America's Voice Blog

Posted 02/03/12 at 01:15pm By Van Le

Utah Attorney General Says ‘Thanks, But No Thanks’ to Help From the Likes of Kris Kobach & FAIR

mark shurtleffMitt Romney may be eager to have Kris Kobach around as an adviser and endorser, but not everyone is as enthusiastic about the prospect of such ties.

As a reminder, Kris Kobach is the mastermind behind “papers, please” anti-immigrant laws in states like Alabama and Arizona. He has a long track record of opposing positive immigration reforms—including those that would benefit U.S. citizens.

Some may remember that when the Utah state immigration bill became law last year, it was almost immediately stoppered up by a district court, preventing the legislation from going into effect.  Provisions requiring local police to check the legal status of detained persons went un-enacted, but so did provisions that would have given immigrants already in the state a path toward legalization.

Many opponent groups—and several foreign countries—filed briefs standing against Utah’s law.  But when Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff (R) received a brief taking his side, supporting the law, Shurtleff effectively said “thanks.  But no thanks.”

Why?  The brief was filed by the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).  FAIR is designated as a “nativist hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center and is closely affiliated with Kobach.

Shurtleff said that support from IRLI could actually be “harmful” to his case and reportedly called the Institute to leave a “terse” message once he heard of the brief.

"We do not need the amicus support of IRLI — but we cannot prevent parties from filing them,” Shurtleff said.  “It should be clear that they do not represent the state nor any public official."  He also added that having FAIR’s involvement "plays into the false notion that our law is as bad as every other state’s law" -- that is enforcement-only.

Posted 02/02/12 at 10:09am By Mahwish Khan

In Kobach’s Home State, Business Leaders Want to Allow Undocumented Immigrants to Have Jobs

welcome to kansasKris Kobach authored Arizona's SB 1070 and Alabama's HB 56. He also confirmed to the AP earlier that he's "serving as an unpaid adviser on immigration issues" to Republican Mitt "I believe in self-deportation" Romney. Kobach's mission is to inflict so much hardship on immigrants that they leave the U.S, a process called "attrition through enforcement." While Kobach his wreaking havoc on the immigrant families and the economies of other states, the Agriculture Secretary wants to create a program to allow undocumented immigrants to work:

Facing pressure from large dairies and feedlots desperate for workers, Kansas Agriculture Secretary Dale Rodman is seeking a federal waiver that would allow companies to hire illegal immigrants.

Rodman has met several times with officials at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security about launching a pilot program that would place employers and illegal immigrants in a special state-organized network. The Topeka Capital-Journal reported that the goal is to create a legal, straightforward manner of organizing existing immigrant labor.

So far, Homeland Security has neither approved nor rejected the idea. “I need a waiver,” Rodman said. “It would be good for Kansas agriculture.”

Rodman's proposal is supported by the GOP-leaning business community:

The coalition pushing the new program includes agriculture groups with memberships that traditionally lean toward the GOP, as well as the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, another stalwart supporter of conservative Republicans.

So the people who work in agriculture and run businesses need undocumented immigrants to fill jobs. We'll see if Kobach will do to the Kansas economy what he's done to Alabama's -- $11 billion and counting. (Despite what Kobach thinks.)

Posted 01/31/12 at 02:47pm By Van Le

NPR’s “This American Life” Broadcasts Comprehensive Look at HB 56, Alabama’s Anti-Immigrant Law

this american lifeMore on Alabama and the HB 56 anti-immigrant law today: This American Life at NPR radio has a great broadcast entitled “Reap What You Sow” – a comprehensive story about life in Alabama under HB 56.

“Attrition through enforcement is when you make life so difficult, so unpleasant for immigrants that they choose to go home, they choose to self-deport,” the reporter intones.  He himself travels to Alabama, where he finds a state that forces every police officer to be in the business of busting the undocumented, where every encounter between a person and the state government is turned into a checkpoint, where every single day to day transaction involves checking a birth certificate.

He speaks with State Senator Gerald Dial (R-13), who supported HB 56’s passage but now supports its repeal, saying that the law is chilling foreign business investment.  He talks with Tuscaloosa Police Chief Steve Anderson, who calls HB 56 a “waste of resources” – “because there’s actually crime in Tuscaloosa, and immigrants are not a criminal priority.”

