Category: Uncategorized

By Greg Moses

The Gringo Vigilante article has hit a bad nerve, and complaints are flowing in. Which is just the kind of thing we like to see. Lots of opportunity to listen and respond about civil rights issues today. This is a live one. Below are three emails to start with. But first, something I ran into while researching my replies:

As I was writing up the immigration story below, a report coming out of the Center for Immigration Studies argues that anti-aging effects of immigration will be modest.

Immigration in an Aging Society: Workers, Birth Rates, and Social Security (April 2005) By Steven A. Camarota

I didn’t find the study prior to publication of my little pro-immigration romp. Although the study would have dampened the tone of my “fountain of youth” effusions, it remains a credible conclusion to draw that the anti-aging effects of immigration trend in the beneficial direction. In other words the more immigration we have coming the younger we get as a nation, even though overall it is difficult to affect the large momentum of the aging trend.

Much of the discussion in the immigration study is misleading since it dwells upon the anti-aging effects of past immigration.

In the year 2000, immigrants who had arrived since 1981 were on average 33 years old (compared to nonimmigrant average of 36). But post-1991 immigrants were on average 28 point something years old. As time goes on, the difference between the average age of immigrants and nonimmigrants widens.

At the present time says the study there is not much difference between the average ages of immigrants and nonimmigrants. Which sounds so irrelevant that you have to wonder why they took so long studying past immigration in the first place.

The article does offer evidence collected from federal sources to address the pertinent question of anti-aging effects in the future. As with aging, so it goes with social security. The more immigration the better with similar modesty of overall results.

But what’s more important about the study is that practical effects of immigration one way or the other hardly surpass marginal to modest impacts. Which means that if one can not find in immigration a panacea for aging demographics, one can hardly blame immigration for severe structural ills either.

* * *

So far, mail is running 100 percent negative. One email from New York simply accuses me in the subject line of being “Another Liberal Idiot!!!” without any message attached. No doubt the author of the email sees enough liberal idiots in New York that the characteristics become self evident. And there are many days when I do miss that crowd. But imagining New York without robust immigration? Maybe it is simply the experience of walking the New York streets that guides my pro-immigration instincts. Dylan in his memoir calls New York City capital of the world. You couldn’t say a thing like that without immigrants. By the same token, I dream that San Antonio could become capital of the Americas.

Of course there is no way to put shipping lanes through San Antonio, so maybe Houston has to be the going chance for Texas. It is already a city with international flair.

* * *

Another email cites some interesting things to consider. At least the author takes some time to provide evidence:

The Wall Street Journal says we should open the border, because the immigrants will work for a “reasonable” paycheck.

The border watch people blames the EMPLOYERS for the immigration problem.

How can workers unionize if they get undercut?

Japan seems to do well without cheap labor

Should rich people not do their own laundry?

The combined effect of these items I take to support some kind of labor nationalism by pointing out that American workers would be in a better bargaining position as an island unto themselves. And I can see the logic. It does have some force to it. But labor nationalism is a volatile game to play within an American context. The weakness of American labor results in large measure from racism. And racism in an American context is difficult to untangle from labor nationalism.

The minutemen vigilantes claim all kinds of ways not to be racist. They claim to be only 92 percent of European descent. But then they post long diatribes against the Southern Poverty Law Center and Morris Dees. Their explicit message of “law enforcement not racism” has functional consequences not so simple to contain.

From an international perspective of human rights, it would be best if there were labor planning forums organized around robust worker power. I know that’s not happening. But the proposal at least establishes a conceptual approach to the problem of Mexico-USA labor relations which have to be thrown into a complex 500 year history. In the context of the American Southwest, immigration is a family issue in the sense of involving parties that have long and intimate acquaintance.

Or to use another analogy, the USA-Mexico border runs like a track through your typical Southern order of things, with Mexico on one side of the tracks and USA on the other. It fools no one to pretend that the inequalities between the two sides of the track result from entirely independent histories. Therefore it remains for me incredible to argue that any human solution can be confined to either national framework.

