Beware, 80th Legislature: The eyes of Latino voters are upon you

Web-posted Monday, February 26, 2007, Amarillo.com - Amarillo Globe News
Column: David Almager

DALLAS - The buzz at the Texas State Capitol, along with tougher punishment for sex offenders, TAKS reform and HPV vaccination, includes the contentious debate occurring over several anti-immigration proposals filed this session by Republican legislators.

The dozen-plus anti-immigration bills filed to date consist of the following proposals: to end birthright citizenship to children born to undocumented parents; deny in-state tuition to undocumented immigrant children attending public colleges; and mandate greater enforcement by local police and state officers of federal immigration law violations, just to name a few.

Perhaps one of the most talked about proposals is House Bill 28, introduced by Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler. If approved, the bill would deny state benefits, including health care or public assistance health benefits, discontinue student attendance in any public school including colleges or universities, and refuse employment within state or local governments (among other provisions) to any individual born in the state whose parents are undocumented. Berman is quoted as saying, "If we do nothing ... our country will change totally. Our culture will be gone. We've been invaded without firing a shot."

HB 858 would place local law enforcement and state officers in the role of federal immigration enforcement by authorizing them to inquire about immigration status and arrest or refer the individual to federal immigration authorities.

Opponents of the bill argue that adding additional responsibilities to law enforcement officials has the potential of wasting valuable law enforcement resources which should be utilized to fight serious crime. In addition, many advocacy groups have raised concerns over the potential for an increase in racial profiling incidents by law enforcement at the state and local levels.

The constitutionality of many of the anti-immigration bills that have been filed has raised concerns among a key Republican player - David Swinford of Dumas, chair of the House State Affairs Committee. Swinford has indicated that he would seek legal guidance from the state's attorney general on several of the bills referred to his committee and deny them a hearing if they're found to be unconstitutional.

One can surmise that there will be plenty of opposition to the anti-immigration bills proposed this legislative session, including Latino legislators who accuse the anti-immigration crowd of using Latinos as a "political piñata." Opponents of anti-immigration proposals argue that passage of such divisive legislation forces immigrants deeper into hiding; violates their constitutional rights; and most importantly, are un-American.

Texas Republican legislators should take a cue from the Pete Wilson experiment of 1994. Wilson, then governor of California, pushed through Proposition 187, a ballot initiative that proposed the denial of health and education services to the children of undocumented workers. The proposition was eventually blocked by the courts.

The divisive debate over Proposition 187 assisted in ending Republican legislative rule in California as Latino voters made clear their opposition to harsh anti-immigration policies. As a result, the California Republican Party has yet and may never recover from the 1994 debate.

It's difficult to compare California politics of the 1990s with Texas politics of today, noting that California Latino voters were participating at higher rates than the general population.

However, most experts agree that the future of Texas politics has the potential to be influenced by the state's fastest growing voting block, Latinos, who today comprise approximately 21 percent of the Texas electorate.

Several young California Latino voters, after the November 2006 congressional elections, said that they voted in that election because they had been too young to do so in 1994. This may indicate that future Latino voters will be unforgetful and unforgiving.

Texas Latino voters sent a very clear message during last year's national election. They overwhelmingly voted for Democratic candidates, and immigration reform was at the top of the list of issues that influenced their decision.

Latino voters strongly believe that U.S. immigration policy should be reformed but that immigration policies that are mean-spirited and hurtful to families are unacceptable and against American values.

Lawmakers, beware:
The eyes of Texas Latino voters are on the 80th Legislature as the contentious immigration policy debate moves forward through the legislative process.

--
David Almager, a former Amarillo resident, lives in Dallas. He is a doctoral candidate at Walden University's School of Public Policy and Administration.

Real policy needed to address immigrant needs in U.S.
______________________________________________________________________________
Posted December 3rd, 2006 CanyonNews.com
by David Almager
Local Opinion

THE RECENT presidential signing of the Secure Fence Act of 2006, calling for the construction of a 700-mile, doublewide fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, highlighted the effort of this administration and the Republican-led Congress attempts to achieve immigration reform.

