The Whole Star

“What part of illegal don’t you understand?”

This question—usually launched by immigration restrictionists and aimed at immigration advocates—is a good one. The United States considers itself a country of laws, and letting people off the hook formajor legal transgressions isn’t (officially) tolerated or popular.

But in assessing the status of illegal immigrants and the penalties they deserve for unlawful action, it’s helpful to consider the severity of their transgressions. What should the penalty be for crossing the border unlawfully in order to sustain your family?

Furthermore, one needs to consider that laws change. Immigrants’ reasons for leaving home and traveling to the United States have remained remarkably constant. End-of-the-world hysteria opposing immigration is also old. What has changed most is immigration law and how we classify newcomers.

The earliest European immigrants to North America—mostly English arriving in Virginia and New England during the early 1600s—were considered settlers in an open continent. Immigration was encouraged and restrictions about who could migrate were minimal.

In a reversal of the contemporary dynamic, these early European colonial immigrants excluded the native culture from the incipient social order and defined the colonies on their own terms, largely as the domain of English Anglo-Saxon Protestant immigrants. Restrictionists have mythologized these early immigrants and contrasted them with later waves of less desirable newcomers. But the composition of the early settlers would have horrified today’s anti-immigrant activists.

Researchers estimate that England sent 50,000 convicts to America in the 18th century and a smaller number in the 17th century. Between half and two-thirds of all early immigrants to America were indentured servants. The earliest immigrants from northwest Europe included few high-born. Most were uneducated agricultural laborers. In spite of this, they were encouraged by the British government to travel to America to labor in the South’s growing plantation economy.

Even in New England, where English immigrants typically possessed more agricultural and artisanal skills, most were defined as “ordinary workmen with moderate to low social status.” Although higher socioeconomic status migrants followed later in the 17th century, the majority of immigrants continued to be drawn from the lower social classes.

In the post-Civil War era, new and large streams of immigrants began arriving from southern and eastern Europe. The Slavs, Italians, and Jews who arrived in the United States by the millions were seen as an existential threat to the country’s Anglo-Saxon Protestant core. Groups such as the Immigration Restriction League sought to reduce immigration to prevent those deemed “undesirable … or injurious to our national character.”

Today these groups are celebrated by anti-immigration activists as “model” immigrants who followed the rules in arriving in the United States legally, unlike Latin American border-jumpers. But at the time these immigrants were portrayed as Europe’s trash being dumped on America’s shores. Public depictions of immigrants as rats and snakes were not uncommon. Immigrants were seen as harbingers of organized crime and radical political ideologies.

But even as fear of immigration grew, legal restrictions against the entry of Europeans were minimal, even for the poor. Ellis Island immigrants were so successful at adhering to U.S. immigration law largely because it barely existed. Of the 12 million immigrants who passed through Ellis Island, only 2 percent were denied entry to the United States. Upon arrival, the vast majority of immigrants — most of them poor and uneducated — spent several hours at Ellis Island before they were legally admitted to America.

The legality threshold for 19th- and 18th-century European immigrants is incomparable to the gauntlet of restrictions facing contemporary immigrants. The immigration bureaucracy has increased so that today’s immigrants—perhaps more educated and skilled than Europeans arriving a century ago—face unprecedented barriers. It can take years for a immigrant with family already in the United States to gain legal entry.

So while restrictionists state “the law is the law,” the fact is that the laws facing newcomers have changed radically. The law turns immigrants into illegal aliens and aliens into national pioneers. If we were sticking with Ellis Island Rules, most Mexican immigrants would stop at the border for a few hours before they were permitted make their way in America with the government’s stamp of approval.

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of The Texas Observer. The author is solely responsible for its content.

Perhaps nothing is as demoralizing as religious hypocrisy; it destroys not only perpetrators but witnesses. Every time a non-believer observes adherents acting in contradiction to the precepts of their faith, the non-believer is only strengthened in his resistance to God’s call. We are not talking about the usual human failings but outrageous, repugnant, destructive violations. The scandal of false Christianity forms an insurmountable stumbling block for some who are being called to conversion. For this reason I am exposing the hypocrisy of Tea Party members who claim they are defending Christianity–a way of life they don’t follow.

Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus exhort his followers to be nationalistic.  All that Jesus said regarding the political state was that we must pay our taxes.  Believers ought instead to be patriots of heaven, as Paul explains in Philippians 3: 20 “For our citizenship is in heaven…” Nor did Jesus instruct his followers to stem the tide of what the world considers progress by force, but to be set apart as pure examples of godliness. For the end times we are told only to prepare for Jesus’ return by keeping ourselves in fit spiritual condition. In fact, Jesus reserved his direst warnings for members of the church themselves, whom he warns against false teaching and ear-tickling; even love of country can be an idol or a kind of heresy if placed before love of God and fellow man.  

Jesus never delegated the authority to judge the nations to any of his followers.  Instead, he promised to come back and sort out sheep from goat. Jesus clearly states that only those of his children who do his will, that is: feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked and visit prisoners and the sick, will receive the reward of eternal life. The good news we are told to spread in the Great Commission is not the gospel of economic doctrine or political philosophy, but the message that we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. Some of the fruits we can expect when we do God’s will include love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. That sure doesn’t sound like the Tea Party rally to me! When we disobey God’s will in favor of our own however, the results can be anger, greed, division, strife, gossip, ugly speech, hatefulness, and every manner of uncleanness.  

We have seen some fruits of the Tea Party movement which many consider a dangerous faction exploiting tough economic times and the fears of suffering people to prosecute a political agenda. In seeking to control and manipulate a society they claim to be “saving”, they are only succeeding in tearing it apart. Individuals in the Tea Party who claim to be Christian have a lot of explaining to do, for biblical teaching is full of calls to submit to secular authority, trust in God, and to pay taxes. “Pay everyone what he is owed: if you owe the tax collector, pay your taxes; if you owe the revenue collector, pay revenue; if you owe someone respect, pay him respect; if you owe someone honor, pay him honor” (see Romans 13: 1-7).  No exceptions were allowed. Paul did not say to pay only as much as you feel is right.  He did not say you could feel sorry for yourself to the point of open rebellion. He did not say submit only to those authorities of whom you approve, but said to give respect where it is due. The president of the United States is owed the respect of all Americans.

If conservative Christians are concerned about a world which seems to be falling apart, their duty in obedience to Christ is to pray, fast, be holy, serve others and spread the Gospel. We are to begin with ourselves. We are to evangelize our own families, churches, workplaces and immediate communities. We are to pray the prayer of the humble tax-collector (reviled then as now) “O God! Have mercy on me, sinner that I am!” and not the prayer of the proud Pharisee, “O God! I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity–greedy, dishonest, immoral, or like this tax-collector!” (“Thank God I am not lazy like those people on welfare; that I am so hard-working and deserving of all my riches!”). Isn’t it ironic that early Christians under pagan Roman rule flourished in holiness and martyrdom, yet today some Christians manage to feel persecuted while living in the greatest democracy in history and enjoying material blessings undreamed of by their distant kin? Jesus warns them:  ”For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but everyone who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 18: 10-14).

Katherine Dobay is a born again Christian and lives in Marble Falls.

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of The Texas Observer. The author is solely responsible for its content.

Corpus Christi is hot.  As the mercury of another scorchingly hot summer continues to rise, finding ways to stay cool remains an important concern.

Corpus Christi is also poor.  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Nueces County is not just one of the poorest counties in Texas but one of the poorest counties in the United States.

Sadly, Corpus Christi is also fat.  A major men’s health and fitness magazine recently dubbed it “America’s Fattest City.”  At least Corpus isn’t alone:  four other Lone Star State cities are also in the top ten.   

