Big Beat

McAllen, TX
Photo source: city-data.com
McAllen, Tx.

Earlier this year, when San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro gave the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention, many Hispanic Texans felt they had finally arrived. When Latinos overwhelmingly helped re-elect President Obama in November, Tejanos continued to celebrate this apparent rise to power. But Hispanic Texans will never take their rightful place at the table until they succeed economically. Nowhere is this tension between rising political power and lagging economic status more apparent than the Texas border. Sixteen of the 100 poorest counties in America are found along or near the Texas-Mexico border. This isn’t surprising when you consider that Hispanic Texans generally receive inferior educations and experience higher unemployment than their Anglo counterparts. So, what’s to be done?

Some border-based entrepreneurs are trying to address these inequities by giving Latinos access to the rarefied world of venture capital.
Rodolfo Sanchez lives in the Rio Grande Valley, and earlier this year, his company, Plasma2Energy, got a contract from the city of McAllen to build a waste-to-energy plant—a cutting-edge, green-energy technology. Developed by Monterrey, Mexico-based ABA Research, the 27-megawatt plant converts municipal trash into electricity, 25 percent of which would be used by the city.

“This technology offers savings in the long term for the city, which is very attractive,” Sanchez says. “It’s also very clean, and that is very attractive too.”

Sanchez offered to deploy the first commercial-sized facility in the U.S. for ABA Research. He just needed the capital, about $15 million for the first phase.

But raising the money took longer than Sanchez’s Monterrey investor was expecting. ABA got nervous and pulled out, leaving Sanchez to bootstrap Plasma2Energy while he searched for funds—funds he still hasn’t acquired. Ultimately, ABA decided to build a plant in Mexico instead. He hopes that Plasma2Energy will build a plant in McAllen in the future, though that’s uncertain.

Sanchez says the McAllen Economic Development Corporation didn’t understand the technology enough to offer more than standard city incentives—a blow that not only cost him much-needed money, but deprived his company of an endorsement that could have generated interest from venture capitalists.

Sanchez’s experience is all too common for Hispanic entrepreneurs. A 2011 Venture Capital Census of nearly 600 venture capitalists found that 87 percent of all respondents identified as white, with fewer than 2 percent identifying as Latino. Eighty-nine percent were men.

This nearly all-white, all-male demographic adversely affects high-tech entrepreneurs who don’t fit the “white guy” tech mold.

“Most people rely on their relationships with wealthy people to get venture capital,” says Teo Tijerina, co-founder and executive director of Austin-based EDCO Ventures, a nonprofit focused on economic development in poorer areas of Texas, including the border region. EDCO has a goal of raising $50 million to $100 million in venture capital for business investment in Texas. So far it’s amassed $3.5 million from the federal government, private investors and national banks.

“If you can do a semiconductor plant in Taiwan with far less infrastructure, you can do one in the Valley,” says Tijerina, who was raised in McAllen, as was the company’s co-founder Leo Ramirez. “The border region just needs the know-how and the access to capital and technology.

Of course, there’s a whole historical basis for why they don’t have it.”

The state of Texas runs an Emerging Technology Fund to help promising start-ups. Recipients must show that they can also raise capital locally. That can be a challenge for entrepreneurs along the border. Few subsidies from the Tech Fund flow south.

“Perhaps regions like Austin, Dallas and Houston don’t need state funding, but the border, East Texas, and other parts of the state do,” Tijerina says.

Tijerina also says that Texas’ leading research universities don’t do enough to aid poor communities. At a meeting with the University of Texas at Austin’s Office of Technology Commercialization, Tijerina says, an official told him the office prefers to work with entrepreneurs who headquarter in Austin.

“It would make sense that the office show a preference toward entrepreneurs in Texas versus an entrepreneur in Michigan, but it shouldn’t matter whether it’s Austin or San Antonio or Brownsville,” Tijerina said.

