CHICANO RADIO NETWORK U.S.A. Blog

Not this again.

Chale Brown Cartoon:  Santa barbara News Press Driver’s License to “Illegals” controversy.

By Viva Samuel Ramirez

Photo: California Chicano Lawyer, Jaime Segall-Gutierrez with Dolores Huerta

Chicano lawyer, Jaime Segall-Gutierrez writes with regard to Santa Barbara News Press’ usage of the term “illegal” when referring to immigrants.  It’s too bad they won’t drop an antiquated offensive word and follow the Associated Press’ suit.   Please sign this petition Chipsterlife began here.  In the below, Jaime Segall-Gutierrez gives the Santa Barbara News Press a history lesson.

Santa Barbara News Press Needs to be enlightened

By Jaime Segall-Gutierrez

On January 3, 2015, the Santa Barbara News Press headlines read “Illegals line up for driver’s licenses”. The headline implied volumes by its single sentence. It implied that people, labeled as Illegal were breaking the law by acquiring driver’s licenses. It implied that a human being can be illegal, as if gods beautiful creation could be deemed illegal. It implied that these human beings by their mere existence are breaking this fine countries democratic laws. It put a bad taste in the readers mouth that something is afoul here, when in reality its not.

Santa Barbara is a city older than the News Press. It has a culture, celebrated every year (Fiestas), by most revelers in the city, which is older than the Anglo-American presence. Procession participants yell to the revelers “Viva Fiestas” in homage to the Spanish / Mexican culture which blessed the city with its names and uniquely stylized architecture. It is a cove of Spanish / Mexican ambience.

While Santa Barbara celebrates its centuries old culture, the descendants of said Spaniards and Mexicans are ridiculed, mocked, harassed, marginalized and now dehumanized by the News Press.

Interestingly enough, Santa Barbara prohibited Spanish Immersion for which much of the student body boycotted the schools. Recently, the powers that be, attempted to create a gang injunction, which would have made the residents of the East and West side prisoners in their own home. The dichotomy of celebrating a culture and attempting to oppress it is perplexing and for the most part dysfunctional.

Santa Barbara is home to some of the wealthiest people in the world and some of the most reactionary people in the U.S. The City and County depends heavily on cheap Mexican/Chicano labor, whether it be in the landscape industry, service industry or just plain cheap labor.

Rather than thank this community for its beautiful and unique culture and for its support, Santa Barbara punishes them for wanting to drive legally. Rather than see the virtue in everyone having a driver’s license and insurance, the News Press takes a callus stab at human beings whose only sin is being born Mexican.

Apparently, the News Press is not in compliance with the Associated Press’s Stylebook, which is the news industries standard bearer for language, by using Illegal rather than undocumented.

An apology would be greatly appreciated. Gratitude for Mexicans/Chicanos would be justified.

Chicano lawyer, Ruben Salazar writes with regard to Santa Barbara News Press’ usage of the term “illegal” when referring to immigrants.  It’s too bad they won’t drop an antiquated offensive word and follow the Associated Press’ suit.   Please sign this petition Chipsterlife began here.  In the below, Ruben Salazar essentially gives the Santa Barbara News Press a history lesson.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN “ILLEGAL” HUMAN BEING, ONLY “ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.” 

By: Ruben Salazar Esq. Jan 4, 2015 ©

Santa Barbara News Star PO Box 1358, Santa Barbara, CA. 93102

Attn: Editorial Board and Taylor Brianna Knopf (805) 564-5193

I am both a sociologist and a lawyer, and in that vein, I would like to formally register my seven (7) complaints about your news outlet’s improper usage of the term, “illegals” in your January3, 2015 front page story on California’s new law relating to driver’s licenses. It is wrong on so many levels.