The city budget is tight.  Finding ways to trim the city’s $668 million budget remains a challenge.  Significant budget cuts are on the table, particularly to the aquatics portion of the city’s parks and recreation budget.  Cities are increasingly replacing swimming pools–which require lifeguards and are more costly to maintain–with “splash ponds” and similar water features, some of them quite elaborate.  Bayfront Park is an example of such an operation, and the proposed FY 2010-2011 budget proposes $300,000 for the park’s operation, a handsome sum in local terms. Splash ponds might be pretty, but no one is ever going to learn to swim in them.

The ability to take a dip in a cool pool on a hot summer day is a lifeline for many residents of Corpus Christi, particularly the city’s children.  Closing pools, restricting hours, and terminating or postponing programs may seem like a financially prudent idea when looked at on paper in an air conditioned office, but the predictable consequences will harm an already challenged, and disproportionately minority, population.

Hispanic and African-American kids, for the most part, do not know how to swim, and cuts like those in Corpus Christi, a city on an ocean, don’t help. But making matters worse, the nation’s governing body of competitive swimming, USA Swimming, is not doing enough to help poor kids learn how to swim.

Keith Springer is one of Corpus Christi’s top swim instructors and coaches.  He is also a certified high school history teacher and a former Coast Guard rescue swimmer who was awarded the Coast Guard Commendation Medal for saving a life. He has perhaps the best understanding of the importance of youth swimming in Corpus Christi.  Based at the Corpus Christi Natatorium, the city’s top swimming facility, he instructs dozens of classes for kids of all ages, from age three to high school age and beyond.  Twelve hour workdays and weekends are routine.  Almost all of his students are Mexican American or African American.  All of his students are poor.

The Natatorium is a jointly owned and operated swim facility, 80 percent owned by the Corpus Christi Independent School District and 20 percent by the City of Corpus Christi.  Most of the facility’s usage is educational, but public and general swimming are also available.  USA Swimming certified the Corpus Christi Natatorium as a short course yard (SCY) race course in October 2008, a significant achievement. Private swim lessons are offered; instructors, many of them affiliated with USA Swimming, rent portions of the facility for this purpose.

Given the customary sacrosanctness of “public safety” portions of the city budget, recent budget cycles have entailed the usual competition between funding for the arts and the parks and recreation budget.  Also at issue is the debatable manner in which Corpus Christi leaders seem to be carrying out the quality of life mandate of the city’s mission statement.  City resolution 028176 which furnished city staff with financial planning and budgeting guidance does not actually define what “quality of life” in this context means, but does furnish considerable guidance about how to preserve the city’s bond rating.  

City budgeting is of course a delicate art, and entails difficult choices.  But the choices are exacerbated when quality of life is not properly defined in planning documents and when the benefits and burdens of budget proposals, particularly on the poor and pigmented majority of the city’s population are not correctly delineated.

“Most of the children I coach are on free or reduced lunch and they would have no place to go if they weren’t here,” says Coach Springer.  “Many of them couldn’t even swim when they came to me, now we’re competing in swim meets and doing well in them.”  He ought to know; during his tenure as coach of the Carroll High School swim team he reinvigorated the competitiveness of the squad and produced one of the best swim teams in South Texas.  The squad was district champion three years in a row and he was named All South Texas swim coach of the year for three consecutive years by the Corpus Christi Caller-Times.  

But for Springer it’s not just about competitive swimming, it’s also about opportunity.  He is on the front lines addressing the long noted crisis of non-swimming in the country’s minority communities.  Many of the parents of his students have never set foot in a swimming pool.  Many of the ones that have, have never gone past the shallow end.  The national statistics are daunting, and USA Swimming has recently produced a report, one of many, documenting the severity of the problem, particularly in the African American community.

First the national and state data.  According to 2006 CDC data, of all children 1-4 years old who died, 26% died from drowning.  Fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death for children ages 1 to 14 years.  A swimming pool is 14 times more likely than a motor vehicle to be involved in the death of a child age 4 and under.  Children under five and adolescents between the ages of 15-24 have the highest drowning rates.  In 2008 and 2009 Texas had the second highest unintentional drowning rate in the United States.