It shouldn’t matter, but it always has, and only educated and motivated border entrepreneurs are going to change that.

“Sovereignty or Secession” Rally in Austin, Texas on August 29, 2009.

Lately the media has made much of Texas secession, a so-called movement made popular again by Governor Rick Perry who likes to throw the idea around now and then and one that gained much steam when President Obama was re-elected in November.

Take for example, Texas’ most prominent secessionist, Larry Kilgore of Arlington. Kilgore, who ran for U.S. Senator as a Republican candidate against John Cornyn in 2008 with the platform, “Secession! All other issues can be dealt with later,” made national headlines when he legally changed his middle name to SECEDE (all-caps included) after the president defeated Mitt Romney. Kilgore used the publicity stunt to announce that he’d be running for governor in 2014. I, for one, look forward to the “Punish Porn Crime! Deuteronomy 25:1-3” bumper stickers.

Then there was the secession petition submitted to the White House website. The petition received the requisite 25,000 signatures within days and went on to collect over 100,000 by the deadline. The White House says it will respond to any petition that receives 25,000 signatures in 30 days, but Governor Perry has said that Texas will not secede, because he “believes in the greatness of our Union and nothing should be done to change it.” Oh, how the mighty have flip-flopped.

Last week, one pro-secession group, the Texas Nationalist Movement, took things a step further by announcing their own political action committee “signaling the organization’s most significant venture into the legislative process in pursuit of Texas independence” to date. Which leads me to wonder, are these people serious?

Once upon a time, secession talk was a joke to brag about the size of Texas, both geographically and economically. This most recent wave of secessionists, however, is a direct result of President Obama’s re-election. The fact that those screaming “secession” the loudest are overwhelmingly white, conservative, southern men, leaves me with the impression that a) they’re serious, (or they think they’re serious. I doubt the vast majority have the cojones), and b) that racist nativism is the fuel to their fire.

Which is what makes the idea of an independent Texas so funny. What these angry, white men don’t seem to realize is that if Texas breaks off from the rest of the United States, it will instantly become a nation in which people of color are the majority. According to the 2010 census, Texas grew the most of any state in America and 95 percent of Texas’ child population growth occurred among Hispanics.

With those demographics, it woudn’t be long before Texas is no longer a red state. And if you think there’s too much Spanish spoken in Texas now, just wait until we don’t have to communicate with Washington anymore. Spanglish will be the official language of Tejas in no time with breakfast tacos being the official food. Lastly, if you’re into blaming President Obama for the economy, Market Watch says leaving the U.S. will throw any Southern state into a desperate recession, leaving citizens paying more in taxes than they do now and receiving less in government services. Those poor secessionists will find themselves in the very situation they sought to avoid by leaving the U.S. Where will they secede to then? The Republic of The Woodlands? PlanoLand? To paraphrase the words of a guy who talks to chairs, Go ahead. Make my day.

Kay Bailey Hutchison
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas).

Every so often, the GOP is beaten badly enough that some Republicans realize that appearing to support immigrants might be their ticket to relevancy with Latinos. That time has come again for retiring U.S. Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Jon Kyl (R-Arizona). The pair recently filed an alternative to the DREAM Act called the ACHIEVE Act. As the title suggests, they are not letting immigrants get away with any idle dreaming. They must ACHIEVE to stay in America legally.

The ACHIEVE Act is similar to the DREAM Act in that it requires young immigrants brought here illegally when they were minors to obtain academic or military achievement before earning a pathway to legal status. The important difference, however, is that the DREAM Act ultimately provides a path to citizenship while the ACHIEVE Act only provides a path to permanent residency. If you want to know how the ACHIEVE Act works in detail, you can read about it here.