First, usage of the racially divisive misnomer is legally wrong and borders on unethical journalism. Nowhere in the U.S. Immigration Nationality Act, the controlling federal immigration laws, is the term “illegal” defined. The word “alien” is defined. INA Sec. 1101(a)(3), The word, “immigrant” is defined. INA Sec. Sec. 1101(a)(15). Both terms are used to describe categories of persons who are not U.S. citizens. Even the term, “special immigrant” is defined. INA Sec. 1101(a)(27). But, nowhere does the term, “illegal” appear in any of the immigration laws or regulations. Thus, the word is misleading to the general public, as it does not even exist under governing U.S. immigration laws. This begs the question: if the term, “illegal” is not found under the federal immigration laws (the definitive authority on the subject), then what gives the author – who claims to have studied sociology as I have – or the editorial board of your local newspaper the temerity to use such an inflammatory non-legal term? It would behoove the board to remember that businesses don’t like controversy or unethical practices by media outlets which don’t adhere to national professional standards of journalism. This is because publicly advertising with such unethical or misleading media outlets make their businesses look unethical or sleazy. Perhaps the more accurate legal terms, “aliens,” or “unlawful immigrants” should have been used instead.

If your regrettable use of word, “illegals” refer to foreigners who entered the country without being inspected by an immigration officer or without proper documentation, that too could or would be misplaced. Contrary to popular belief, it is not a crime to cross the border without papers or authorization. INA section 275(a) is entitled “improper entry by alien” and deals with the civil penalties for “avoidance of examination or inspection.” Given this important civil provision, many immigration judges and lawyers in removal proceedings often use the legal phrase, “entering without inspection,” or (“EWI”). Other informed people, call these people through the less offensive legal terms, “foreign nationals“ or ”arriving aliens.” Maybe the terms, “foreign nationals,” “arriving aliens” or “EWI’s” would have been more legally and factually accurate and ethical; that is, assuming ethics and accuracy is what your local newspaper strives to achieve.

Second, the term “illegals” is potentially overbroad and contrary to existing immigration case law. What you may not know is that many foreign nationals initially entered because they were inadvertently admitted into the U.S. by immigration officials. For example, it is not uncommon for an individual migrant to be “waved through” inspection at a port of entry and be allowed to enter without being asked any questions by the inspecting border patrol agent. Such a non-citizen who physically presents him or herself for inspection, makes no false claim to U.S. citizenship, and is inadvertently permitted to enter the U.S., has been legally inspected and admitted, even if the inspecting office asks no questions. Such an individual has not made an entry without inspection (EWI), and so cannot be considered to be here “illegally.” See, Matter of Areguillin, 17 I&N Dec. 308 (BIA 1980).

Third, and perhaps most notably, the term, “illegals,” is journalistically obsolete and unfair, racially biased, and passé. We remind the Santa Barbara Star News that the influential Associated Press (AP) Stylebook is used by reputable newspapers and schools around the United States. On April 2, 2013, the AP dropped the phrase “illegal immigrant” from it’s stylebook. AP no longer sanctions the term, “illegal immigrant” or the use of “illegal” to describe a person. Instead, AP Executive Editor, Kathleen Carrol, tells its users that “illegal“ should describe only an action, “such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally.” The 2013 AP move is part of broader national journalistic shift away from labeling people and toward labeling behavior. Even former U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano once defined an “illegal immigrant” to reporters as “immigrants who are here illegally.” Thus, on a more fundamentally factual and journalistic level, no human beings are technically themselves illegal, albeit their actions may be.

In addition, the AP has also previously rejected the term, “undocumented immigrants.” This, too, is inaccurate, since many people in the country illegally do have documents; they have just overstayed their temporary non-immigrant visas. Accordingly, instead, the AP standards call for details: “Specify whenever possible how someone entered the country. Crossed the border? Overstayed a visa? What nationality?” Regrettably, the Santa Barbara Star News does not adhere to the AP standards on journalistic ethics. With that kind of history and political baggage, however, many readers may start to doubt about where to get their local news from. More importantly, some major advertisers like Best Western, Sotheby’s Realty, and Santa Barbara Homes, may think twice about where to place their advertising dollars, especially once they realize some of these people are their paying customers or after they are economically pressured with bad press and boycotts from outraged consumers and political activists.