Interestingly, according to USA Swimming’s Diversity in Swimming study, “fear trumps finance” as the biggest barrier to minority participation in swimming.  Most lower income families would not participate in swimming programs even if they were free, claims the disquisition, due to a “fear of drowning” on the part of parents.  It is a fairly remarkable finding; apparently minority children do not learn to swim not because of a lack of family dinero, but because of family water dread.  The solution, therefore, is not advocacy for more municipal attention to equitability in swim programs, but better marketing of existing programs.  “Make a Splash” is the organization’s national initiative, and has enlisted the services of Cullen Jones, an African American Olympic gold medal swimmer.  One of the goals of the program is to offer free or reduced swim instruction to poor and minority children.

But as Springer sees it, there are problems with the study.  The Corpus Christi Natatorium has had USA Swimming programs, and his experiences with them are instructive.  For one thing, he finds the study’s claim that “fear trumps finances” to be spurious.  “I have more kids who want to take swim lessons than I can accommodate” and “family members are often at the pool and are very interested in in what their kids are doing.”  As far as the USA Swimming programs at the Natatorium are concerned, Springer thinks that the people running them are more interested in their careers in the business of swimming than in actually helping poor black and brown kids learn how to swim.  “USA Swimming is mainly concerned about competitive swimming” and “that costs money.”  “The kids can’t afford the fees” and apparently “there was even a family that was threatened with a lawsuit for back tuition by the local USA Swimming chapter when they couldn’t afford to pay the $300 participation fee.”  In his opinion USA Swimming programs are elitist, close in character to golf and tennis programs that similarly shirk serious analysis of the organizational and structural barriers minority populations face.  He finds the victim-blaming nature of the diversity study to be symptomatic of deeply rooted attitudes that pervade the organization.

What to do?  On the one hand, cities such as Corpus Christi are cutting swim programs in order to save money.  One option has been outsourcing some of these programs to organizations such as the YMCA, or the “Y” as it has now rebranded itself.  Corpus Christi has already done this with the pools serving largely African American populations near the historic D.N. Leathers public housing project and the surrounding Hillcrest neighborhood.  The YMCA program at that pool–known as the T.C. Ayers pool–is only available for two months during the summer between June and August, and children wishing to participate must be participants in YMCA programs, such as the YMCA Youth Net Tutoring, the 21st Century Program and the YMCA Summer Camps.

Municipal swimming pools in other parts of town, for example Collier Pool, do not have YMCA program like this.  Their maintenance and staffing budget come from city funds.

USA Swimming certified coaches do not offer swim lessons at T.C. Ayers and similar neighborhood pools; it’s not financially worthwhile.  They rent space at the Natatorium instead, and offer swim lessons to kids whose parents usually already know how to swim and who can afford to pay.  White kids.

There is another irony. The Hillcrest neighborhood of Corpus Christi is situated right next to some of the nation’s most important oil refineries and has extremely bad air.  In 2007 CITGO became the first refiner in U.S. history found guilty by a jury of violating the Clean Air Act.

If you pay a visit to the Natatorium and observe the swim instruction, it’s usually pretty easy to tell the difference between Coach Springer’s children and the students participating in USA Swimming certified swim programs.   If you ask Coach Springer, he’ll tell you that’s the real reason behind the race and class disparity in swimming, at least in Corpus Christi.  Instead of blaming minority youth and their parents, USA Swimming ought to instead undertake a serious examination of its organizational and business practices.  

The city’s broke, kids need to learn how to swim, and private sector organizations aren’t necessarily the answer.  Splash ponds aren’t going to teach these kids how to avoid drowning.  Nor are aesthetically pleasing bayfront water features with pretty pulsating lights and rotating sprinkler heads.

Dr. Fred L. McGhee is one of the first African American diving officers in U.S. Navy history.  He is a pretty decent swimmer.

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of The Texas Observer. The author is solely responsible for its content.

From LatinaLista.net, where this blog was first published.