“They’re not in my top 10, maybe not even in my top 20,” Anderson says. 

The reporter notes how “there is something hateful in the air now,” how documented and undocumented immigrants alike are stared at everywhere they go now, “as in, what are you still doing here?”

He speaks with undocumented immigrants, including one woman who was forced to “self-deport” herself and her U.S.-born children to Mexico in between the time he spoke with her and the time the story was ready.

He also has a chat with HB 56 sponsor, Alabama State Senator Scott Beason, as well as author of the bill Kris Kobach—who, despite everything, continue to champion the bill and defend its results.

Toward the end of the report, the reporter notes that Beason’s and Kobach’s goal of self-deportation “sounds so rational, so clean, like it’ll happen automatically.  You don’t have to do much, they’ll just go.  But of course it’s much messier, you’re talking about separating parents from their children.  It’s completely primal, the things that scare us most.  And that is the actual plan. To scare them.”

That’s HB 56, and the concept of self-deportation at work for you: ripping apart families and terrorizing immigrants in order to address a non-issue.

Listen to the full broadcast here.

Posted 01/23/12 at 06:26pm By Van Le

Anti-Immigrant Laws in Alabama, Georgia Lead to Labor Shortages, Farmer Uncertainty About Crops

georgia onions“This is a jobs bill,” they said.  “This is a jobs-creation bill for Americans,” they said.

Such were the arguments that Alabama Senator Scott Beason (R) and Rep. Micky Hammon (R) made last year before passing their notoriously anti-immigrant state law, HB 56.

“Opponents of the law like to say that Alabamians won’t work the same jobs illegal immigrants are working,” said another supporter, Senate President Pro Tem Del Marsh.  “That’s simply not true.”

As it turns out: it was true.  Some farmers in Alabama and Georgia (which has a local anti-immigrant law of its own) are now facing such dire labor shortages as a result of these laws that they have begun changing their plans for planting and harvesting crops.  From the Washington Post this weekend:

Some farmers said they might reduce the number of acres they plant or shift to less labor-intensive crops, while others are bracing for higher labor prices and have turned to new recruiting tools to attract workers.

Georgia and Alabama have approved laws that have tough enforcement provisions that farmers say are scaring migrant workers away from the states.

Since the laws were approved last year, farmers in both states have reported labor shortages because migrant workers aren’t showing up and they say they can’t find other workers to fill the jobs.

Farmers and state officials have said that some produce was left to rot in the field last year because there weren’t enough workers to help with the harvest.

Farmers have claimed not enough U.S. citizens want the jobs, but some said the issue is actually that producers won’t offer a high enough wage to attract legal workers.

Brett Hall, Alabama’s deputy agriculture commissioner, said nurseries across south Alabama are trying to find workers to fill about 2,000 jobs ahead of the spring growing season. Many nursery growers are staffing job fairs in hopes of attracting employees, he said.

Other growers aren’t ordering seeds or new equipment because they anticipate a labor shortage, he said.

“Before this law, migrant workers would just show up. They knew when they were needed,” Hall said. “That’s not happening anymore.”

“Garsh, who could have predicted this?” snarked Joe Jervis at joe.my.god.

Who, indeed?  It’s not as if there have been countless articles and commentaries that have been warning legislators for months about what would happen if a state tried to evict a hardworking population that did the jobs the rest of its residents didn’t want to.

It’s not as if there haven’t been analyses of how many workers these farms are short (11,000 in Georgia) or how much money these laws have cost (“millions” in unharvested and rotting crops).

It’s not as if farmers have been begging legislators to repeal the law in order to give them a chance to preserve their livelihood.  Remember this episode?

But farmers’ pleas fell on deaf ears when they spoke recently to the bill’s sponsor, Alabama state Sen. Scott Beason (R). Beason stood firmly behind the law, arguing that it would help free up jobs for Alabamians in a state suffering from high unemployment. The farmers were quick to tell him that immigrants are the only ones willing to do this kind of back-breaking field labor. One farmer even challenged Beason to try the work himself if he was so confident immigrants could be easily replaced:

Tomato farmer Brian Cash said the migrant workers who would normally be on Chandler Mountain have gone to other states with less restrictive laws.

After talking with farmers at the tomato shed, Beason visited the Smith family’s farm. Leroy Smith, Chad Smith’s father, challenged the senator to pick a bucket full of tomatoes and experience the labor-intensive work.

