Category: Uncategorized

  • Stay Tuned for Texas Civil Rights History on PBS: The Hernandez Case

    Dear All:

    As friends and colleagues of mine, I wanted to let you know about a great, inspiring upcoming documentary that will be aired on PBS the evening of Feb. 23 titled “A Class Apart.” Some of you may have received cross-postings already about this feature, and if so, then I’m very happy that the word is getting out. Some of you may have also seen the pre-screenings in San Antonio, Austin, Houston, Dallas, NY, SF or DC. For those of you who have not heard of the film or seen it, please read on and share w/ your friends, familia and colleagues.

    The film chronicles the U.S. Supreme Court case, Hernandez v. Texas, in which the Court held [unanimously] that Mexican Americans are a distinct class and entitled to protections as a group under the Fourteenth Amendment. But it is much more than just a film about the case and also includes details about the civil rights lawyers who argued the case before the Supreme Court (including the late Gus Garcia and Judge Carlos Cadena, among others) and the tough times Mexican Americans faced in the mid 1900s. The film was co-produced and co-directed by Carlos Sandoval and Peter Miller and is narrated by Edward James Olmos.

    I had the pleasure of watching a run of the film before the final edits were made and I can tell you that I truly enjoyed the film from start to finish, and being a Latino civil rights lawyer in San Antonio had little to do w/ it.

    I hope you will take the opportunity to enjoy the film and perhaps you can share w/ your friends and familia.

    Links:

    AMERICAN EXPERIENCE has launched its official A Class Apart page here; Active Voice has the A Class Apart, A Night Together toolkits online here; the filmmakers webpage is here; and we’ve also created an A Class Apart Facebook page, where we’re posting links to reviews and articles, notice about upcoming screenings, and so on.

    Hasta luego,

    David G. Hinojosa
    Staff Attorney
    MALDEF

  • Keeping a Wary Eye on the Growing Border Patrol, a Little History

    By Nick Braune

    According to the McAllen paper, The Monitor, some 5,000 people in the Rio Grande Valley applied for jobs with the Border Patrol in the last four months. That it is not completely surprising since the agency pays almost $50,000 a year and has embarrassingly low entry-level requirements, a high school diploma. (Compare that to other federal enforcement agencies which require a college degree at minimum.)

    As I have reported in previous columns, there has also been some question, arising from within their own ranks, about how well the new recruits are being screened and mentored. And The Monitor has also noted lately that there were four Border Patrol officers in the Valley arrested for felonies in 2008. Five, if you count the brother of one of the arrested agents. The brother is also in the Patrol and was arrested in neighboring Zapata County for taking $23,000 in bribes from drug traffickers. Four of the five arrested last year were involved in drug trafficking.

    Why is it important to keep an eye on the Border Patrol? Well, it has been beefed up massively as part of the “virtual wall” initiated by the Bush crowd, a trend which probably will continue under Obama and his conflicted Homeland Security nominee, Janet Napolitano. And the Patrol’s rapid growth is also ominous because it is taking place during this unethical period of “criminalizing” immigrant labor violations. (“Search” for several other online articles about the Border Patrol and “Operation Streamline” in the Texas Civil Rights Review site.)

    The Patrol has traditionally been hapless, and its mission unclear. Founded in 1924, its intended mission was not really to prevent Mexican immigrants, but European and Asian immigrants, from entering. Also worth noting is that it has always policed the working class – note its conflict recently with the California Day Laborers Organizing Network, which is accusing the Border Patrol of blatant profiling and operating on the basis of a quota. One often hears the chant “Abajo La Migra” in farm worker circles, and it makes sense: founded as part of the Labor Department and staying there for its first 16 years, the Border Patrol has always kept labor it its ken and served the employers.