Comprehensive would not be the best way to describe the results. The president’s initial effort to reform U.S. immigration policy, which provided for some form of a guest worker initiative, was called into question even by members of his own political party and resulting in the now-failed Bush proposal.

While Congress was on the campaign trail, setting one of the most contentious mid-term elections in recent history, the Secure Fence Act perhaps set the stage for immigration campaigning tactics at both the national and state levels.

We witnessed the politics of immigration move beyond the halls of the U.S. capital, shifting to election year campaigning in the form of anti-immigration rhetoric. Terrorists, criminals, illegal aliens, tougher border security and increased enforcement seem to be the buzzwords being used to stir-up the anti-immigration base in an effort to drive conservative voters to the polls.

Republicans, as well as a few Democrats, used scare tactics to align themselves with the anti-immigration sentiments being felt across the country.

“Our borders are a sieve,” House Speaker Dennis Hastert said. “We’re at war, and we certainly need to act like we’re at war. We need to close our borders.”

A few Democratic candidates in conservative states are also calling for greater enforcement of the border, espousing some of the same images and verbiage traditionally used by Republican camps.

But perhaps the most startling use of anti-immigration scare tactics was seen by residents of Texas in an ad endorsed by Gov. Rick Perry during in his re-election bid. It featured the image of a tough and rugged governor — wearing jeans and a button-down shirt — walking along the Rio Grande with law enforcement officials to his side.

“We’re increasing patrols, using technology to stop terrorists from crossing our border,” Perry said. Images of clogged highway border checkpoints, two men apprehended and handcuffed by police, and an aerial view of the border from inside of what appears to be a military helicopter are all portrayed to reflect the governor’s tough stance on border security.

The tactics used in that ad may be reflective of the views of the conservative voters in the state and got them to the polls on election day - Perry won re-election - but the images now may backfire when it comes to addressing real comprehensive immigration reform as seen by Latino voters in Texas.

Latino advocacy groups such as League of United Latin American Citizens, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials and the National Council of La Raza vehemently opposed the signing of the Secure Fence Act of 2006, calling it “politically motivated and not a serious response to real immigration reform.”

Serious policy debate on immigration reform is one thing, but political scare tactics and rhetoric used to create a negative image of immigrants in this country is an unacceptable approach in finding a solution to this important issue.

Gov. Perry’s ad was a perfect example of how we can use images and words like “terrorist” and “criminals” to socially construct a group of people in a negative way and yet still feel good about how we treat and perceive them within society.

The Latino voters of this state and across the country are intelligent voters and can decide for themselves how satisfied they are with the results of Congress’s immigration reform attempt. A 700- mile fence, which has the potential to shift illegal traffic to more dangerous areas of the border and increase immigrant deaths, was not the reform that hundreds of thousands of Latinos marched for in the spring of 2006.

The marchers made it clear: A real, comprehensive policy that addresses the working needs of 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. should be the centerpiece of real reform and not election year border security scare tactics that simply works to reinforce negative stereotype of immigrants and their families.

Bush's fence cannot take place of real immigration policy reform

Web-posted Sunday, November 5, 2006 Amarillo Globe News
Column - David Almager

DALLAS - Last week's presidential signing of the Secure Fence Act of 2006, calling for the construction of a 700-mile double-wide fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, highlighted the effort of this administration and the Republican-led Congress to achieve immigration reform. Comprehensive would not be the best way to describe the results.

Even the president's initial effort to reform U.S. immigration policy, which provided for some form of guest worker initiative, was called into question by members of his own political party and resulted in the now-failed Bush proposal.

With Congress on the campaign trail and many elected officials in the midst of one of the most contentious mid-term elections in recent history, the Secure Fence Act perhaps has set the stage for this year's immigration campaigning tactics at both the national and state levels.

We have seen the politics of immigration move beyond the halls of the U.S. capital, shifting to election-year campaigning in the form of anti-immigration rhetoric. Terrorists, criminals, illegal aliens, tougher border security and increased enforcement seem to be the buzzwords being used to stir up the anti-immigration base in an effort to drive conservative voters to the polls.