Beason declined but promised to see what could be done to help farmers while still trying to keep illegal immigrants out of Alabama.

Smith threw down the bucket he offered Beason and said, “There, I figured it would be like that.”

The new legislative session in Alabama begins February 7.  You can be sure we'll be there to renew the fight against HB 56, forcing legislators to reap what they've sown.

Posted 01/11/12 at 11:04am By Mahwish Khan

Effort to Repeal DREAM Act Failed in California

tim donnellySome good news from California over the weekend:

Critics of illegal immigration announced Friday that they were unable to obtain the needed 500,000 petition signatures to ask voters to repeal the California Dream Act.

The two-part measure, which allows undocumented immigrants access to both public and private financial aid at UC and Cal State campuses and at community colleges, was signed into law last year by Gov. Jerry Brown.

The failure "is disappointing news," said Assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-San Bernardino), the public face of the initiative drive, in an email to supporters.

As that LA Times article noted, "It was a rough week for Donnelly, the Assembly's only tea party member." Donnelly got arrested at the Burbank airport for trying to carry a loaded handgun on to a plane, which is, in fact, illegal:

A state Assemblyman caught with a handgun in his carry-on bag at Ontario International Airport Wednesday morning said later that he forgot the firearm was in his bag.

Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks (San Bernardino County), was cited and released after the incident, which occurred at 7:45 a.m. at an airport security checkpoint as Donnelly was heading to Sacramento for the start of the legislative session.

Transportation Security Authority officials said Donnelly was carrying a loaded Colt Mark IV .45 caliber handgun in his carryon bag along with four rounds in a magazine inserted in the gun. He also had another separate magazine with an additional five rounds, said TSA spokesman Nico Melendez.

Airport police spokeswoman Sgt. Belinda Nettles said officers initially cited Donnelly for carrying an unloaded firearm but are amending the misdemeanor charge to reflect that the gun was loaded. The weapon was booked at Ontario Police Department, and Donnelly will appear in court at a later date, Nettles said.

Posted 01/05/12 at 01:33pm By Adam Luna

Bullying for Political Reasons is A-Ok?

Crossposted at Jack & Jill Politics

Just read a disturbing post by Jillian Rayfield at TPM about new legislation in Tennessee which would amend the state’s anti-bullying law to exempt bullying for political reasons just as long as the victim’s person or property aren’t damaged.  It is being denounced for aiming to give a green light to the harassment of gay kids in school, which it is.

But it sure seems to me that a bully could be let off the hook for lashing out at a kid because of their political beliefs about immigration, welfare, affirmative action or any of the other stuff we’ve heard a million times.  I’ve recently been spending a lot of time in Alabama in the aftermath of the passage of the nation’s most extreme anti-immigrant law and can tell you bullying as “political expression” is in full effect there.

Jillian points to an article by the Chattanooga Times Free Press where former State Senator Don Fowler, a leading proponent of the bill, explains the proposal:

People should “never encourage slurs,” Fowler noted, “but the purpose of bullying statutes is to prevent persons or the property being harmed — not their mere sensibilities of being offended. That’s where common sense has to rein.”

This, after he explained away the suicide of a gay teenager who had been the subject of vicious bullying for years by saying that the suicide note didn’t mention bullying and that, in fact, any bullying he may have experienced was just a matter of his feelings being hurt.

Fowler’s group objected to gay activists tying the bill to Rogers’ death, saying “the young man had numerous emotional problems and because he was also open about his homosexual conduct was also often made fun of at school.”

It said the notes Rogers left behind mentioned “his mother leaving him, his alcohol and drug abuse and an eating disorder. But nothing about bullying.”

In Alabama, the civil rights leaders who were there in the 50s and 60s see the new anti-immigrant law there for what it is.  I’ve heard them say that it’s about a discriminatory policy AND about giving the green light to intimidation from anyone.

I was at an ad-hoc hearing of Members of Congress in Birmingham last month where Mary Bauer, from the Southern Poverty Law Center testified that:

A father called to report that his U.S. citizen daughter came home weeping from school after other students told her she did not belong there and needed to go back to Mexico—a country she had never visited.

Of course, the bullies didn’t touch her or steal her lunch money so they were simply expressing their political beliefs.  I can’t tell you how many other stories I’ve heard like this.  A guy in a park being approached by a screaming woman to get out, taunts at a gas station pump – all just expressing a political belief.