    During the 1930s it remained “poorly staffed, poorly equipped, poorly administered and largely disorganized.” (For this article I’m following Juan Ramon Garcia’s classic book, Operation Wetback, written in 1980.) And the Patrol soon developed an embarrassing reputation, which still survives in Border areas, that it will enforce the laws except when powerful interests, certain growers, don’t want it to. Even the Border Patrol’s clothing was inconsistent (generally lacking the usual military or police uniforms).

    But in 1940, the Immigration and Naturalization Services was moved from the Labor Department to the Justice Department. Garcia explains that Roosevelt, when WWII was nearing, was worried about Italians and Germans entering the country, not Mexicans. However, the Patrol also did not even do well in WWII. Why? First, many agents wanted to join the real military and quit, depleting the ranks. But secondly, the government, during the war, was happy to have documented and undocumented Mexicans coming into the U.S. to work, freeing up other workers to go into the military, so the Patrol agents were held in limbo, reinforcing their do-nothing image. And lastly, no doubt it was a little unclear what kind of important national security or law enforcement role the Patrol played.

    Although we might think that joining the Justice Department would have been an ego boost for the Patrol, actually it made them feel even more like a second-rate enforcement agency, compared to the famed and focused FBI, for instance. And Garcia notes that the Justice Department did little to promote the Patrol — it is not very glamorous tracking down hungry and unarmed people.

    Often half-blindfolding itself, it let in enough undocumented workers to serve the growers’ interests while also making sure there were not too many immigrants. And Garcia says, “It was not unusual for them to allow undocumented workers to roam the Valley and concentrate their efforts on keeping the undocumented away from the industrial jobs up North.” Could this — controlling the flow of labor north — be the origin of today’s “checkpoints,” the ugly, racially profiling, permanent roadblocks on highways about 80 miles north of the Border? (There were no such checkpoints coming south from Canada.)

    It was really not until “Operation Wetback,” a racist military operation in 1954, coordinated by General “Jumping Joe” Swing, that the Border Patrol started to get some recognition and status. (Swing, a “professional Mexican hater” who served with General Pershing chasing Pancho Villa decades before, ran a military style sweep and a flashy publicity campaign against “wetbacks.” (Even President Eisenhower used this crude term, although he apparently apologized for it once.) Interestingly, today we hear of “border security” keeping terrorists from coming up from Mexico; in 1954, they warned us of communist infiltrators coming over the border.

    General Swing, within a few short months, scattered hundreds of thousands of Mexicans — he bragged it was well over a million — deep into Mexico. Today we would call it “ethnic cleansing.” A thousand people a day were moved in and out of the McAllen detention camp. Swing even used ships, one called The Constitution, to drop immigrants off in Vera Cruz, 800 miles from the Tex-Mex border. (According to Garcia, The Patrol kindly let those who were dropped off have at least three dollars with them when they reached a part of Mexico they had never seen before.)

    After participating in that touted 1954 success, the Border Patrol began to be seen as a bit more “respectable,” in the sense that it was said to have been successful in something. The uniforms got spiffier. But it has always been considered seedy, in the pocket of business, and it has had an inferiority complex and a chip on its shoulder; and consequently, when we see rapidly growing numbers of agents in the Rio Grande Valley, with vans and green uniforms and side arms, we feel uneasy.

    [Much of this article appeared in the Mid-Valley Town Crier.]

  • In the Season of Giving, Ask them to Stop Taking Children to Prison

    News from Jay Johnson-Castro, Sr.

    In this period of giving…

    Can we share a few hours out of our holiday season and show solidarity with imprisoned immigrant children?

    Border Ambassadors and Freedom Ambassadors endorse the following notice and attached flier for a special toy and gift drive and vigil for the imprisoned innocent women and children in the T. Don Hutto “for profit” prison…

    Hutto is a money laundering facility between Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE)…with Williamson County Commissioners Court (WCCC) as the money laundering mechanism.

    No where in the world, let alone in America, should a child be locked up or forced to forfeit his or her freedom for a 8′ x 12′ prison cell. Perhaps, under a new President “Change we can believe in” will restore “Liberty and Justice for all”.