Republicans, as well as a few Democrats, are using scare tactics to align themselves with the anti-immigration sentiments being felt across the country.

"Our borders are a sieve," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert. "We're at war, and we certainly need to act like we're at war. We need to close our borders."

A few Democratic candidates in conservative states also are calling for greater enforcement of the border, espousing some of the same images and verbiage traditionally used by Republican camps.

But perhaps the most startling use of anti-immigration scare tactics seen by the citizens of Texas is the ad endorsed by Gov. Rick Perry in his reelection bid. It features the image of a tough and rugged Perry, in jeans and a button-down shirt, walking along the Rio Grande with law enforcement officials at his side.

"We're increasing patrols, using technology to stop terrorists from crossing our border," says Perry.

Images of clogged highway border checkpoints, two men apprehended and handcuffed by police, and an aerial view of the border from inside of what appears to be a military helicopter are portrayed to reflect the governor's tough stance on border security. The tactics used in that ad may be reflective of the views of the conservative voters in the state and may work to get them to the polls on Election Day, but the images may backfire when it comes to addressing real comprehensive immigration reform as seen by Latino voters in Texas.

Latino advocacy groups, such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials and the National Council of La Raza vehemently opposed the signing of the Secure Fence Act of 2006, calling it "politically motivated and not a serious response to real immigration reform."

Serious policy debate on immigration reform is one thing, but political scare tactics and rhetoric used to create a negative image of immigrants in this country is an unacceptable approach to finding a solution to this important issue. Gov. Perry's ad is a perfect example of how we can use images and words like "terrorists" and "criminals" to portray a group of people in a negative way, yet still feel good about how we treat and perceive them within society.

The Latino voters of this state and across the country are intelligent voters and can decide for themselves how satisfied they are with the results of Congress' immigration reform attempt.

A 700-mile fence, which has the potential to shift illegal traffic to more dangerous areas of the border and increase immigrant deaths, was not the reform that hundreds of thousands of Latinos marched for last spring. The marchers made it clear: A comprehensive policy that addresses the working needs of 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. should be the centerpiece of real reform, not some election-year border security scare tactics that simply work to reinforce negative stereotypes of immigrants and their families.

--
David Almager is a former Amarillo resident who currently lives in Dallas. He is a doctoral candidate at Walden University's School of Public Policy and Administration.

Guest Column: Compassion disappearing from immigration policy

Web-posted Thursday, June 1, 2006 Amarillo Globe News
By David Almager | Opinion

DALLAS - In an effort to appease his Republican conservative base, President Bush announced recently a major immigration initiative focused on what he called taking back "control of the border." His plan would include the deployment of 6,000 National Guard troops as back-up for the Border Patrol.

Not to be outdone, the U.S. Senate proposed the building of a massive triple-layered fence that would stretch for 370 miles across the U.S.-Mexico border, all part of a tougher border security sentiment being debated across the country.

The proposals have been met with both support and skepticism from both sides of the aisle. The governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, called the use of the National Guard a "logistical nightmare," noting that utilizing Guard troops to protect the border would be a "poor use of forces trained for combat."

The National Guard could begin its border tour as early as this month. Six thousand troops from all over the country would be on "border duty" during the first year of the plan. They would serve as behind-the-scenes logistics, including office support, intelligence, surveillance and fence construction.

The Guard troops possibly could help in building the "Big Fence," which undoubtedly would be the most technologically advanced fence ever constructed by this country, estimated to cost $3.2 million per mile - around $900 million for the more than 300 miles. No decision has been made on where the fence might be built, but construction would be centered around the areas determined to be most often traveled by "smugglers and illegal aliens."