This isn’t the first time in 2012 that the GOP has flirted with immigration reform. In June, the Texas Republican Party, at its convention, replaced a zealously xenophobic plank on immigration with something called “the Texas Solution,” a Texas-based guest worker program that would provide cheap labor to business owners while offering no path to citizenship for workers. So, what’s new? Well, the Texas Solution calls for workers’ private health insurance to be provided by employers or the workers themselves. (Ha.) It also demands that the federal government limit birthright citizenship to those born to a citizen of the United States “with no exceptions.” Republicans try to pander to Latino voters, but they always end up going off a cliff.

What both Republican plans have in common is that they don’t help immigrants. They help the Republican party win Latino votes. They’re the sort of desperate act that comes of realizing your political party will die if you don’t appeal to the country’s largest growing demographic, no matter how much you wish they would just go back to Mexico.

In reality, both the ACHIEVE Act and the Texas Solution are unfeasible. The Texas Solution is essentially the Bracero Program of the mid-twentieth century all over again. Back then, employers realized that the provisions of the program increased their costs and thus began hiring under-the-table workers again. The ACHIEVE Act not only doesn’t provide a path to citizenship, but would only be applicable for a fraction of the current young immigrant population. A study by the Migration Policy Institute found that less than 5 percent of the country’s 2.1 million immigrants who currently meet all the requirements for the DREAM Act, which are similar to the ACHIEVE Act, have the academic credentials to begin the six-year waiting period required before they can apply to adjust to permanent status. The rest of the undocumented youth and young adults must overcome steep financial burdens, high drop-out rates, and a language barrier in hopes that they will even make it out of high school, much less college.

In short, all the immigration plans discussed here, including the DREAM Act, are a band-aid. What’s needed urgently is comprehensive immigration reform that deals realistically and fairly with the 12 million undocumented people living in this nation. Broaden political asylum to include those fleeing cartel-related violence, beginning with Mexico. Going forward, give all immigrants the same chance we give Cubans. If we don’t catch them entering our border, then they are free to stay and allowed to apply for expedited legal permanent resident status and, eventually, U.S. citizenship.

Whether out of fear for their own political future or because Republicans have truly come to embrace immigrants, maybe it doesn’t matter so much. Just get it done.

Dan Patrick
Facebook.com/dan.patrick.texas
Dan Patrick

It almost seems as if state Sen. Dan Patrick, the talk-radio Republican from Houston, spends his free time thinking up ways to antagonize people who are already in a politically disadvantaged position. Here he is a white, heterosexual male in a state legislature where patriarchy rules, but that’s not enough for him. He can’t sleep at night until women in rural Texas are as poor and disadvantaged as humanly possible, shackled by unplanned pregnancies they can’t afford. His latest tactic: Senate Bill 97, which would extend the in-person time a doctor is required to spend with a patient seeking to terminate a pregnancy using abortion-inducing drugs.

Last session, Patrick successfully pushed the abortion sonogram bill that requires Texas women to receive a sonogram from a medical doctor at least 24 hours in advance of an abortion. For women who live in remote, rural areas—often in poverty—getting the sonogram is an added travel and financial burden. They must take off work, find childcare and drive sometimes hundreds of miles to get the sonogram done. That’s not to mention the emotional drudgery of being forced to listen to a description of the sonogram results from their doctor.

Now, Sen. Patrick’s new bill would require that the abortion-inducing drugs administered in some cases also be given personally by the doctor who performed the sonogram, making the situation extremely challenging for those doctors who roam remote parts of the state treating patients. Historically, this type of procedure is performed by a technician or nurse working with the physician via video teleconference.

But wait. It gets even better. A second provision in the measure requires the administering doctor to have a written contract with a second doctor who “agrees to treat emergencies arising from the administration or use of the drug,” and to provide the Texas Medical Board or the patient with that doctor’s name and phone number “on demand.”

