Category: Uncategorized

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

Oh, and while we have the attention of our Nazi readers, don’t forget to vote in our school funding poll. We like to keep track of how many you are.

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

Each year, 150,000 minors attempt to cross the border from Mexico into the USA. About 50,000 make the attempt without their parents.

And at Mexico’s southern border, most of the minors who attempt the crossing are unaccompanied. Some of the minors come from as far away as Ethiopia.

These are some of the findings reported by Mexico in its report to the U.N. Committee on the Rights of Migrant Workers. See below for more:
Securing of foreign minors travelling alone

78. The situation of migrant child victims is particularly worrying. Of the roughly 150,000 minors who attempt to cross to the United States each year, either to be reunited with their families or simply to achieve a better standard of living for themselves, some 60,000 are deported. A third of minors who attempt the crossing do so without the company of relatives or with people smugglers.

79. Of approximately 200,000 Central Americans returned to their countries of origin from Mexico in 2004, around 17 per cent were minors, most were travelling unaccompanied and many were returning for the second, third or fourth time.

80. Upon securing an unaccompanied minor, INM alerts the corresponding consulate so that the latter can begin trying to locate the minor’s family and link up with a counterpart institution to DIF in the country of origin that will take charge of the minor. When the consulate informs INM that it has lists of family or institutional contacts and provides a safe conduct for the minor, INM begins the process of returning the minor to his/her country of origin.

81. DIF provides support for housing unaccompanied foreign minors aged under 12 years, provided that they fulfil the norms of the home in which they are placed, do not require special care (mentally handicapped children, among others) and stay only for a short time.

82. For minors who do not fulfil the foregoing norms, INM has built special facilities at the Iztapalapa migrant holding centre to shelter and care for adolescents under the Institute’s protection pending completion of the procedures for returning them to their countries of origin.

83. Travel tickets for minors are supplied mainly by INM, except in some cases where they are supplied by the minors’ own relatives and/or consulates. Each minor is accompanied during the transfer process by a migration official who is responsible for the minor’s safety until he/she is handed over to family members and the corresponding authorities in the country of
origin.

84. INM is currently working to fit out special areas for minors within its different facilities to provide them with the necessary care and protection.

85. As part of inter-agency cooperation measures, on 25 January 2005 DIF and the National School of Social Work of the Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) presented a methodology for the care of adolescent migrants, which is a model for the care of minors under INM protection at the Iztapalapa migrant holding centre. This model will be replicated in other
INM migrant holding centres.

86. In some cases, repatriation is delayed because consulates do not receive an immediate response from the institutions responsible for caring for children in their countries.

87. For the Mexican Government, it is important to keep families together. Accordingly, if foreigners travelling with minors are secured, the children remain at the migrant holding centre or else, at the request of their parents or relatives, are sent to DIF until the time comes for their repatriation.

88. On 19 May 2005, the Ministry of the Interior, INM and DIF signed an agreement establishing joint measures for repatriated unaccompanied Mexican and foreign migrant children and adolescents that is a basic tool for providing the necessary comprehensive, differentiated care to migrant minors in the country.

89. The object of this agreement is to lay the bases for cooperation among the participating entities, committing DIF to providing shelter for migrant children under age 12 through the network of public and private shelters participating in the inter-agency programme for border-area children and INM to doing the same for migrant children age 12 and over in migrant holding centres, in keeping with the methodologies, technical advice and training provided by the national DIF scheme.

90. During 2004, the Iztapalapa migrant holding centre housed 4,142 minors: 879 girls (21.3 per cent) and 3,263 boys (78.7 per cent). Of these, 624 (15 per cent) were aged 0 to 11 years and 3,518 (84.9 per cent) were in the 12 to 17 age group.

91. The minors came from 31 countries, the largest numbers coming from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Ecuador and Brazil. There were also minors from countries outside the region: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Lithuania and Sierra Leone.

92. To deal comprehensively with the problem of the risks faced by vulnerable minors living in the country’s border areas, principally the northern border, an inter-agency project for the care of border-area minors was set up in 1996 under the Mexico-United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Cooperation Programme.

93. The purpose of the project is to provide care for such minors and ensure respect for their human rights from the moment when they are secured until they rejoin their families or communities of origin, through the coordinated efforts of the following entities: INM, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the National Scheme for the Comprehensive Development of
the Family, under the overall responsibility of the latter.

94. The project operates on Mexico’s northern border and work is currently under way on a specific programme for the country’s southern border, coordinated with the government of the state of Chiapas.

95. The inter-agency project for border-area minors comprises a network of 22 transit shelters throughout the length of the northern border, involving three levels of government and civil society organizations, to provide care for repatriated migrant minors.