Incidentally, for people who have overstayed more than 180 days, they are barred them from re-entering the U.S. for 3 years. An overstay of more than one bars them from re-entry for a period of 10 years. However, these 3/10 tome bars are mere “civil” penalties for violating federal immigration laws; the actions do not rise to the level of a “crime” unless there is a re-entry after an order of deportation. See, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1369. The point here is that, despite having violated federal civil laws relating to immigration admission and documentation, even these overstay immigrants are not criminals. In reality, their behavior is diminimus and much akin to committing a mere infraction for ”jay-walking.” Labeling such a person as “illegal” based on a low level civil violation is, thus, a misnomer and is fundamentally unfair. That biased and divisive term smacks of racial code for “Mexicans.” And, it serves only to stigmatize some hard-working Santa Barbara and California Hispanic residents hoping to gain American citizenship, many of whom have ancestors and others who came to the country as children.

Fourth, the misleading term “illegals,” suggests that this group of foreign people physically present in the United States have no rights, when nothing could be further from the truth. Long ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) that the protections of the U.S. Constitution apply to all persons “within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any difference of race, of color or of nationality.” See, also, Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954) [finding national origin discrimination against Mexican-Americans in grand jury selection impermissible].

Fifth, the inaccurate word, “illegals,” is historically wrong, dismissive of the original indigenous people of Santa Barbara, and repugnant to many of the subsequent Spanish and Mexican settlers; many of whom still reside in and literally made Santa Barbara what it is today – a thriving popular and diverse resort destination. The Santa Barbara County area was first settled by Native Americans called the Chumash people at least 13,000 years ago. Later, Europeans from Spain first made contact with the Chumash after they landed offshore in the Channel Islands in AD 1543. Spanish explorer Sebastian Vizcaino sailed along the coast in 1602, and named the Santa Barbara Channels. The first land expedition in California was led by Gaspar de Portola who explored the coastal area in 1760 on his way to Monterey Bay. Later, the Presideo of Santa Barbara was established by the Spanish in 1782, followed by the Mission Santa Barbara in 1786. The establishment of permanent settlements had devastating effects on the Chumash people, including a series of disease epidemics that drastically reduced their population. However, the Chumash survived and thousands of Chumash descendants still live in the Santa Barbara area or surrounding counties. Moreover, after the Mexican secularization of the mission Indians in the 1830’s, the mission pasture lands were mostly broken up by Mexico into large “ranchos” and granted mainly to prominent local citizens, many of who still reside in Santa Barbara. These original Santa Barbara ranchers were sometimes called, “Los Cailfornieros.” Six-hundred and four (604) of these Mexican land grants were later confirmed by the State of California, thirty six (36) in Santa Barbara County. Eventually, Santa Barbara County was one of the 26 original counties in California, formed in 1850 at the time of statehood. After that, Santa Barbara was (successively) transformed from grand Mexican “ranchos” and haciendas to: a dusty cluster of adobes; a rowdy, lawless Gold Rush era town; a Victorian-era health resort; a center of silent film production in the 1920’s; an oil boom town in the 1930s; a town supporting a military base and hospitals during WWII in the 1940’s; and finally it became the economically and racially diverse resort destination it remains in the present day. Based on these historical facts, is it fair and does it make economic sense to offend and label potential descendants of Spanish and Mexican American settlers and residents – who have had a continuous presence in the Santa Barbara area since the 1540’s – as “’illegal”?

“Who really is the ‘illegal’ one here?,” some may quip!