    We must press on with our demand that the end of the era of the current Administration’s immoral practice of imprisoning innocent children and their mothers…for profit.

    In solidarity with the women and children imprisoned in Hutto and all those who have fought for two years to free them…

    Jay
    Border Ambassasors
    Freedom Ambassadors


    Hutto Toy Delivery and Vigil to End Family Detention

    Saturday, December 20th, 3-5pm, T. Don Hutto Detention Center (1001 Welch, Taylor, TX)

    Please join organizations and individuals from across the state in the third annual December vigil to end family detention, Saturday, December 20th, from 3-5pm. Since May 2006, immigrant families with small children have been jailed in the facility while awaiting asylum or immigration hearings. The prison has been criticized by human rights organizations worldwide as an inappropriate facility for children and their families. Organizers will deliver more than 500 toys, books, and children’s clothes to the facility in time for the holiday season. Toys should be in their original packaging and not be on any recall-list to be accepted into the facility. Contact: Bob at (512) 971-0487 or blibal@grassrootsleadership.org

    Caravaning information:

    Austin caravan will leave PODER building at 2604 E. Cesar Chavez at 2pm for the Hutto detention center.

    San Antonio caravan will leave from the Cesar Chavez Learning Center,1414 E. Commerce Street, San Antonio. Arrive at 11am to get organized; the caravan will leave at noon. Please contact Carlos De Leon at 210-627-3647 for more information.

    Houston caravan will be leaving from the parking lot of Fedex Kinko’s (Magnum exit, Hwy 290, Houston) at around 10:30. Meet up at 9:30 if you would like to make posters for the vigil. Contact Maria Elena Castellanos at castellanoslaw1 [at] gmail [dot] com for more information

    Endorsed by: Texans United for Families, Grassroots Leadership, WilCo Family Justice Alliance, Austin Immigrant Rights Coalition, Border Ambassadors, CodePink Austin, Texas Indigenous Council, San Antonio Brown Berets.


    WCCC to vote on T Don Hutto Contract—12/23/2008

    Williamson County Judge Gattis announced this morning (12/16/08) that the vote on the proposed renewal of the contract(s) with CCA/DHS to operate T Don Hutto Detention Facility will take place on December 23 at the Williamson County Commissioners Court’s weekly meeting.

    After that announcement, several citizens spoke against the renewal, and WCCC was reminded that:

    Putting families in prison for infractions comparable to running a stop sign is “inappropriate.”

    The lack of oversight and assurance of humane treatment for families held at T Don Hutto is alarming, and contradicted by our national sense of right and wrong, —and does serious emotional damage to the young prisoners who end up gaining American citizenship.

    Communities that locate a prison in their borders suffer immense long-term economic damage because “clean” economic growth avoids them. The uglier the facility, the greater the damage.

    There are alternatives to locking up babies and families, and they are proven to be less expensive– and just as effective. But they provide no profit for the prison industry.
    So, between now and the eve of Christmas Eve, it is essential that those of us who oppose this corrupt contract:

    1. Contact anyone in the county hierarchy who might be able to help us; certainly the WCCC members, but also anyone who could talk to them with good audience.–minister, friends, family members, etc. WCCC contact info can be found at http://www.wiliamson-county.org.

    2. Write letters to the editor to the Williamson County Sun, Austin American-Statesman, Austin Chronicle, or other newspaper; contact your local TV affiliate station’s news department. Ask for folks to join our effort on the blogs and email lists.

    3. Consider getting a few other supporters to go with you to visit with your Williamson County commissioner–or go on your own; small settings can work far better than large, public ones because the commissioner needn’t be defensive of the issue.

    4. Come to Saturday, December 20 vigil in front of the Hutto facility from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. to show support and generate more.