Not only is this a ridiculous burden on those doctors trying to provide medical care to patients spread out across the state, but providing a list of doctors to the government? Now, where have I heard that before? Oh, yes. The Department of State Health Services proposed a rule earlier this year that would have banned doctors participating in the newly formed Texas Women’s Health Program from discussing abortion with their patients. It also would have required them to turn in the names of any physicians they suspected of deliberately or inadvertently discussing abortion with patients. Thankfully, the Texas Medical Association made a big enough stink about it that DSHS nixed the idea, holding fast to the claim that it was only trying to improve the doctor-patient relationship by denying doctors the right to sway a patient one way or the other.

Likewise, Sen. Patrick and his cronies have been quoted in the media this week saying that they are only trying to make things safer for abortion patients.

I don’t think even they believe that’s true. I know I sure don’t.

ut
The University of Texas at Austin.

How many minority students at a university are enough? That was the question facing the U.S. Supreme Court last month during oral arguments in the affirmative-action case Fisher v. University of Texas.

When Abigail Fisher, a young white woman from Sugar Land, failed to get into UT-Austin in 2008, she sued the university for her $100 application fee, saying the school denied her entry because of her race. Fisher did not finish high school in the top 10 percent of her class, and UT says she wouldn’t have been admitted regardless of her race.

UT and many other public universities base their admission policies on the landmark 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the Supreme Court held that the University of Michigan Law School’s interest in reaching a “critical mass” of minority students was constitutional because it was only a limited factor in the admission process. The school argued that such a critical mass is an important component of the learning environment for all students.

But what is critical mass, and has UT reached it?

A critical mass of minorities, as described in the Grutter decision, would “ensure that these minority students do not feel isolated or like spokespersons for their race; … provide adequate opportunities for the type of interaction upon which the educational benefits of diversity depend; and … challenge all students to think critically and reexamine stereotypes.”

Here is how UT’s admission policy is designed to create such a critical mass: First, the school admits top-ten-percent graduates from each high school in Texas, up to 75 percent of admissions. While the percentage plan helps ensure a baseline of minority admissions, Gregory Garre, representing UT before the court, argued that the minorities who are admitted to UT still tend to come from racially segregated, and often economically disadvantaged, schools.

UT then considers a variety of factors—including race—in filling the remaining spots. The latitude to consider race is important, Garre argued, because a minority student who doesn’t come from a low-income background is “precisely the kind of candidate that’s going to come on campus, help to break down racial barriers, work across racial lines [and] dispel stereotypes.”

After the Grutter decision, UT conducted a study of its minority students to discern whether they felt isolated. According to the study, they did. That’s not surprising at a university that, as recently as last month, was dealing with predominantly white fraternity and sorority members dressing up as Mexican stereotypes at parties, and where, last semester, the student newspaper The Daily Texan printed a cartoon containing an African-American racial slur.

The issues UT students are grappling with are issues their parents and grandparents have yet to reconcile. Affirmative action was created during the civil rights era as a Band-Aid for the institutionalized urban poverty
and structural inequalities that have always existed in this country. As long as those remain in place, there will be a need for affirmative action. It’s not a numerical change that needs to happen, it’s a sea change.

Fisher’s lawyer Bert Rein argued that “critical mass” must be defined, along with the point at which we can say a university has achieved it. As it stands, he said, UT has too much leeway to continue affirmative action admissions indefinitely. But UT can’t define critical mass as, say, a percentage of the student body, because the court decided in Grutter that doing so would create an unconstitutional quota system. It’s a catch-22 for the entire concept of critical mass that Rein said is sure to be its downfall, whether in this case or another in the future. Fisher’s lawyers are asking the court to not only find that UT’s top 10 percent rule doesn’t satisfy Grutter—they’re asking the court to overturn Grutter entirely.

The court isn’t expected to make its decision until early next year. With Justice Elena Kagan recused because of a conflict—she was involved in the case years ago in a lower court—the Supreme Court’s conservative justices have an outsized influence on the outcome. The court could destroy affirmative action, or it could seriously injure it. Look at UT today, though, and you can see why an admission policy aimed at achieving critical mass is as important as ever.