Think Progress has an excerpt from the proposal itself:

“Creating a hostile educational environment” shall not be construed to include discomfort and unpleasantness that can accompany the expression of a viewpoint or belief that is unpopular, not shared by other students, or not shared by teachers or school officials.

The policy shall not be construed or interpreted to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of students and shall not prohibit their expression of religious, philosophical, or political views; provided, that such expression does not include a threat of physical harm to a student or damage to a student’s property.

Reading all of this made me think of that iconic photo of fifteen year old Elizabeth Eckford trying to walk into Little Rock Central High in 1957.  The mob of kids shouted her down and threatened to lynch her but they didn’t touch her – just were expressing their political beliefs.  “I’m sorry if my words offended anyone.” 

I know that I shouldn’t be surprised but sometimes I’ve got to put my usually jaded attitude aside and be outraged and amazed for a minute.  The conservatives will try to make this latest bill all about religion but it’s as clear as day that they’re just still pissed that they can’t shout us into the shadows anymore.

 

Posted 12/14/11 at 11:47am By Pili Tobar

How the First Caucus State is Offering a Sensible—and Popular—Solution on Immigration Reform

iowa compactOn Tuesday, December 13th, community, business, and religious leaders in Iowa launched the Iowa Compact, which charts a sensible course on immigration policy – a welcome contrast to the “papers, please” crackdowns passed in Arizona and Alabama. And, as Iowans well know, ugly immigration rhetoric has been a standard component from most of the GOP 2012 presidential contenders.  But, according to a raft of new polling, the sentiment behind the Compact is far more in line with the wishes of Iowans and other Americans across the ideological spectrum than the approach championed by most Republican presidential candidates.   

The Iowa Compact is supported by a range of business, civic, political, and religious leaders across the state and across the partisan spectrum who believe that “immigration policy falls under the purview of federal, not state government” and requires a federal solution.  As the Des Moines Register writes, “Republican presidential candidates should abandon sound bites about building walls along the U.S. border and deporting undocumented workers, and look to immigration as part of the solution to the nation’s economic challenges, says a group of business and civic leaders…The compact calls for smart immigration enforcement, keeping families together and consideration for the role immigrants play in the U.S. and Iowa economies.  Similar compacts have been adopted in other states, including Indiana and Utah.  The group hopes to use the national attention surrounding Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucuses to drive middle-ground discussions of immigration reform.”

Voters in Iowa, including most likely Republican caucus-goers, are not as rabidly anti-immigrant and animated by the issue as some politicians seem to believe.  America’s Voice has produced a recap of recent Iowa polling, which you can find here.  Among the highlights:

A Washington Post-ABC News poll of likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers finds that Newt Gingrich’s immigration stance attracts twice as many caucus-goers as it repels.  The poll listed a series of controversies that had arisen during the primary campaign, asking respondents if they considered each issue a major factor to support the candidate in question, oppose the candidate, or if it was not a major factor. When asked about “Newt Gingrich’s position on illegal immigration,” which includes a path to legal status for some longtime undocumented immigrants, 34% of potential caucus-goers and 38% of likely caucus-goers said it was a major reason to support Gingrich, while only 16% of potential caucus-goers and 15% of likely caucus-goers said it was a major reason to oppose him.

Public Policy Polling (PPP) polling of Iowa Republican caucus-goers found that there is “not much evidence that Gingrich's immigration stance will prove to be an issue.  Only 29% of caucus voters think illegal immigrants who have been in the country for 25 years and paid their taxes and obeyed the law should be deported, to 44% who think they should not be.  Something may sink Newt's campaign in the next month, but it's not likely to be that issue.”  Like the Post/ABC poll, PPP also found that immigration was far from a driving force for Republican caucus-goers, as only 3 percent ranked “illegal immigration” as their most important issue when deciding their vote.  In comparison, 43 percent named “government spending, reducing the debt,” 27 percent “jobs/economy,” 9 percent “social issues,” and 4 percent “taxes.”