    5. Attend the December 23 WCCC meeting that starts at 9:30 a.m.; come early ( CCA often tries to pack the place before it starts), bring others, and seriously consider speaking. Write a three-minute speech to deliver.

    The new faces and voices who have recently come out against the contract renewal have had a huge impact. We can’t lapse now; let’s celebrate Christmas with the gift of an end to imprisoning innocent families and babies in Williamson County —-in Texas—-in the United States of America.

    Please stay in touch if you see a road-block or an in-road; we need to maximize our chances in these final few days! My email is maryellenkersch@verizon.net

    MaryEllen Kersch

  • Against Obamanomics: Warnings from British Liberal Democrats

    It started out as a desk-cleaning exercise on Christmas Day. We opened a catalog of Henry George materials.

    Half a day later (from a still messy desk) we were sending an email to Neale Upstone at the Cambridge (UK) City Council, advising him of our newfound interest in Henry George.

    Councillor Upstone replied with links to a movement. A new coalition based upon Georgist principles of Land Value economics has just released news (as of midnight GMT) that a dozen “think-tanks, charities and political pressure groups” will be advocating a Georgist resolution to the latest economic meltdown.

    “History shows that economic bailouts will not provide a long-term solution,” says Robin Smith of the Systemic Fiscal Reform Group think-tank, “because Land, which is at the heart of the matter, has been obscured from political, media and academic scrutiny.”

    Following the Land Value analysis of 19th-Century American populist economist Henry George, the new coalition wants “to shift tax off enterprise and labour onto a form of annual Land Value Taxation,” says the chairman of the coalition, John Lipetz.

    The new Coalition for Economic Justice (CEJ) will try to get a national debate going in the UK. But the issues they are raising sound relevant to anyone seeking critical tools of analysis for the early contours of Obamanomics.

    Councillor Upstone puts the case plainly. Against the emerging outlines of a Keynsian Green New Deal (GND) he argues in favor of a Georgist Systemic Fiscal Reform (SFR).

    The Georgist approach is appealing as a quick study, because it connects with our common-sense insight that real-estate speculation is the giant culprit of our global economic meltdown. What the SFR movement adds to this insight is the Georgist claim that land speculation is the foundational cause of many bad effects besides the cycles of land value crashes.

    Henry George learned his economics by watching San Francisco. He seems to be calling out from beyond the grave: California did it again!

    So if you like the idea of change and want to think a little harder about what it could look like, here’s the press release from the Georgist SFR movement:


    EMBARGO 00:01 27th December 2008

    In an unprecedented move to advocate an original solution to the current economic crisis, twelve think-tanks, charities and political pressure groups have joined forces. The new cross-party group, called the Coalition for Economic Justice (CEJ), has argued for the reduction of existing taxes to be replaced by an annual Land Value Tax in order to prevent future crises and alleviate the current one.

    The Coalition issued in a statement: “The current economic crisis highlights, yet again, the inadequacies of the current economic system which is unstable and deeply flawed. Events are clearly demonstrating that the speculative rise in land prices is a common feature of the repeated economic booms and busts. In order to address this problem we call for a new approach that delivers both economic justice and prosperity for all. This solution must be based upon the annual collection of land value for public purposes”.
    Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance commented: “I look forward to learning more about the campaign as it develops in the New Year. I very much hope that the coalition manages to generate a national debate on taxation, particularly now we are in recession.”

    The Chair of the CEJ, John Lipetz explains that “in response to the financial crisis, a group of charities, think-tanks, political factions and pressure groups from right across the political spectrum have for the first time sat down together to agree the best way to cure the current crisis, and prevent future ones. This is to shift tax off enterprise and labour onto a form of annual Land Value Taxation. We invite others sharing our concern to join us.”