96. From January to June 2005, 26,330 minors were repatriated, 3.6 per cent fewer than in the same period of 2004, and 14,108 minors were channelled, according to their characteristics, to the various public and private institutions belonging to the network of transit shelters, to other institutions that care for such minors and directly to their family members, 43 per cent more than in the same period of 2004.

97. It should also be mentioned that the implementing regulations of the General Population Act state that: “The Ministry of the Interior, in coordination with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the National Scheme for the Comprehensive Development of the Family, shall promote agreements with state governments and state schemes for the comprehensive development of the family establishing mechanisms for cooperation and coordination in carrying out measures benefiting repatriated migrant minors, in order to guarantee their rights under the law.”

98. Accordingly, the Mexican Government has signed a number of agreements with United States authorities for the safe and orderly repatriation of Mexican nationals. These agreements establish places, times and procedures in each border state for safe and orderly repatriation, emphasizing the care that must be given to people in special circumstances, women who are pregnant and/or accompanied by infants, injured persons and unaccompanied minors.
Repatriated minors travelling alone are channelled directly by INM regional offices to municipal DIF schemes or network shelters.

99. The Beta Groups have also strengthened coordination with centres located in border areas that care for repatriated minors, as in the specific case of the state of Baja California where two centres located in Tijuana and Mexicali have been in operation since February 2004. On 18 November 2004, a c

entre for repatriated minors was also opened in San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora.

100. The Mexican Government is continuing to set up new modules throughout the length of the border zone so that all minors can be handed over directly to DIF for channelling to the various shelters and handing over to their family members.

101. INM hands over repatriated minors to the DIF staff responsible for the module, where the minor is given a social, medical and psychological evaluation. Investigations are also begun to locate family members so that the minor can be returned to his/her family or community of origin.

102. Through its offices on the northern border, INM takes measures to back up and fulfil the objectives of the programme for the care of border-area minors by means of the following agreements and commitments:

− To reiterate the need to comply with bilateral agreements on orderly repatriation, emphasizing that INM offices may receive minors outside established hours only in cases involving their safety;

− To ensure the necessary compatibility between the operating hours of the National Institute for Migration and those of the social welfare institutions to which minors are channelled;

− To channel minors, at the moment of repatriation, directly to DIF or to the governmental and non-governmental agencies responsible for returning them to their families and places of origin;

− To make minors aware of their rights and discourage them from re-entering United States territory in the future;

− To strengthen the measures taken in the 11 northern border communities where the programme operates.

Measures on the southern border

103. Under the inter-agency programme for the care of border-area minors, efforts are being made to implement a care strategy for migrant minors on the southern border. To that end, a coordination group has been set up, comprising the national DIF scheme, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, INM, the Institute for Human Development (IDH), the Mexican Refugee Assistance Commission (COMAR) and UNICEF. As part of this strategy, the government of the state of
Chiapas, through IDH, set up a shelter for migrant minors in April 2005 in the city of Tapachula,
Chiapas, to offer comprehensive care to migrant minors. There are also plans to sign a local
inter-agency cooperation agreement among IDH, the national DIF, COMAR and INM to establish procedures for the care of Central American migrant minors in Tapachula, Chiapas.

104. The Agreement for the Safe and Orderly Repatriation of Central Americans on the Borders of Mexico and Guatemala, signed on 2 July 2004, establishes that unaccompanied minors shall be repatriated only through the intervention of officials of the consular and migration authorities of the Central American country concerned, guaranteeing at all times their integrity and safety and respect for their human rights.

105. In July 2004, INM travelled overland from the Iztapalapa migrant holding centre to the Tapachula, Chiapas, migrant holding centre to observe and improve the procedure for repatriating Central American adolescents. It also verified the kind of treatment and care given to adolescents when they were handed over to their migration authorities on the borders of Honduras and El Salvador, where there is no involvement of the authorities responsible for the
care of minors.

106. On 21 November 2004, the construction of the model migrant holding centre in Tapachula, Chiapas, began on a 30,000 sq. metre site in the state with the greatest volume and movement of secured migrants in the country. The centre has a projected capacity of around 960 temporary places and 490 overnight places, with specific areas for men, women, families
and minors. In keeping with applicable international standards, the project includes the construction of dormitories, interview rooms, rooms for medical visits, children’s and recreation areas, dining rooms, a laundry, a library, a social work and psychological care area and offices for CNDH staff. To view the Mexico report in English, French, or Spanish see the preview of an upcoming meeting of the Committee on Migrant Workers (Geneva)