July 15 was the first day that a Phoenix judge, Judge Susan Bolton, heard the first of six lawsuits aimed at making the now infamous immigration bill SB1070 disappear.

While it’s too early to say how Judge Bolton will rule, and she did concede that if she passed an injunction it would only block certain provisions of the law and not the entire law, her questions and analysis of how the bill currently reads gives hope.

She indicated that she wasn’t concerned with the portion of the law forbidding law enforcement from restricting the enforcement of federal immigration law to the fullest extent of the law. But she did seem concerned with the portion of the law that states that any person arrested cannot be released until their immigration status is determined. She said that portion of the law “goes well beyond explicit enforcement provisions.”

“Does this have the potential to violate the Constitution on reasonableness of detention?” she asked.

She also questioned the impact of the portion of the law that allows police to arrest individuals without a warrant if they have committed a “public offense” that makes them removable from the U.S.

“Who gets arrested that couldn’t get arrested before?” she asked. “The determination of what makes an individual removable from the U.S. is a determination only the federal government can make.”

The questions and arguments Judge Bolton brings up are not only good points but strong arguments against the implementation of SB1070 — stronger even than the principle argument of racial profiling now popularly used by Latino advocacy groups.

Even the Justice Department’s lawsuit against the bill chooses other elements to object to:

Holder said the suit was based primarily on the constitutional argument that enforcement of immigration laws was a federal responsibility because “we wanted to go out with what we thought (was) our strongest initial argument and to focus on what we thought is the most serious problem with the law as it now exists.”

Holder further admits that his office will look into racial profiling if the law should go into effect since by then they will have gathered enough evidence to bolster their case against it.

However, for the vast majority of people who have never been racially profiled or have known anyone to be racially profiled the issue is nothing more than an urban myth for them. The proof of that observation is seen in the number of people cited in polls who are against any kind of interference in stopping SB1070 from being activated as it now reads.

It’s clear that no amount of marches or “Do I look illegal” t-shirts they see make a difference but everyone can, or should, understand the universal nightmare of someone being arrested based on nothing more than a subjective opinion by a police officer.

How many times do people every day argue or challenge a speeding ticket?

Racial profiling may not be an argument a lot of people can identify with but being arrested for a public offense that is vague to begin with and is 90% based on how the arresting officer sees and interprets the so-called offense is something that most people can understand where mistakes and abuse can happen.

And that’s where the greatest amount of reasonable doubt that this law could be fairly enforced lies.

Marisa Treviño is Publisher of LatinaLista and President of Treviño TodaMedia, LLC

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of The Texas Observer. The author is solely responsible for its content.

President George W. Bush’s troubled eight-year tenure in the White House had its bright moments. His efforts to provide AIDS relief in Africa, his education policy and immigration reform. Bush understood, as does Gov. Rick Perry, that immigration – both legal and illegal – is not a simple issue. They realize that such glib expressions as “the need to secure the border” have nuances. They also realize that there is more to immigration than what happens along the Texas-Mexico border.

Our technology companies need skilled workers, and they need them from wherever they can get them. From India. From China. From Europe. It is why Intel Corporation has spent considerable sums lobbying for immigration reform. PhD engineers from Delhi who apply for an H1-B visa and low-skill, low-wage, illegal aliens sneaking across the border are part of the same, larger problem: the lack of a comprehensive immigration policy.

We should be thankful to Arizona and its new immigration law for waking up the Obama administration to a too-long deferred priority. Immigration is a national policy issue. From libertarian to liberal, we can all agree on that. Arizona can say it is merely enforcing existing federal law, but true or not, it serves to force this question: what is the federal law? It is not only a question worth answering, it is one we must answer. And it is one on which Texas can play a leadership role.