Polling conducted for the Partnership for a New American Economy by Iowa-based pollsters Selzer & Co. found that “likely caucus-goers in Iowa support legal immigration reform and rank illegal immigration as a lower priority than most other issues polled.”  Though the poll showed concern among Iowans about the issue of illegal immigration and support for a variety of enforcement measures, it did not specifically explore support for a path to legalization or citizenship or ask about voters’ support for the specific candidates’ immigration platforms.  The Selzer & Co. poll did show that immigration isn’t the driving force for Republican voters that some portray it as: 46% labeled “Halting Illegal Immigration” as “critical,” 27% as “important,” and 16% as “somewhat important.”  Comparatively, immigration ranked much lower on the “critical” scale than such issues as “Reforming government spending and debt” (85% labeled as “critical”), “Creating jobs in the U.S.” (70% “critical”), “Encouraging the creation of new businesses in the U.S.” (64% “critical”), and “Reforming taxes” (52% “critical”).  The remainder of the poll showed broad support for a range of proposals designed to increase legal immigration.

According to Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America’s Voice:

The Iowa Compact is a tangible reminder that there is another way on immigration that is more sensible and more popular than pretending we can enforce our way to a controlled and orderly immigration system.  The leaders who put forth this Compact are right – the solution must come from Washington, not the states.  Polling shows that voters in Iowa and across the country want common sense, federal reform.  It’s time for Washington to catch up.

Read about the Iowa Compact

Access recent immigration-related polling of likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers

Posted 10/25/11 at 03:18pm By Van Le

“Verbal Brawl” Erupts at House E-Verify Briefing

lamar smith e-verifyWith all that’s been happening with the new immigration law in Alabama, it’s been hard to remember that there are, in fact, other balls still in the air re: immigration.

Take, for example, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX)’s  mandatory E-Verify bill, passed through the House Judiciary Committee last month and lingering in the House ever since.  For those who don’t remember, E-Verify is the government database of names that employers would have use to ensure all new hires are documented.  In a post-immigration reform world where we had a legalized agricultural workforce, E-Verify might work; right now, however, its error rate threatens to put hundreds of thousands of Americans out of a job while devastating the U.S. agricultural industry.

Yesterday, a panel of speakers came to Capitol Hill to brief staffers on the bill, a “usually staid” kind of event “with representatives from advocacy groups offering perspective for legislative aides boning up on the issue du jour.”

Things got a bit testier once the panel ended and Andrea Loving, an aide to House Judiciary Committee chairman Smith, tried to "ambush" the speakers, “who had just spent half an hour trashing the bill she helped write,” according to National Journal’s Fawn Johnson.

Johnson relates the episode:

“None of you came to see me,” [Loving] said, obviously irritated, adding that the panelists misstated the facts about the E-Verify bill…

Arguments descended into chaos on Monday after Loving identified herself. (Read every quote in this article as a low-level yell.)

“Read the bill,” Loving told them.

“I wholeheartedly agree. Read the bill,” said David Burton, general counsel of the National Small Business Association, who earlier characterized the bill’s punitive measures as “off the charts nuts.”

“You don’t understand it,” Loving retorted.

“I’m sorry you introduced a bill that will do nothing to stem the tide of illegal immigration,” said Andrew Langer, president of the Institute for Liberty, a watchdog group that tracks small-business regulations.

Philip Wolgin, an immigration-policy analyst at the liberal Center for American Progress, recited a litany of statistics about delays that bona fide workers whose initial checks deem them unauthorized would face. Loving said the bill has built-in protections for those workers.

Now it was Competitive Enterprise Institute policy analyst Alex Nowrasteh’s turn. “When reality and the government collide, usually reality wins,” he said.

From Johnson’s account, it doesn’t seem as if Loving, or any the supporter of E-Verify at the hearing, walked away much convinced about the pitfalls of the bill.  That’s too bad; E-Verify, once thought to have enough supporters that it would sail right through the House, has been so thoroughly panned lately that it’s still waiting for floor time.  At last count, it’s been opposed by Democratic leaders, business interests, labor groups, libertarians, even Tea Party conservatives and the GOP 2012 contenders.  Word is really getting out that its bureaucratic flaws would actually cost many legal American workers and U.S. citizens their jobs during a bad economy, and all kinds of strange bedfellows are coming together to try and kill the bill.  Rep. Lamar Smith, and holdouts like Andrea Loving, should listen.

For more about E-Verify, check out our fact sheet.

Posted 10/10/11 at 04:13pm By Mahwish Khan

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA): 15 Years Later

Written by David Leopold, Immediate Past President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA www.aila.org).  Cross-posted at The AILA Leadership Blog.