I don’t have any opinions about whether the rich should do their own laundry. Elton John once said (I believe to David Frost) that laundry represented a kind of emotional threshold issue for him because of his rampant wealth. One thing he had to work out as part of his general recovery was an ability to do his own wash. It had for him a kind of Zen value. I hope I’m not taking the point too seriously, but I would think that a progressive answer to the laundry question would depend on the labor conditions of the hired help.

BTW: Hope you enjoyed your visit to Texas, Sir Elton. It couldn’t have been better timed. Congratulations on your engagement. (Editor takes break to vacuum bedroom.)

* * *

A third email asks: “Such bizarre racism is quite unbecoming of a “progressive.” I understand that it’s cute and fun to characterize the Minutemen and by association all of White America as “gringos,” but think: when the Hispanic population outnumbers the gringos in America in 50 years, will your charming little race-based comments about White people as illiterate, greedy, and inherently evil be taken so lightly? When will the racism line reverse? I don’t understand this latent hypocrisy in your essay.”

Hmmm. I guess cute and fun come close to describing the intended tone of the article. But racism? I consider the article to be anti-racist. Whether the tone will hold up in fifty years is a good question — thanks for asking — and precisely the reason that I implore the borderland vigilantes to reconsider their posture at this point in time, while it is possible to lighten the still somewhat playful charges of idiocy, illiteracy, and greed.

* * *

Oh look, more negative emails coming in. Stay tuned.

Baku writes at Austin IndyMedia: “Just in the past week we have seen resistance to a KKK meeting in Tomball, Texas. Austinites have been threatened by self-identifying Nazis. Last week, bricks were thrown at the windows of KPFT during a Latino literary radio program. And a few days ago, an unarmed Chicano youth was shot and killed by the Austin Police Department.”

* * *

Activists Take on Klan at Tomball

Houston IndyMedia

Protests of June 11 draw on diverse traditions: faith and reconciliation, Anti-Racist Action, and the New Black Panther Party.

* * *

Police Take on Activists at Tomball

Houston IndyMedia

how would u like to have your backpack held against your face and you cant move at all with a gun pointed at your knee ready to take you down if you do move?

* * *

Activists Take on Police in Austin

Austin IndyMedia

One witness on Austin IndyMedia video says the 18-year-old victim had dropped his belly to the street just prior to being shot in the back and killed. Protests continue Monday 5pm outside Austin Police Headquarters.

* * *

Activists Call on Police in Austin

Austin IndyMedia

The police confiscated the chains and arrested one of the Nazi’s for outstanding warrants. The other two were allowed to walk.

* * *

Activists Discourage Calling On Police

Austin IndyMedia

Maybe try acting as if the cops didn’t even exist.

Ten Thousand Hours of Privatization, Part Two
Weeks 10-13 of the Texas Voter Database Project

By Greg Moses

During weeks ten to thirteen (January 2005) of the Texas Voter Database Project we can see two significant transformations of the power matrix between the state and its private contractors. From one side, private contractors IBM and Hart InterCivic intensify their process of extracting from state employees their practical knowledge of election management, the better to privatize that knowledge into a commercial product.

From the other side, we see the state project manager imposing on Team IBM a meticulous process of plans and reports that discipline the private contractors into more transparent structures of information and accountability. The famous paperwork of state bureaucracy is force fed.

Also, in the process of writing up this report on the January activities, The Texas Civil Rights Review is beginning to feel the difference between reporting on state agencies and private companies.

For one thing, part of the reason that state agencies exist is to be involved in public accountability and criticism. We have logged a dozen hours this week viewing documents at the capitol. If the work resulting from docs supplied by the Secretary of State were to criticize the SOS, there might be consequences, but the game would be well known, and there would be no stock price to defend, no truly colossal sum of money at stake.

On the other hand, we notice that we do not spend any time at the headquarters of IBM or Hart InterCivic going through their documents. And if the results of our public research were to be perceived as critical of a global computer consulting firm, there might also be consequences, but the consequences would be of a different king (quite a nice typo I think). One effect of privatization therefore is to shift significant activities into realms where the games of public accountability and criticism meet new constraints, where also the consequences of debate are tossed into a context of stock prices and product sales. And when that happens, well, why do you think the business press is ever so cheery in comparison to the political press?