Sixth, the term, “illegals,” is politically insensitive and offensive to many of the Hispanic people of the United States, California, and of Santa Barbara. In March of 2014, for the first time ever, the official population of California was 39% Latino, surpassing the 38.8% of the state residents who are white non-Hispanic. After New Mexico, California has become the second state in the U.S. to undergo such a major demographic shift. More importantly and relevant, the 2010 U.S. national census reported that there are 423,895 residents in Santa Barbara. Out of this, approximately 76.54% are white, and 42% are Hispanic or Latino. Last year, the Pew Research Center called Hispanic electorate “an unawakened giant” that is likely to double in size over the next 16 years. Presumably, many of the so-called “illegals” here and others who will arrive in the future have ancestors or family relatives in Santa Barbara, and they may naturally find this ugly term extremely offensive. Based on these compelling demographics and electoral realities, is it politically appropriate or wise in today’s supposedly enlightened and post-racial period to label potential descendants of many Santa Barbara Spanish-Mexican settlers as “’illegal”?

Seventh, as you must know, the southern portions of Santa Barbara county has a bustling economy based largely on tourism, with a significant portion of people with white-collar and high-tech jobs which have contributed most recently to a liberal populace. The southern portions of the county has a strong history of left-wing activism with anti-war protests common in Santa Barbara. In fact, it is generally believed that the inspiration for Earth Day was the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill. These white non-Hispanic liberal residents from Santa Barbara are also likely to be taken aback at the harsh and divisive “illegal” label. No doubt, some of these liberal whites in the burgeoning and thriving southern areas of Santa Barbara financially support the Santa Barbara Star News through their subscriptions or contributions, and would be disturbed and less inclined to continue to support a newspaper still using such radical or racially-charged terms.

In summary, if the editorial board or individual journalist must use a label, perhaps the phrase “foreign nationals” who “illegally entered the country” is more legally and factually accurate. It is certainly less unfair and offensive. If that long phrase is unacceptable, then maybe the Santa Barbara News Star should employ the unbiased terms, “undocumented” or “non-citizen” residents. A third acceptable alternative could also simply be, “unauthorized migrant.” Accordingly, given these three (3) reasonable alternatives in terminology, and based on my seven (7) valid objections stated above, I hereby demand on behalf of many outraged and offended “Barbarenos ,“ Santa Barbara Hispanics, and liberal white citizens, to retract the offensive, inaccurate, overbroad, unfair, and misleading term, “illegals.” Perhaps it is high time for such an old prestigious newspaper like the Santa Barbara Star News- which was established in 1850 when statehood occurred- to get with the times; and to start adopting the nationally accepted standard used by the Associate Press when referring to the 11 million people in the country illegally. Humans are not “illegal,” only their actions are. If for no other reason, you should stop using the arcane word out of sheer respect and concern over your advertisers, subscribers, and contributors, many of whom may justifiably not want to be associated with such backward dog -whistle tactics designed only to rally the more uninformed, conservative, or nativists elements in our society.

Ruben Salazar, Esq.

Chipsterlife was the first to sound the alarm with regard to Santa Barbara News Press’ usage of the term “illegal” when referring to immigrants.  It’s too bad they won’t drop an antiquated offensive word and follow the Associated Press’ suit.  Chipster will begin a petition that is being worked on by Chicano / Latino lawyers of California.

This story is developing:

Enrique Castillo (Blood In Blood Out, Weeds, Zoot Suit) 

Photo Credit:  Homebound

Another Reason To Revive The Chicano Movement

By DeeDee Garcia Blase

Homebound is a new independent movie that received numerous awards west of the Mississippi River. It is the story of Richard Lynn, a successful young man who returns to his small hometown, El Campo, Texas. He has to help his father Gilberto who’s ill with cancer, run the family business, a dilapidated bar. Richard Lynn, accidentally falls in love for the first time with Sofia, a Venezuelan immigrant who speaks very little English. It is a heartwarming film, with inspiring performances, unexpected twists and a passionate ending that will delight audiences around the world.