    Robin Smith of the think-tank Systemic Fiscal Reform Group says “It is clear that enterprise is once again taking the hit, particularly hard working small businesses, from this latest debt-fuelled land boom. History shows that economic bailouts will not provide a long-term solution because Land, which is at the heart of the matter, has been obscured from political, media and academic scrutiny. The founders of the CEJ are calling for new thinking around economic reform and it represents a real movement towards progress and prosperity for all.”

    Heather Wetzel of the Professional Land Reform Group adds: “If we are to establish economic stability, encourage sustainable growth and end poverty it is necessary to look for new solutions. An annual Land Value Tax on all land will prevent future land price speculation, enable modest interest rates on business investment and provide income for both essential infrastructure investment and for the reduction of taxes on individuals and trade.”

    Organisations involved in the CEJ are:

    Labour Land Campaign (LLC)
    Liberal Democrat Action for Land Taxation and Economic Reform (ALTER)
    Social Liberalist Party (SLP)
    Systemic Fiscal Reform Group (SFRG)
    School of Economic Science (SES)
    Land is Free (LF)
    Henry George Foundation (HGF)
    Land Value Taxation Campaign (LVTC)
    Professional Land Reform Group (PLRG)
    Christian Council for Monetary Justice (CCMJ)
    Global Justice Movement (GJM)
    The 1909 Group

    *******************

    END

    *******************

    INFO:

    Information about Land Value Tax
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

    *******************

    CONTACT:

    Chairman – John Lipetz
    robinsmith3.googlepages.com/coalitionforeconomicjustice

    Labour Land Campaign (LLP) – Dave Wetzel
    www.labourland.org/

    Liberal Democrat Action for Land Taxation and Economic Reform (ALTER) – Tony Vickers & Chris Glover
    libdemsalter.org.uk/

    Social Liberalist Party (SLP) – Anton Howes
    www.voteliberalist.org

    Systemic Fiscal Reform Group (SFRG) – Robin Smith
    www.systemicfiscalreform.org

    School of Economic Science (SES) – Peter Bowman
    www.schooleconomicscience.org

    Henry George Foundation (HGF) – David Triggs
    www.henrygeorgefoundation.org/home/

    Land Value Taxation Campaign (LVTC) – Henry Law
    www.landvaluetax.org

    Professional Land Reform Group (PLRG) – Heather Wetzel

    Land is Free (LF) – Tommas Graves
    www.landisfree.co.uk

    Christian Council for Monetary Justice (CCMJ) – Peter Challen
    www.ccmj.org

    Global Justice Movement (GJM) – Peter Challen
    www.binaryeconomics.net

    The 1909 Group – Jock Coats
    www.1909.org.uk


    Excerpt from article on local taxation by Dr Roy Douglas from the Land is Free website:

    Such a tax, when designed for the special needs of local government, is known as Site Value Rating, or SVR. To apply SVR, the value of all sites in the local authority area would first be assessed. Professional va
    luer
    s assure us that this would be a simple and cheap operation. A tax, or rate, would then be levied on the basis of that valuation, just as the old rating system used to levy a tax, or rate, on the basis of the total value of a property (i.e., site plus “improvements”). As site values vary over time, periodic (perhaps annual) reassessment would be necessary.

    The principle behind SVR is that each occupier will pay for the benefit he receives from what he has not created, but will not be penalised for what he has done to make the property he owns more valuable. One of the arguments in favour of Local Income Tax (which, as we have seen. is really flawed) is that it will fall most heavily on the people most able to bear it. As wealthy people usually live on valuable sites, while poor people live on less valuable sites, SVR will do exactly that.

    But will there be hard cases, such as elderly people on small incomes, whose site values are high? Yes, indeed, SVR, like any other kind of taxation, may involve hard cases, unless Parliament makes careful provision to avoid those hardcases. But the possibility of such hard cases arising provides a challenge to the legislators to avoid them. It does not provide an excuse for failing to deal with the general problem.


    From the left side of the Atlantic, check out the work of Renegade Economist Fred Harrison, a Yank of the Georgist persuasion.