So if you are among the news consumers today who feel that even the political press has grown too cheery lately, perhaps that is just one more symptom of the shift we are all experiencing from a public to a privatized world order.

* * *

During the second week of January (week ten) the Colorado branch of Hart InterCivic invites a visit from two top-level administrators at the Elections Division of the SOS. It is difficult to imagine that Hart could do otherwise.

The makers of proprietary election equipment could hardly develop their wares with confidence if they did not know first what the public servants know about the practicalities of election management. The Colorado branch of Hart InterCivic first developed the eSlate voting system that we use in Travis County. Now they are developing a voter registration database, election management system, and jury wheel, all to be delivered to the state as a private product more technically known as COTS or Commercial Off-The-Shelf.

Although Hart is lead subcontractor for the project because of its ability to deliver an election management COTS, the product is not really ready for delivery yet. First, it has to be developed. As the visit to Colorado shows, the state is an active partner in helping Hart to develop the very same COTS that the state will license from Hart at a cost of $4 million, as soon as it is actually delivered.

In five years time the state will be able to buy back that COTS at “fair market value.” But first, as we say, the COTS must be developed and for this, forgive the repetition, public servants have to be invited to Colorado to meet with private contractors. And among those private contractors are private Subject Matter Experts who will later charge the state a hundred or two hundred bucks per hour to help solve any critical problems that might arise. Perhaps the reader is aware of famous economic principles of efficiency exemplified in this process. No doubt the principles are well known in business schools.

Also during week ten, Team IBM submits an invoice for $28,000 to cover its December work and a bill for $5,853 in travel and living expenses. A steering committee for the Secretary of State’s office (SOS) meets on Jan. 20.

During week eleven, billable hours are up to 4,230 and one more deliverable is delivered, but fifteen items “expected to be delivered” by Team IBM do not get delivered. We are beginning to understand why the state’s project manager would look back on this as a “poor start.”

Some of the early difficulties in getting started derive from the state’s failure to purchase equipment on schedule. The contract plan called for the state to purchase a million dollars in hardware and software (on top of the $12 million to contractors IBM and Hart InterCivic). But in a snafu officially known as Project Issue Number 001, it turns out the state couldn’t purchase computer equipment in such a straightforward way.

The problem with major computing tasks in Texas state government is that they are supposed to be consolidated into a San Angelo facility managed by Northrup Grumman. So the state project manager puts in a change order to move the project equipment to San Angelo as required by state law. It takes a couple of months to finally decide that the project will be kept in Austin as planned, but meanwhile Team IBM is having difficulty understanding the status of purchasing orders for hardware.

Back during week six the IBM project manager reported hearing from one person that the equipment had been ordered, while another person told her no, it had not. What she finds out during week seven is that the order cannot be placed for Austin equipment until the purchase is authorized by means of a special waiver from the Legislative Budget Board, since the hardware will not be placed in San Angelo.

Meanwhile, thanks to that meeting in Colorado, Team IBM reports that critical requirements have been collected for two crucial pieces of the election management puzzle: Election Night Reporting (ENR) and Ballot Definition (BD).

The Team IBM project manager is having troubles of her own keeping up with meticulous administrative details demanded by the state’s project manager. As she turns in a new, revised work plan that is “deliverable driven rather than task driven” she makes a formal complaint for the record. “Increased administrative tasks have caused deliverables and work papers to slide.” It is pleasing to see how she appropriates the new language of deliverables in order to articulate her complaint. She logs her complaint as Project Issue Number 002, assigns it a priority level ‘H’ for high, and places it on an Issues List to be either analyzed, brought up for decision, or resolved during future reporting periods. In fact, whether she knows it or not, her days as IBM project manager will soon end.

In the hardware/software area, a “development environment” has been set up where Team IBM can share project files with the state, but there is still no election system to test yet, because first of all the hardware hasn’t arrived, and second of all the VR (or voter registration software) is still in demo stage at Hart.

During week twelve, the Team IBM administrator uses a brand new status report format (version four) to say that she has helped to produce two new plan docs, two strategy docs, and “revised project work plan number 80.” And on Jan. 28, the project convenes a Focus Group of 32 people from 15 counties to share progress to date.