The Realities of the Border

Texas is different from Arizona and unique among border states. For starters, Arizona has no border cities: metropolises that have both U.S. and Mexican sides. Texas border cities are rapidly growing, highly diverse and economically significant. Our border with Mexico – about 1,200 miles –  is the longest international border of any state. And our border population is exponentially larger than that of any other state. We know, intuitively, that this border cannot be “secured.” What’s more, we don’t want it secured. Neither socially nor economically. Half of Texas’ exports go to Mexico. Easy access between Mexico and Texas is vital to our national and state interest, not inimical to it.

If we believe that a border that allows for the easy movement of goods and services is good for Texas, is it also good for Arizona? For New Mexico and California? For our Canadian border? Yes it is. And for the same reasons. The free flow of goods, of capital, and of talent is vital to free enterprise. It is what makes economies successful. Mexico and Canada are among our largest and most significant trading partners. We need them to buy our goods, just as we need theirs. We need their ideas and their workers – both skilled and unskilled.

You can hold these views and still be dismayed at illegal immigration, and we should be. The question is not whether illegal immigration is good or bad (it’s bad), but whether we have a rational immigration policy (we do not). The problem with the U.S. – Mexico border is not whether it can be secured (it cannot), but whether we should regard illegal immigration as the root of the border crisis (it’s not). The crisis is precipitated not by Mexican workers seeking jobs in Arizona and Texas, but by the horrors of the drug war. Too often we confuse the two.

If we could secure the border against Mexican workers, it would still have no effect on the drug cartels. They are too powerful and too sinister to be stopped by fences or by National Guard patrols. Why? Because their influence stretches deep into the U.S. One need only think about the failures of Prohibition to understand that this is a war we will lose. There is a solution here as well, but this is a topic for another time.

So how can Texas lead the way in immigration reform, reform we need to ensure our prosperity? What follows are precepts, without which sensible laws will not be enacted. They are the starting points of a debate that we must have.

We must rethink our relationship with Mexico. Our governor knows that, and he can become the advocate for a change long overdue. We must acknowledge that the drug trade is an issue that is as much our problem as it is Mexico’s. We must examine the economic relationship against the social dynamics of the Texas-Mexico border – and be willing to apply that relationship nationally. The Texas Border and Mexican Affairs division of the Texas Secretary of State’s office is already responsible for dealing with the Mexican government. In 2004, Perry, along with three Mexican state governors, signed the Agreement for Regional Progress “to create new jobs and expand economic opportunities along the border.”

We must acknowledge that the U.S.-Mexico border cannot be secured.  The reality is that we simply cannot secure thousands of miles of border – even if it was in our interest to do so, and it is not. In economic terms, the more vigorously enforced the border is, the higher the price of drugs becomes and the greater the violence. And according to the Congressional Research Service, the cost of trying to secure an unsecurable border is costing us a fortune: “Appropriations for the Border Patrol have grown steadily from $1.06 billion in  FY2000 to $3.58 billion requested in FY2011—an increase of 238%.” Also, “The cost of building and maintaining a double set of steel fences along 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border could be five to 25 times greater than congressional leaders forecast last year, or as much as $49 billion over the expected 25-year life span of the fence.”

We must clarify the status of what makes an immigrant legal or illegal. If I come to the U.S. to earn an income, with no intention of making the U.S. my permanent home, am I an immigrant? No, I am a temporary worker. My status is less that of someone seeking citizenship than that of a foreign student at the University of Texas. It is obvious that as long as we have U.S. companies who are seeking workers, and the Mexican economy remains in shambles, we will have Mexicans who will risk their lives to take those jobs.  Right now, excellent temporary training opportunities are available, but are unpaid. Other guest worker programs are extremely confusing, difficult to complete and discourage both workers and employers from using them, and therefore encouraging simpler, illegal alternatives. We can address this situation by providing work visas with more alternatives for temporary employment. This was a top recommendation by the Bi-national Task Force on the United States-Mexico Border in November.

None of these ideas is new. A frank discussion among interested parties is obvious and necessary. That it has not yet taken place is discouraging. But the situation is not hopeless. Once we quit spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a fence and once we have clarity and honesty in our discussions, a solution will be found.

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of The Texas Observer. The author is solely responsible for its content.