The "Big Fence" measure approved by the Senate appeared to be an important victory for law and order conservatives who were looking for tough measures that would secure the border. Now, along with the National Guard deployment, the massive structure will stand as a proud symbol of their commitment to protect the country from "illegal aliens, terrorists, and felons." Across the aisle is more of the same hard-line rhetoric. Several members of the House have been critical of the Bush and Senate proposals, refusing to budge on any talks about a guest worker initiative. The proposed House legislation would make all undocumented immigrants subject to prosecution as felons and would include the construction of a 700-mile fence - more than twice the length of the Senate fence.

Immigrant rights groups have called the deployment of National Guard and the building of the massive fence dangerous and a bad symbolic gesture by the U.S.

The danger comes when immigrants, who are already dying at high rates crossing the most treacherous part of the border, now will seek even tougher terrain to walk across for an opportunity to work in the U.S. to feed their families.

Criticism also comes from those who believe that the militarization of the border sends the wrong message to our Mexican neighbors, adding fuel to the already strained relationship between Mexico and the United States.

Troops are traditionally deployed to combat the enemy, not to scare our neighbors into retreating.

With compassion no longer in the equation, what additional policies will surface as part of the tough stance reform packet guaranteed to be vigorously debated during the next few weeks in Congress? Maybe rounding up all undocumented immigrants in the country and hauling them back to the border? Build a taller and longer fence?
Not unthought of by some members of Congress.

Let us be reminded, as the president did during his speech to the American public, that immigrants are "decent human beings that need to be treated with respect." The president got that one correct. Compassionate policies should be created with respect for families and, most importantly, a respect for human dignity.

Whatever policies result from this national discussion, let us hope that compassion will come back into play and that a comprehensive immigration reform bill will be the result of this contentious yet important debate.

--
David Almager, a former Amarillo resident, lives in Dallas. He is a doctoral candidate at Walden University's School of Public Policy and Administration

Guest Column: Future of U.S. politics may be forged by Latinos

Web-posted Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - Amarillo Globe News
By David Almager | Opinion

DALLAS - "Today we march! Tomorrow we vote!" - the memorable chant heard around the country during this month's immigration marches.

It was heard in Dallas, where an estimated half-million immigrants, their children and supporters of sensible immigration reform, peacefully meandered through the downtown streets in their white shirts, patriotically waving the Stars and Stripes.

It was heard in Washington, D.C., where the massive crowd, made up mostly of Latinos, converged on the same famous site where in 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke so eloquently about his dream for freedom, justice and civil rights for all in this great country.

The chant was heard even in Amarillo, where an estimated 3,000 immigrants and their supporters from across the Texas Panhandle marched through downtown on April 10, in a united voice against what one march participant called "unjust laws against immigrants."

Those are only three of the hundreds of cities across the country where immigrants and their supporters lifted their banners, paraded through the streets and demanded to be heard.

"Hoy Marchamos! Mañana Votamos!" "Today we march! Tomorrow we vote!"

But will the massive marches translate into political clout and pressure the U.S Congress into passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill? Let us be reminded that citizenship is a requirement to vote in this country, and many of the march participants were some of the 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States who may never have an opportunity to even seek citizenship, much less vote, if they continue to live under current immigration policies.

Some Republicans in Congress have said the marches simply have solidified their tough stance on immigration reform, with some expressing irritation at the widespread student walkouts and protests.

Although many of the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who marched during the past few weeks may not have political voting power in this country, they have established important and influential coalitions.

One of the most influential alliances established is the Catholic Church. Bishops and clergy played significant roles in almost every march across the country and are credited for bringing out large numbers of congregates to participate. The Church's leadership publicly chastised House legislation that would turn most people and institutions that assist undocumented immigrants into felons.

Another major coalition is with Spanish-language media outlets, most importantly Spanish radio hosts, who have emerged as a driving force behind the immigration rallies. Among those was Eduardo Sotelo "El Piolin," a syndicated morning show radio host who is broadcast in 20 cities. His outspoken support and promotion of the marches was critical in drawing the enormous crowds in Los Angeles a few weeks earlier.

The children of immigrants, many of them U.S. citizens, were a major influence behind the marches. It was those children of immigrants, using Web pages, e-mails and cell phone text messages, who spearheaded the massive school walkouts across the country. It is estimated that millions of U.S.-born Latinos will be turning 18 over the next decade and becoming eligible to participate in the election process. They will at some point join the already 9.3 million Latino registered voters.

The marches of were the largest Latino protest in the history of this country, and their message resonated loudly.
As Congress returns to work, its members should be alerted that the unforgettable chant - "Today we march! Tomorrow we vote!" - may have some merit after all, and it might just be that immigrants and their supporters already have changed the face of politics for decades to come.

---
David Almager resides in Dallas and attended the Dallas Mega March on April 9. He is a former Amarillo resident and a doctoral candidate at Walden University's School of Public Policy and Administration.

Swinford keeps Texas out of immigration fight

Publication Date: 05/05/07
Column: David Almager

DALLAS - With only weeks remaining in the 80th Legislature, who would have predicted that a conservative Republican would have taken the lead to quash the anti-immigration crowd's hopes of passing some of the most divisive anti-immigrant measures ever introduced in the Texas Legislature?

The slew of bills filed this session were set to impose an assortment of restrictions and sanctions on undocumented immigrants, from denial of health care, education and other benefits for children born in Texas to undocumented immigrants, to sanctioning greater enforcement of federal immigration violations by local and state law enforcement agencies.

Although some anti-immigration bills have made their way to the House floor for a vote, the House State Affairs Committee, stacked by mostly conservative Republicans and led by Chairman David Swinford, R-Dumas, have given the majority of the
anti-immigration proposal a swift thumbs-down, noting that the issue of immigration reform belongs to the federal government and is not a function of the state Legislature.

The dismissal of such bills came after Swinford sought advice from Texas Attorney General Gregg Abbott, who concluded that most of the bills were unconstitutional and would not survive a court challenge.

Another significant player in the Texas immigration debate was the business community, which clearly has grown to understand the important contribution that immigrant workers have made to the health of the state's economy and the financial well-being of the business community.

Having lived in West Texas and the Texas Panhandle for the majority of my life, I have seen firsthand the vital role immigrant workers have played in the economy of those regions.

Perhaps Swinford also experienced what I have witnessed for the past several decades.
As a businessman with years of experience in the agriculture industry, it would be difficult for Swinford not to notice the modern-day agriculture workers within District 87.

It also would be difficult for him not to recognize the face of the landscape, construction and fast-food work force employed in the Texas Panhandle today.
But immigration is not a new issue to Swinford.

District 87 is positioned in the northern part of the Texas Panhandle and is a major agricultural region and oil producer. It is also the home of thousands of immigrant workers, many of whom work in the agriculture and service industries.

Ironically, located within Swinford's district is the small rural community of Cactus, population 2,000 and home of a Swift & Co. meat-packing plant.

The plant received nationwide notoriety in December 2006 after it was targeted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the largest raid against a single employer, apprehending approximately 300 workers at the plant.

Although he may agree with many of the bills filed - " … (B)eing a right-wing nut, I agree with some of the bills, … but it's a waste of money, and that's not what I was sent (here) for," he noted — Rep. Swinford should be commended for his leadership on this issue.

Latino leaders praised him for avoiding a potentially divisive fight within the Legislature and between the anti-immigration crowd and immigrant advocacy groups.
As the 80th Legislature soon comes to a close, the heated Texas immigration debate will move from Austin to Washington, D.C.

The next big hurdle is whether the U.S. Congress will be brave enough to tackle the important issue at the national level.

Under new leadership, a new perspective about the immigration debate appears to be at hand, but no major reform movement has occurred up to this point.

Those who followed the immigration debate in Austin should become even more involved by encouraging members of Congress to support the passage of comprehensive immigration reform that moves toward fixing the currently broken immigration system in this country.

The voices should be loud and clear: Congress must act now on real immigration reform!

--
David Almager, a former Amarillo resident, lives in Dallas. He is a doctoral candidate at Walden University's School of Public Policy and Administration.

Click here to return to story

© The Amarillo Globe-News Online