bit; the Sooners did the same thing, yet we don't flinch when Oklahomans celebrate their spirit). To say this isn't traitorous or even an endorsement of the Reconquista, it's the truth.

We recently celebrated Dad's 57th birthday in the Anaheim home he's just a couple of thousand dollars away from finally paying off. His brothers were there, no longer scared teens running from the law but middle-aged U.S. citizens who want Barack Obama to win the presidential election but hate L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (ever since his extramarital affair was uncovered). Their children – my cousins, almost all children of former illegal immigrants – sat alongside the pool, feasting on carne asada and keeping an eye on their kids, who don't speak a lick of Spanish. My dad told his tales again, with my uncles corroborating each detail. When we brought out the cake, everyone sang "Happy Birthday" in English. Somewhere, Lou Dobbs cries.

Gustavo Arellano is author of the "¡Ask a Mexican!" column, which appears in the Dallas Observer. His e-mail address is themexican@askamexican.net.


Powered by FeedBurner

Thursday, October 2, 2008

What Part of "Legal" Don't You Understand, Lou?

by: Truth In Immigration

Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:18:17 PM EDT


Part One of "Lou Dobbs' Convention of Lies" analyzed several distortions Lou made on his September 10th edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight, at a rally by the Federation for American Immigration Reform. For Part Two, click on the video below:
VIDEO
Truth In Immigration ::
What Part of "Legal" Don't You Understand, Lou?
Originally posted at www.truthinimmigration.org
Also posted on The Sanctuary

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

When the Extreme Becomes Mainstream

Standing FIRM

An Online Community for Migrant Rights!

Posted by rachelfirm on September 30, 2008

Last week, I mentioned a recent Pew Hispanic Center Study which found that 1 in 10 Latinos has been stopped and asked about their immigration status by police or other authorities.

While this is certainly the most shocking statistic to come out of the study, it is only the tip of the iceberg for Latinos living in this country.

From the Huffington post:


"Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets. "
Napoleon Bonaparte

http://hladc-sf.blogspot.com
http://elrinconcitodeaurora.blogspot.com/

Thursday, October 2, 2008

11 Racist Lies Conservatives Tell to Avoid Blaming Wall Street for the Financial Crisis

Conservatives are twisting the facts beyond the breaking point to support their revisionist history. But don't be fooled.

11 Racist Lies Conservatives Tell to Avoid Blaming Wall Street for the Financial Crisis

AlterNet
By Sara Robinson, Campaign for America's Future.
Posted October 2, 2008.


Conservative pundits and politicians have piled onto the excuse like shipwreck victims clinging to a passing log: The real blame for the current economic crisis, conservatives would have you believe, lies not with anything they did, but rather with the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act -- a successful Carter-era program designed to get banks to stop covert discrimination, and encourage them to invest their money in low-income neighborhoods.

It's always easy to tell when the cons are completely lost at sea. The lies get more absurdly preposterous -- and also more transparently self-serving. But when they go so far as to openly and unapologetically latch onto race and class as an excuse for their woes (which this is, at its heart), you know they're taking on water fast -- and scared of going under entirely.

You can hear the conservative commentators burbling this CRA fable from the Wall Street Journal to the National Review; from Rush to YouTube. Neil Cavuto put the essence of the argument right out there on Fox News: "Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster." See! It's all the liberals' fault for insisting on social justice!

Conservatives are twisting the facts beyond the breaking point to support their revisionist history. But don't be fooled: the financial crisis was caused by conservative financial follies and bankers run amok and nothing more. Here are the basic myths they're trying to push about the CRA -- and the facts that will enable you to fire back.

1. The CRA was a liberal boondoggle designed to con banks into funding housing for undeserving, unqualified minorities.

False. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was the result of decades of disinvestment in poor and working-class neighborhoods. It was designed to put an end to "red-lining" -- a widespread practice in which banks refused to write mortgages for houses in certain neighborhoods, no matter who was applying or how creditworthy they were.

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 had made it illegal for real estate agents and banks to discriminate against homeowners on the basis of race. Red-lining soon emerged as a not-so-subtle way to continue this discrimination, by declaring, ahem, certain neighborhoods as unfit to invest in. By 1977, the results of this practice were becoming all too obvious, so Congress stepped and gave lenders a choice: if you want the FDIC to insure your deposits, you need to knock off the redlining.

The CRA didn't force lenders to make riskier loans than they would have otherwise. It simply required that they take each applicant on his or her own merits, and give people in poorer neighborhoods the same fair chance at a mortgage that everybody else in town was getting. It wasn't about preferential treatment. It was just about basic equality.

2. The CRA forced banks to lower their standards and make loans to all low-income families and people with poor credit -- and find banks that refused to comply.

No. The CRA has encouraged banks to lend fairly and responsibly for over 30 years. It does not impose fines. It does periodically examine FDIC-backed banks, and issues them a CRA compliance rating. A highly-rated bank must meet the financing needs of as many community members as possible, and must not discriminate against racial and ethnic groups or certain neighborhoods. However, a bank will not receive a high rating unless it is also maintains "safe and sound banking practices."

In other words, the CRA requires banks to lend to working-class families and people of color -- but only when those people have been deemed as creditworthy as anyone else.

3. The housing bubble burst when too many people with home loans mandated by the Community Reinvestment Act failed to make their mortgage payments.

False. The CRA only applies to FDIC member banks and thrifts. Back in the 1970s, these institutions were responsible for most of the country's mortgage lending. But starting in the 80s and on up to the present, we saw a huge boom in lending businesses-- such as finance companies like Countrywide -- that weren't banks, and didn't take deposits that required FDIC insurance. Thus, they didn't have any obligation to the CRA. And they were free to set their own lending standards, which were often far less cautious than those required of FDIC-insured banks.


"Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets. "
Napoleon Bonaparte

http://hladc-sf.blogspot.com
http://elrinconcitodeaurora.blogspot.com/