The movie is packed with dynamic Chicano and Latino actors like Enrique Castillo (Weeds, Blood In Blood Out, Zoot Suit) who plays a strong patriarch wanting to ensure his family is taken care of in light of his illness. His character’s background is one of a Vietnam veteran hero reminding us of those who have contributed their service and sacrifice that protects the liberties we all enjoy now.

Although it feels like the current face of Chicanos and Latinos is solely the immigration issue – nothing could be further from the truth. The economy is just as important to us as we have become real contributors to the economic and labor force. According to Partnership For New American Economy: “Hispanic households, both native and foreign-born, account for a large portion of America’s overall spending power. In 2013, Hispanics had an estimated after-tax income of more than $605 billion.”

Chicanos (Americans of Mexican descent) and Latinos are the fastest-growing ethnic group in the United States, and our passion for movies has shown itself when our demographic group bought 25 percent of the movie tickets sold in 2013 even though we comprise just 17 percent of the population, according to the Motion Picture Association of America’s year-end study. Mexican Americans account for approximately 70% of the entire Latin / Hispanic population pie, which is Chicanos should step up and promote, buy movie tickets that depict our community in a good light.

You don’t have a major hit without Hispanic moviegoers,” Chris Aronson, Fox’s president of domestic distribution, told TheWrap. In addition, it is not surprising to hear Chicanas and/or Latinas are the most avid moviegoers according to an exclusive study.

What will it take for Chicanos and Latinos to have a more dominant role in the entertainment industry? I asked Enrique Castillo that question and he believes “we need more of us involved behind the scenes – from script writing to producing.” He also said, “…too often we are more concerned with being in front of the camera, but we should diversify our roles in other areas because a lot of power to control and change things happens behind the camera, and influence goes behind the writer, producer and investing into film.”

We have a model to pattern ourselves from with regard to the successes of Hollywood. Though Hollywood does not appear eager to create a dynamic movie about one of our Chicano heroes like Corky Gonzales, it is their business decision to make. After all, why would “Hollywood” be interested in creating a new mega Chicano actor that could very well compete with the likes of Ben Affleck and Brad Pitt?

We must on our own accord prove we can handle the entertainment business by demanding what we want to see. Obviously we want to see Chicanos and Latinos starring in movies, and as such we should begin right here within our own communities at a grass roots level. We have the numbers and should have the ability to create our own network that will promote independent movies like Homebound. We don’t do it by playing victim – we do it by promoting our movies with social networking. Indeed, this film has already been to 9 cities already because of the support of our community with less than 5% of all television and film directed by women. Of that 5%– less than 1% are minority women. This is why it is important to support Homebound a film written, directed and produced by a Fanny Veliz. Until there is enough power in distribution, financing and promotion of a film – it will always be a struggle for Chicano and Latino film makers. But for now we should continue to promote movies that impact our communities like Homebound that visit theatres near you, and right now we want to see this movie in Arizona.

C/S

Fanny Veliz is an award winning female Latina director.  

I like your Christ, but…
By: Sal Baldenegro
Keep Christmas out of the stores?

How things change. When I was growing up, religious folks railed against the commercialization of Christmas. They believed and taught that publicly, Christmas was to be celebrated in churches and that personally, the faithful carried Christmas in their hearts, not in shopping bags.Their message was: Keep Christmas out of the stores.

Today, ostensibly in the name of Christianity, right-wing folks want Christmas in the stores. Around this time of year for the last decade or so, Fox News entertainer Bill O’Reilly, William A. Donahue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, TV host Pat Robertson and other zealots have fumed about an alleged “war against Christmas” they claim is orchestrated by liberals. According to them, this “war” started when employees of certain stores said “Happy Holidays” to customers rather than “Merry Christmas.”

George-W.-BushPD
George W. Bush a liberal?

Donahue even includes former President George W. Bush in this liberal conspiracy because he sent cards that referred to the “Holiday Season” rather than “Christmas” during his tenure in the White House. From where I sit, anyone who claims George W. Bush is a liberal is a few bulbs short of a string of holiday lights.