As January changes to February, ten more plans are delivered during week thirteen while intensive meetings continue in Colorado. As Team IBM also convenes meetings with the state IT staff to discuss ENR and BD ar
chitecture, Hart says that its Voter Registration build is 90 percent complete, awaiting crucial review by one state expert who happens to be not available at the moment. A third “project issue” is added: when will the scope of ENR and BD be defined?

And finally, in the state’s report for week thirteen, original completion dates are x-ed out and moved back. In week thirteen the project is officially behind schedule.

To be continued in series.

Thanks to a comment at PinkDome we checked out the Congressional voting
record of Chris Bell who will likely be running for Governor of
Texas. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) gives Bell a rating of 100
percent for his votes in the 108th Congress and three special notes for
his co-sponsorship of legislation that was not rated. So we’ll
call it a rating of 103 percent, which is quite a curve-setter for the
rest of the Texas delegation.

In the PinkDome interview, Bell expresses a personal preference against
gay marriage. This reminds us of dedicated Civil Rights activists
who have personal preferences about inter-racial marriage also, but whose
wisdom never wavers from public commitments to providing a vigorous Civil
Rights context for the exercise of personal preference. Just as
codes have thankfully withered away that would outlaw inter-racial or
inter-ethnic marriage, there is no reason to replant those mean seeds
in the area of sexual orientation. So we are glad to see that Bell has a personal preference for Civil Rights.

Only Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Houston) matches Bell’s rankings by the HRC on all
counts, upholding the fine tradition of her district as the conscience
of Texas in Washington (here are the voters who elected Barbara Jordan
and Mickey Leland). Although Eddie Bernice
Johnson (D-Dallas) also gets 100 percent, she doesn’t score the extra
credit. Honorable mentions go to Lloyd Doggett (D-South Texas)
and Martin Frost (D-Dallas) whose single shortcoming was a failure to
support permanent partners for immigrants.

Republican re-districting deliberately targeted liberal white seats
held by Bell, Frost, and Doggett, with the result that only Doggett
survived. A Bell campaign for Governor appears to hold clear
promise of a Civil Rights renewal in Texas. We only hope that
putting things so clearly won’t hurt him too much. Pasted below
are the reasons why HRC rated Bell as a perfect lawmaker.–gm

1) MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT, H.J. RES. 106, ROLL CALL VOTE 494
Th e Federal Marriage Amendment, introduced in the House by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo.,
would enshrine discrimination into the U.S. Constitution by defi ning marriage as the union
between one man and one woman and prohibiting federal and state laws from conferring same-sex
couples with marital status and “the legal incidents thereof,” thereby endangering civil unions and
domestic partnership benefi ts. Th e amendment was brought to the House fl oor for a vote Sept. 30,
2004. It needed a 2/3 majority in the House to pass. Th e amendment failed by a vote of 227 to 186:
Democrats — 36 yes, 158 no; Republicans — 191 yes, 27 no; Independents — 0 yes , 1 no. HRC
opposed this amendment — and the vote is double-weighted in the fi nal House scores.

2) PELOSI MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION. H.R. 4200
On Sept. 28, 2004, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., off ered a non-binding motion to instruct the House
Department of Defense authorization conferees to accept the Senate-passed, Kennedy-Smith hate
crimes amendment. (See Vote 2 in the Senate.) Th is amendment would add real or perceived sexual orientation,
gender and disability to existing law and remove the overly burdensome restriction on federal
involvement in helping investigate and prosecute hate crimes. Th e Pelosi motion passed Sept. 28,
2004, by a vote of 213 to 186. Th irty-three representatives did not vote: Democrats — 182 yes, 9 no;
Republicans — 31 yes, 177 no; Independents — 0 yes, 0 no. HRC supported this motion.

3) MARRIAGE PROTECTION ACT OF 2004, H.R. 3313
Th e House voted July 22, 2004, to pass legislation, introduced by Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind.,
that would strip federal court jurisdiction over questions relating to the Defense of Marriage Act,
closing the courtroom doors to a group of Americans. Th e House passed the legislation with a
vote of 233-194, with eight members abstaining. Republicans — 206 yes, 17 no; Democrats
— 27 yes, 176 no; Independents — 0 yes, 1 no. HRC opposed this legislation.

4) LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT OF 2004,
H.R. 4204 (CO-SPONSORSHIP)
Members of the House were asked to co-sponsor legislation introduced April 22, 2004, that
would update and expand federal hate crimes laws to cover serious, violent hate crimes committed
because of real or perceived sexual orientation, gender or disability to cover the gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgender community. As of Oct. 1, 2004, the measure had 178 co-sponsors:
Democrats — 168; Republicans — 9; Independents — 1.

5) PERMANENT PARTNERS IMMIGRATION ACT, H.R. 832 (CO-SPONSORSHIP)
Members of the House were asked to co-sponsor legislation introduced Feb. 13, 2003, that would
amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide same-sex partners of U.S. citizens and lawful
permanent residents the same immigration benefi ts legal spouses of U.S. residents enjoy. As of Oct. 1,
2004, the measure had 129 co-sponsors: Democrats — 125; Republicans — 2; Independents — 1.
10
REPRESENTATIVE (Party) SCORE q r s t u v w x

6) EARLY TREATMENT FOR HIV ACT OF 2004, H.R. 3859 (CO-SPONSORSHIP)
Members of the House were asked to co-sponsor legislation introduced Feb. 26, 2004, which
would expand Medicaid to people living with HIV and provide states with the option to cover
low-income HIV-infected individuals. As of Oct. 1, 2004, the measure had 142 co-sponsors:
Democrats — 119; Republicans — 22; Independents — 1.

7) EMPLOYMENT NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT, H.R. 3285 (CO-SPONSORSHIP)
Members of the House were asked to co-sponsor legislation introduced Oct. 8, 2003, that would
prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace. As of Oct. 1, 2004,
H.R. 3285 had 180 co-sponsors: Democrats — 165; Republicans — 14; Independents — 1.

8) POLICY PLEDGE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION
Th is Congress, the Human Rights Campaign and the Gender Public Advocacy Coalition worked
together and asked every representative to adopt, voluntarily, a written policy for their own offi ces
indicating that sexual orientation and gender identity and expression are not factors in their employment
decisions. As of Oct. 1, 2004, 150 representatives in the 108th Congress have adopted
this policy: Democrats — 131; Republicans — 18; Independents — 1.

SIGNIFICANT CO-SPONSORSHIPS NOTED BUT NOT SCORED

1) – DENOTES CO-SPONSORSHIP OF DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS
ACT OF 2003, H.R. 2426
Th is bill would provide domestic partners of federal employees the same benefi ts available to and
obligations accorded upon spouses of federal employees. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., introduced
this bill to the House on June 11, 2003. As of Oct. 1, 2004, 98 members of the House have cosponsored
this piece of legislation: Democrats — 97; Republicans — 0; Independents — 1.

2) – DENOTES CO-SPONSORSHIP OF TAX EQUITY FOR HEALTH PLAN BENEFICIARIES ACT
OF 2003, H.R. 935
Under the current tax code, employees are taxed on the benefi ts provided to their domestic partners
while benefi ts for spouses are tax free. On Feb. 26, 2003, Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., introduced
a bill that would amend the current tax code, allowing employees to exclude from their
gross income the costs of employee-provided health coverage provided to other eligible designated
benefi ciaries, in addition to spouses and dependent children. Th ere were 84 co-sponsors to this
bill as of Oct. 1, 2004: Democrats — 79; Republicans — 4; Independents — 1.

3) – DENOTES CO-SPONSORSHIP OF FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE INCLUSION ACT, H.R. 1430
Current law does not permit employees covered by the Family Medical Leave Inclusion Act to
take appr

oved leave to care for domestic partners. Th is legislation, introduced by Rep. Carolyn B.
Maloney, D-N.Y., on March 25, 2003, amends the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 to permit
leave to care for domestic partners, among others, if they have a serious health condition. Th is
bill has been co-sponsored by 93 members of the House as of Oct. 1, 2004: Democrats — 91;
Republicans — 1; Independents — 1.