September 30th is an anniversary that went virtually unnoticed. It marked 15 years since the Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA). For many practicing young lawyers who came into the field wanting to keep families united, this law suddenly changed the playing field tipping it in a way that made it even harder, and in many cases impossible, to seek justice. IIRAIRA made practicing immigration law that much more complex.

I’m not quite sure where to start.

This blog could be devoted to how IIRAIRA removed justice from the immigration courts by stripping judges of their ability to evaluate individual immigrants and their contributions to America.

Or it could focus on the married couples and families torn apart as a result of IIRAIRA’s punitive bars to re-admission which apply to foreign nationals who have overstayed their visas in the U.S.   Added to the law as deterrent to illegal immigration, the bars have clearly had the reverse effect, serving instead as an incentive for people to hunker down and remain in the U.S. unlawfully rather than be separated from their U.S. citizen spouses and children.

Or this blog could describe the stories of countless immigrants who gave up their fight for justice in the immigration courts rather than languish for months, even years, in mandatory detention because IIRAIRA denied them reasonable bail.

Or it could describe how IIRAIRA, coupled with the anti-immigrant panic that gripped the nation after 9/11, led to a virtual police state for immigrants; an America where midnight warrantless arrests, secret trials, and special registrations of distinct ethnic groups were the norm.

Finally, this blog could make the argument that the ramifications of IIRAIRA’s unduly harsh provisions have not been limited to the courtrooms, detention centers, or ports of entry. So too, have business visa petitions been subject to years and years of increasingly restrictive agency interpretation and adjudications which have only served to stifle education, innovation, and entrepreneurship.

Today a key author of the law, Rep. Lamar Smith, now chairs the House Judiciary Committee. A few years after IIRAIRA was enacted Smith signed a letter to then-Attorney General Janet Reno calling for more careful use of prosecutorial discretion. The plea never would have been necessary but for the harsh consequences of IIRAIRA, which was spreading injustice while doing little to improve America’s immigration system.

In the end, the lesson of IIRAIRA is that good immigration policy cannot be made by slapping together specious sound bites and talking points. That just makes an already dysfunctional immigration system more dysfunctional. America deserves immigration solutions, not more detention, deportation, and exclusion. We don’t need more IIRAIRA’s. We need a comprehensive policy that secures the border, keeps our communities safe, protects America’s economic edge, and restores and protects due process.

Let’s hope Lamar Smith and the other sponsors of IIRAIRA have learned this lesson, too.

Posted 09/30/11 at 11:09am By Mahwish Khan

Told to “Go Home,” CNN Producer Documents His “Encounter with Anti-Latino Racism.”

Very powerful post from Nick Valencia, a producer at CNN about his first-hand experience with anti-Latino racism recently in Atlanta. Nick is a third generation Mexican-American, who was recently told to "Go home" by a woman in Atlanta:

 "Go home!" she yelled at me. "Why don't you go back home to Mexico before you ruin this country like you ruined your own!"

I was standing in a crowd at the Music Midtown festival in Atlanta, where I live. A few minutes earlier I'd met a group of five people who'd been standing in front of me -- here from Mexico City -- and I had begun speaking Spanish with them.

Valencia's entire post is worth a read. Here's an excerpt that gets to the core of this experience:

As a third-generation Mexican-American growing up in Los Angeles, I had never encountered such overt racism. In fact, because my family was long since assimilated, among my Latino friends I was always considered the "pocho" or "white boy" of the group. (As I write this, a part of me knows somewhere in L.A., a friend of mine will be proud to know someone actually considered me Mexican enough to yell "go home" at me.)

My Mexican friends remind me that I am American first, Mexican second and that my English is better than my Spanish.

"Yes," I tell them. "But I can never walk into a room and be white."

Evidently, to some the brown color of my skin means I'm not even American. My friends and family tell me what I experienced that night is a microcosm of what is happening to Latinos across the country. You don't have to look hard to find it. In news stories, in political discourse, on talk radio, in everyday conversation it seems it has become OK to treat Latinos in a negative and antagonistic way -- whether they are new immigrants or longtime Americans. The anti-immigration legislation sweeping across the United States has made this plain. People in my Latino networks say they've noticed the change. And now I understand what they mean.

 1 2 3 >  Last »