This campaign has no theological foundation. Surely O’Reilly, Donahue, and Robertson know that “holiday” derives from “holy day” and is not irreligious. And as noted, the religious community has always insisted that Christmas be kept in the churches and not in the stores.

Want to keep Christ in Christmas?

Christmas-Keep-Christ_200If the right-wing zealots who wear their Christianity on their sleeves (rather than in their hearts) want to keep Christ in Christmas, they should promote—rather than demonize and work against—legislation and policies that feed the hungry…support workers and their families…welcome the stranger and the unwanted child…care for the ill, and other truly Christian precepts. After all, the Jesus they claim to believe in hung out with, and advocated for, the commoners, the poor, the abused and downtrodden.

Jesus-and-Money-changers
Jesus and the money changers

Also, the right-wing zealots, if they took their Christian faith seriously, would promote rather than oppose legislation that punishes those who exploit working people and the poor. The Biblical Jesus didn’t traffic with the Wall Street crowd of his time. Calling them “robbers” and “thieves,” Jesus threw the money changers who took advantage of the poor by charging usurious interest rates out of the temple, whereas today’s right-wingers cozy up to the bankers and others who make billions off the backs of the poor and the working class.

And under the guise of addressing immigration issues, the so-called Christian right-wingers have been waging a hate campaign against undocumented workers and their children, most of whom are of Mexican descent.

Looking for Jesus in all the wrong places…

Christmas-Mall
Christmas in the mall or donating to the needy?

I refer O’Reilly, Donohue et al. to Matthew 25: 34-40, where Jesus tells the righteous that they shall be received into heaven because (paraphrasing): When I was hungry, you gave me food. When I was thirsty, you gave me drink. When I was naked, you clothed me. When I was sick, you visited me, and when I was a stranger to your land, you took me in, for, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

I submit that the above Gospel better represents Christian action than does a hate campaign against the utterance of “Happy Holidays.” The indisputable truth is that Jesus Christ was a liberal who took on the conservative social establishment of his time. Ironically, had the conservatives won that fight, the so-called religious right would not have the liberal Jesus to misrepresent.

Happy-Holidays
“Happy Holidays” or “Merry Christmas?”

During a rant about Bush’s “Holiday Season” card, a CNN reporter asked Donahue if Jesus Christ would have been offended by receiving such a card. Donahue replied, “Well, maybe he would, but I’ve never met him.” Perhaps Donohue has never met Jesus because he’s looking in the wrong places: the right-wing radio and television programs on which he’s a regular. He might try looking in the Gospels. I’m pretty sure Jesus is in there.

Ditto for Congressman Paul Ryan, former U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum, soon-to-be-former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and other Tea Party Republicans who shamelessly use religion as a campaign prop. Their agenda centers on cutting food stamps to make sure hungry children remain

Paul-Ryan
Congressman Paul Ryan

hungry…fighting against raising the minimum wage so poor people can’t afford the necessities of life…refusing to extend unemployment benefits for the broke and desperate…working to harm workers and their families by destroying unions…outsourcing millions of jobs to overseas sweatshops so corporations can increase profits, thereby depriving Americans the ability to support their families…doing everything they can to assure that regular people—from the poor to the middle class—do not get medical coverage…demonizing immigrants, including children, even U.S.-born children of immigrants.

Gandhi
Mohandas Gandhi, “I like your Christ but…”

Mohandas Gandhi could have been talking about these folks when he said: “I like your Christ (but) your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Being a true Christian entails much more than slinging slogans around and uttering phrases such as “Merry Christmas.” It requires Christian action. So, rather than waging a quixotic campaign against a fictional “war on Christmas,” O’Reilly, Donahue, Robertson, and their adherents should read and practice the Gospels they purport to believe in.

Happy Holy Day! c/s

Source: http://latinopia.com/blogs/political-salsa-y-mas-with-sal-baldenegro-12-22-14-i-like-your-christ-but/

Cartoonist Sergio Hernandez: