Author: Bryce W. Ashby and Michael J. LaRosa

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

The Seismic Shift in Voting Demographics

A seismic demographic shift in the United States has forced some to consider what actually “makes America great.” This debate has been fully displayed within the Republican Party, referred to — somewhat ironically given the recent rhetoric — as the Party of Lincoln.

Beginning in 2008, a vocal base of the Republican Party — whiter, older, and less formally educated — rebelled against the “otherness” of President Barack H. Obama. They challenged his veracity, religion, and citizenship. In that campaign, Senator John McCain had the decency to push back against the know-nothings in his own party.

Now the same party has nominated for president a man who has exploited this relentless wave of ignorance, once claiming that he sent investigators to Hawaii to uncover the secrets of President Obama’s birth certificate. Such overt racism has infected the party at all levels. Who can forget the revealing 2010 rant of State Representative Curry Todd (R-Collierville) against the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship clause when he suggested that Latinos would multiply like “rats”? He was reelected two more times by the people of his district.

Though the GOP has been handed over to racists and xenophobes, there are signs that the American public has had enough of hateful speech and fearmongering. Representative Todd’s political implosion and Trump’s tumbling poll numbers may be omens of what’s to come.

Demographics are the harbingers of the inevitable failure of this movement. Latinos number 27.3 million eligible voters, and their participation in November will prove critical in many states. In New Mexico, 40.4 percent of the electorate is Latino; their voice, their history, and their concerns will greatly impact that state’s vote.

To ignore or offend the Latino community in swing states makes little sense. For the past several years, education, jobs/economy, and health care have been the top three issues rated for registered Latino voters. But, immigration will be at the heart of the Latino vote for the foreseeable future because it directly affects nearly every Latino family.

For many Latinos in the United States, Obama will leave behind a nebulous legacy and an opportunity for Republicans. While signing executive orders (DACA, for example) which established a temporary status for young, undocumented immigrants, his administration also pursued deportations at an unprecedented level, earning him the nickname of “Deporter-in-Chief” from some activists.

The Republican response nominated a man whose rhetoric toward the Latino community is unidimensional and built on vilification, and who has plans for deportation and national isolation via construction of a wall.

The vast majority of Americans are rejecting this posturing. They are not fooled by a disingenuous campaign that focuses on a few bad Latino apples and completely dismisses the hardworking, tax-paying, social security-contributing people who are part of the basic fabric of our communities.

America’s greatness does not come from harkening back to a mythical past, but from the sueño Americano — the American Dream — built on dynamism created by constant influxes of new immigrants who are hungry to earn their place, contribute to their communities, and raise their kids. The energy, vitality, and optimism that still influences and guides this nation are not to be found in every nation, but here, it still endures.

Shifting demographics create challenges, opportunities, and, for some, fear. We shouldn’t ignore that. There are serious problems with our immigration system, but hateful speech and reactionary policies can never lead to a better way. Only a reasonable, bipartisan, comprehensive immigration package set by Congress, that offers a pathway to citizenship for millions of hardworking people who have been contributing to our nation for decades, can address immigration misunderstandings.

America is not the unhinged mob that Trump hopes to lead. Trump’s downward spiral shows us that any person in America who aspires to public office has to live in a world defined by the demographic data upon which we’re anchored.

Trying to alter that data, through mass deportation, is not the America to which we aspire. We hope that Todd and Trump represent the last gasp of a movement that’s completely contrary to that which makes this nation unique and great.

Bryce W. Ashby is a Memphis-based attorney and board member at Latino Memphis; Michael J. LaRosa is an associate professor of history at Rhodes College.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Against the Wall

Ten years ago, the United States Congress passed H.R. 6061 authorizing construction of a 700-mile “wall” along our southern border with Mexico. Funding for the bill, which President George W. Bush signed into law on October 26, 2006, was not nearly enough (at $1.2 billion) to satiate our American wall fixation. Between 2007 and 2014, the government sunk another $5.2 billion into a Homeland Security account called Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology.
Now, the leading, but receding, GOP candidate for president has campaigned vigorously on the promise of building a wall. When someone at Rhodes College anonymously chalked a sidewalk with the message “Trump 2016: Build a Wall,” many students were offended and dismayed. But “wall politics” have been with us for a while here in America, and walls, we know, never solve problems or bring about social peace. If you don’t believe us, ask the Israelis. Talk to some Berliners. Study the rationale and history behind the construction of China’s “Great Wall.” 

Shouting at wall advocates is counter-productive. Thinking creatively about ways to engage those who truly believe in the benefits of border fences is a better strategy.

Most people in America are not mean-spirited, nativist know-nothings. But many are generally confused by an outdated, impossibly complex immigration system that can only be modernized through an act of Congress. Since this particular Congress takes the cake for fecklessness, fear, and inaction, it’s unlikely we’ll get authentic immigration reform any time soon. This means that the people with the biggest mouths, the deepest pockets, and the skills to manipulate the national media have taken control of the immigration issue. What to do? Here’s a game plan to prevent that foolish barrier:

First, register to vote, and work to elect a new Congress. It’s not impossible, but it won’t happen easily or quickly. It will take more than signing a passive, online petition. It will require much more time and energy than goes into posting a message or two on Facebook, Twitter, or Tumblr.   

Second, study up. Good, careful articles dealing with the fence, the technological glitches, the politics and funding of the fence, and the negative international reaction have been published recently. It’s imperative to fight those who manipulate the fears of others with information, statistics, and historical analysis. 

Immigrants — documented and undocumented alike — make our cities more vibrant; they provide invaluable labor and services to our economy; and they contribute billions of dollars in taxes and to social security. Unauthorized workers pay about $13 billion a year in social security and take out less than $1 billion. Over the past 10 years, they’ve paid $100 billion into that fund. In other words, the undocumented are helping to float our social security system.

Third, allow artistic expressions to animate your thinking on immigration. Focusing only on the soul-draining political details minimizes the time we have to read literature, watch films, and listen to music. Carlos Fuentes, Yuri Herrera, Ana Castillo, and Oscar Casares have all published works that help us see the debate in a distinct dimension — creatively, metaphorically. 

Two important films — El Norte and The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada — are worth watching to help humanize the issue. These stories add depth and beauty to a dispiriting, dour debate that’s increasingly playing out on social media rather than face-to-face. We don’t debate anymore; we argue on Facebook, using a medium where we choose our friends and stare into a computer screen rather than into a person’s eyes. 

Finally, any of you remember Lou Dobbs? We’ve forgotten about him, too. Dobbs was a CNN media star for many years and focused his nightly reports on the dangers of immigration. He carefully selected, collected, and reported the crimes and other deprivations committed by immigrants. It worked for a while, but, by 2009, people grew tired of his campaign, his ratings fell, and he was pushed out. Musician/activist Steve Earle concluded the liner notes to his 2007 album Washington Square Serenade with the memorable “P.S. F—k Lou Dobbs,” an addendum that sort of sums up that unfortunate era.  

Let’s take back the immigration debate and force Congress to act. Let’s stand up to those wishing for a wall not with lachrymose-laden laments but with real action predicated upon study and preparation. If we hope to retain our nation’s bedrock values, we’ll have to engage the wall advocates in this war of ideas and ideals. Retreating out of fear or behind dismissive labels is not the answer, and if the wall actually gets built, we’ll have only ourselves to blame.

Bryce Ashby is a Memphis-based attorney and board chair at Latino Memphis; Michael J. LaRosa is an associate professor of history at Rhodes College.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

DAPA on the Docket

On April 18th, the Supreme Court will hear U.S. v. Texas, an immigration case that has emerged out of continued and increasingly pernicious immigration anger enveloping American society.

The case is complex, and the ruling could affect 5 million people living in America, with direct implications here in Memphis. U.S. v. Texas reflects growing tension between the courts and the executive branch — tensions rooted in the political polarization that defines our nation at this time in history.

In November, 2014, President Obama announced a new program called DAPA — Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (and Lawful Permanent Residents). This executive action would allow about 5 million people — parents of children who are United States citizens — to apply for a three-year work permit upon successful completion of background checks. The program is designed as an extension of the popular and successful 2012 executive action called DACA — Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. More than 1.2 million DACA applications have been approved, which means youngsters are obtaining work permits (working and paying taxes) and seeking post-secondary educational opportunities.

The day before DAPA was to go into effect, in February 2015, federal District Judge Andrew Hansen, from Brownsville, Texas, issued an injunction which immediately halted implementation of DAPA. Hansen, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, has been a strong critic of federal immigration policy and leans toward anti-immigration nativists in his writings and opinions. The 26 states that brought the legal action — led by Texas — essentially “shopped for” and found a sympathetic judge and venue to plead their case.

The Obama administration argues — reasonably — that it has been forced to act via executive action because Congress has refused to fix what all sides concede is a badly broken immigration system. In 2013, Obama supported a moderate, comprehensive immigration reform that was passed by the Senate but not even considered by an increasingly partisan, anti-Obama House, controlled at that time by Speaker John Boehner.

Three years earlier, the Senate defeated the “Dream Act,” which would have allowed youngsters brought to the U.S. by their parents to seek citizenship upon completion of high school, on the condition they would agree to spend two years in either college or the armed forces.

We’re hopeful that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the administration and against the 26 fractious states that seem motivated by politics, determined to characterize Obama as a sort of emperor-president who rules by fiat. These same states did not file any similar lawsuits against Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush when they committed to “family fairness.” The Family Fairness (1987-1990) law prevented the deportation of children and spouses of folks who had been offered a pathway to citizenship under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, signed into law by President Reagan.

Assuming the court rules in favor of the administration, about 50,000 individuals will be affected in Tennessee — thousands of whom reside here in Memphis. Mayor Strickland can lead by preparing for this eventuality, supporting the residents who hope to apply for DAPA. Folks will need to prove that they’ve resided here permanently since 2010, which can be demonstrated through documentation —utility and cable bills, for example. The mayor and others can and should facilitate this process by setting up clinics and organizing teams of attorneys and other concerned citizens to support those who hope to apply for DAPA. Supporting DAPA makes political and economic sense: It is estimated that, over a 10-year period, DAPA could add an additional $2.65 billion to the state’s GDP.

In this season of political irrationality, where fear of immigrants and a return to nativism has taken hold, we hope the Supreme Court can tune out the national noise, the anti-immigrant churn that’s absorbed us at this moment. Moments, thankfully, are only temporary, but the difference DAPA provides — for millions — would endure.

Bryce Ashby is a Memphis-based attorney and board member at Latino Memphis; Michael J. LaRosa is an associate professor of history at Rhodes College.

Categories
Cover Feature News

American Dreamers

CREDIT: Justin Fox Burks

For Frankie Paz, a 19-year-old student at Christian Brothers University, it was a day like any other: up at 3 a.m. for an eight-hour shift at Starbucks on Union, then a quick change of clothes before heading to campus for a full load of classes. He arrived home at 8 p.m. for dinner with his mother and siblings, before a few hours of sleep and a new day, with the same mix of work and school.

This typical day, however, was interrupted by an invitation to accompany CBU President John Smarrelli Jr. to the White House, where President Barack Obama would recognize the university’s investment in Latino youth. A couple of days later, Frankie was photographed in the Blue Room flanked by the two presidents — Smarrelli and Obama.

From Memphis to the White House and back. It’s an unlikely journey for the Honduras native who entered the United States illegally as a 3-year-old, especially given the current national political climate and Tennessee’s reluctance to facilitate the success of kids like Frankie. But Frankie’s story and the story of Jocelyn Vazquez, another thriving young Latina in Memphis, personify the struggles, resiliency, strength, and hopes of the immigrant experience here in Memphis and in pockets across the United States.

“Despite the efforts of some to vilify immigrants and refugees, a key component of our national identity is a United States that symbolizes safety and opportunity for migrants,” said David Lubell, a former Memphian and the executive director and founder of Atlanta-based Welcoming America, an organization that seeks to develop inclusive communities that embrace immigrants. “The successes of hardworking young immigrants are the foundation upon which we continue to fight to preserve our reputation as a country that welcomes strivers from around the world.”

On June 15, 2012, recognizing the need for such a foundation after the hope of comprehensive immigration reform faded, President Obama signed an executive order providing for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). This executive action, signed after months of unrelenting pressure from young Latino and Latina activists, offers relief for people who as children came to or remained in the United States without proper documentation. After filing an application and passing background checks, these DACA youth are offered a renewable two-year deferred status to work, study, and live here without daily fear of deportation.

DACA, of course, is a temporary status and could be rescinded with the stroke of a pen by any future president. In fact, most of the Republican Party’s presidential candidates have pledged to “correct” President Obama’s “executive overreach.” Meanwhile, DACA has given hundreds of thousands of people like Frankie the chance to pursue their dreams.

As a beneficiary of DACA, Frankie’s journey to the United States, and later to the White House, is harrowing but also typical. In Honduras, Frankie’s mother, immersed in poverty and with no path to a more promising future for her children there, looked North. She traveled north, crossed into the United States, and then arranged for Frankie and his siblings to make the overland journey to meet her.

The family reunited in Pasadena, California, and stayed there for seven years. They moved to South Carolina, then to Louisiana, and then back to South Carolina. Six years ago, they settled in Memphis. During the moves, Frankie’s mother worked as a waitress and in construction to make ends meet. For more than a decade, the American Dream proved elusive, with the family enduring periods of hunger and homelessness.

But here in Memphis, the Paz family has flourished. Frankie’s mother started her own cleaning business and saved enough to buy a home in Midtown for her family. She has always insisted that Frankie and his younger brother and sister would attend college.

During his final year at Kingsbury High School, Frankie looked at opportunities for higher education. Tennessee’s state universities were not an option because Tennessee mandates DACA students pay out-of-state tuition, which is nearly three times more expensive than in-state tuition.

Frankie considered traveling to West Memphis to attend Arkansas State University Mid-South, a school that offers tuition equity and recruits DACA students from Memphis. Frankie’s mother also thought about selling her house to help Frankie pay for college.

Justin Fox Burks

Then, in the fall of 2014, Frankie found an opportunity to study at Christian Brothers University. Thanks to a $3.5 million gift from an anonymous donor, the university created the Latino Student Success program, which gives DACA students who graduate from area high schools an opportunity to attend CBU at a reduced cost. Frankie was presented as a candidate to CBU through his contacts at Latino Memphis. The agency has served the Latino community for two decades and supports a program called Abriendo Puertas, or Opening Doors, which offers support to students who hope to attend college.

At the same time he began his studies at Christian Brothers, Frankie started his job at Starbucks. He works 35 hours a week, while taking six classes. During rare free moments, he plays soccer with friends.

Frankie often looks at the picture of himself with President Obama. “I told the president that thanks to DACA and CBU, my life has changed,” he says. “My dreams are being realized.

“But when I look at that picture, I don’t see me,” he says. “I see all of the people who invested in me so that I could be there. I see my mother and my teachers and my professors. A lot of people have believed in me so that I could become who I am.”

Justin Fox Burks

Frankie Paz

Frankie acknowledges the future is never completely predictable, but he knows one thing for certain: “I want to stay here in Memphis and give back to this community. This place has given me everything.”

Giving back to Memphis and having supportive parents who push for college education are two things that Frankie shares with Jocelyn.

Justin Fox Burks

Jocelyn Vazquez

Jocelyn, a senior at Immaculate Conception Cathedral School, was looking forward to the school’s December 12th formal dance at the Peabody Hotel. The dance was just the beginning of an evening when she and her friends would meet up with their families for the late-night Our Lady of Guadalupe procession and reception at Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception.

Despite these big plans, Jocelyn’s thoughts focused on college. Next year, she hopes to attend Rhodes College here in Memphis. Her other top choices are Davidson and Wake Forest, both in North Carolina.

Since she was a young child, Jocelyn’s parents have prioritized education. They made countless sacrifices to send her and her younger sister to Catholic schools in the city. First it was St. Therese Little Flower, then Saint Michael, followed by IC. “My parents value education. Homework always comes first. And they understand the importance of a solid education. That’s their main objective for me and my sister.”

The family’s journey out of San Luis Potosí, Mexico, to the United States was challenging. Jocelyn said her dad moved here first, arriving in South Carolina, where he quickly found work. Shortly thereafter, Jocelyn, a 4-year-old at the time, her younger sister, and her mother arrived by bus from Mexico with tourist visas. They overstayed their visas and began new lives in the United States.

“My dad walked much of the way from Potosí to the U.S. border; he arrived in South Carolina with $20 in his pocket.”

Now he is a construction manager and owns the home where the family lives, along with two rental homes. Jocelyn’s mother works cleaning houses, and Jocelyn’s sister also attends Immaculate Conception.

Jocelyn’s parents sent her to Rhodes last summer to attend a writing camp. Motivated high school students interact with college faculty, focus on building writing skills, and get some experience as to how college works. Jocelyn studied international relations with professor Steve Ceccoli, which she says inspired her. Jocelyn now wants to attend law school one day and hopes to work with Latino communities in the South. “There is a lot of change that needs to happen here,” she says.

In her sophomore year at IC, Jocelyn learned that attaining a college degree in Tennessee would be difficult due to her immigration status. She decided to meet the challenges head on and now refers to her immigration status as a “blessing in disguise, because it’s forced me to be courageous and not to give up. And to be grateful for everything.”

Jocelyn was recently selected as a Golden Door scholar — a sort of pay-it-forward program. It’s a partnership between small, private colleges such as Davidson, Oberlin, Elon, Wake Forest and private donors that offers tuition support to DACA kids, provided the recipients promise to help younger DACA students attend college. It’s an extremely competitive scholarship. The organization funds 15 students a year and typically receives more than 700 applicants.

Jocelyn is well aware of the daunting prospects for children in her circumstances. “Only five to 10 percent of undocumented children in states that don’t support tuition equality ever achieve any type of post-secondary education,” she says.

Tennessee is one of 25 states that do not provide tuition equality to DACA students. Kids like Franklin and Jocelyn must pay three times the tuition rate of other in-state students at a state-supported school such as the University of Memphis. This translates to approximately $16,000 more per year, and DACA students are not eligible for federal student loans.

In the absence of a state legislative fix, private donors and programs like the ones mentioned above have emerged to support these driven young people, but there are still relatively few opportunities. Each year, thousands of kids graduate from Tennessee schools who could benefit from tuition equality.

The upcoming Tennessee legislative session in Nashville offers the chance to pass a tuition equality bill in Tennessee that would allow DACA recipients such as Frankie and Jocelyn to pay in-state tuition rates. The bill passed the state Senate last year and was one vote shy of passage in the House. State Representative Mark White (R-Memphis) has provided strong leadership to help move the bill through the legislature. Leaders in the business community, educators, and the Tennessee Board of Regents have all expressed support for the bill. Governor Bill Haslam has promised to sign the bill if it makes it to his desk, but the outcome in the House is far from clear.

Meanwhile, some 200 miles away from the governor’s office, Frankie wakes up at 3 a.m. He’ll grab his green apron and start making coffee before a long day of classes. Across town, Jocelyn picks up her books and heads to IC, her dream of college still intact.

If, as Lubell suggests, the battle for our identity rests on the foundation laid by kids like these, then the future of our city and our nation certainly rests on solid ground.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

CBU’s Progressive DACA Plan

Christian Brothers University

While the nation fixates on Donald Trump’s vitriolic anti-immigrant plan — a plan that effectively delivers the presidency to the Democratic candidate in 2016 — a very different and refreshing approach to immigration has emerged here in Memphis.

Christian Brothers University recently announced a $12.5 million initiative to educate DACA (deferred action for childhood arrivals) kids. DACA kids are children who were born elsewhere and brought here by their parents, which makes this population ineligible for higher education federal grants and loans. Also under current Tennessee law, these students must pay out-of-state tuition. DACA kids attend our public schools. Many graduate at the top of their class and dream to achieve success through education and hard work. Enrollment for post-secondary education, however, is complicated and, in most cases, prohibitively expensive.

The “Latino Student Success” initiative at CBU, founded in partnership with Latino Memphis, builds on the philosophy of the 17th-century French aristocrat Jean-Baptiste de La Salle, who gave up his fortune and dedicated his life to educating the poor. The initiative also acknowledges 21st-century American reality, i.e., demographics: Hispanics comprise 18 percent of the nation’s population; they are a potent force as consumers, as investors, and, increasingly, in the political arena. In the upcoming presidential election, the Hispanic vote will be crucial in many states but especially significant in the so-called swing states — Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia, and Iowa.

CBU has financed the program with a $3.5 million seed grant and plans to raise $9 million for a total of $12.5 million. The money will allow them to offer tuition at cost and provide no-interest loans to students who must pay back $50 per month on the loan — symbolic money for many of us, but these monthly payments inculcate financial responsibility. CBU also ingrains the mantra that students will “enter to learn, leave to serve” and that they should serve the Memphis community.

This type of creative financing could be a model for all schools in the city, and Christian Brothers University hopes to grow its Hispanic population from where it was two years ago (3 percent of total students) to 10 percent next fall, with a continued climb up.

This program is admirable for (at least) three reasons: First, it’s a humane and creative way to help educate young students who seek a college education and hope to become productive participants in society. Second, it acknowledges the fact that Hispanics make up about 10 percent of the Memphis population. And finally, it’s eminently practical in that it forces people to choose a side in a debate that ought to be a nondebate: Are you on the side of providing or denying educational opportunities to young people in the city and county? The university is making a worthwhile investment in the Latino population, because, according to Dr. Anne Kenworthy, vice president for enrollment at the university, “they represent the future of this city.”

This intelligent, local, and progressive approach has been overshadowed by a very different, but related, news story emerging from the Trump presidential campaign. Trump released his first policy paper — a piece of magical nonrealism in a campaign that’s already outlived its usefulness.

Trump’s national campaign is fueled by his money and a rabid, angry Republican base that is anything but Christian in its simmering hostility toward Hispanics. Trump calls for construction of a “beautiful” wall. (“I want it to be so beautiful, because maybe someday they’re going to call it the Trump wall.”) He’s called for the mass deportation of 11 million people and modification of the 14th Amendment to take away “birthright citizenship.” No serious candidate speaks like this, and, although his candidacy will fail, he has been successful in driving his fellow candidates and his party to an indefensible position on immigration.

So let’s tune out Trump and focus on the good people at Christian Brothers University here in Memphis. They represent what’s true and great about America. They’re providing an excellent education to the underprivileged among us, they’re building our community, and their optimism is evident and inspiring.

Bryce Ashby is a Memphis attorney; Michael J. LaRosa teaches history at Rhodes College.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Myopia in Nashville

Tennessee had the opportunity, on April 22nd, to join 22 forward-looking states by passing tuition equity, which would have benefited thousands of young people across the state. But a mysterious outbreak of myopia in the House chamber, moments before the bill came up for vote, defeated a nicely crafted Senate-passed bill that had strong support from Tennessee youth, educators, and immigrant-rights advocates.

The legislative push to secure tuition equity — which would have allowed in-state university tuition for undocumented youth — has been arduous. Legislators in Nashville have struggled to understand the ramifications of tuition equity in the context of stalled national immigration reform.

Ironically, the bill’s origin and defeat can be traced indirectly to persistent federal inaction on immigration policy.

Five years ago, the U.S. Senate voted down the “Dream Act,” a bill that would have created a path to residency and citizenship for undocumented youth in the U.S. The Senate’s failure to act essentially denied hundreds of thousands of teenagers the chance to pursue education beyond 12th grade. These youths were effectively assigned to the class of low-wage workers living in the U.S.A.

In response to congressional failure, President Obama signed the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive order in 2012. The order allows childhood arrivals who are pursuing or who have obtained a high school diploma to earn a temporary, renewable two-year immigration status. This frees these folks from fear of deportation and allows them to work and study legally in the U.S.

Some states, as a result of congressional inaction, have cobbled together legislation — sometimes called tuition equity — designed to support young people who hope to earn college degrees and embrace the American dream. Tuition equity can come in a variety of forms but generally means offering in-state tuition rates for undocumented youth who reside in the state and have graduated from the state’s high schools.

The Republican-controlled Tennessee state legislature came close to passing tuition equity in last week’s general session. The Senate recently passed it by a vote of 21-12. The House vote, 49-47, fell one vote short of a constitutional majority (50 votes) needed for passage. This vote divided the Republican ranks. For example, Beth Harwell (R-Nashville) did not vote but claims she would have voted against the bill because, to her, the bill represents a “slippery slope.”

We’re not sure which slope she’s sliding down, but opening up opportunity for more young people, as many as 25,000, to study at our state-supported universities seems more like a step-up. Her lack of leadership on this important initiative is worse than her uninspiring metaphors.

Others have led with conviction and grace: Carla Chávez spoke on April 7th before the Education Administration and Planning Committee. The young woman told of arriving in the U.S. at 5 years old with her parents. She never knew she was “undocumented” until it came time to apply to college. Carla graduated from McGavock High School in Nashville and gained eligibility to work with a work permit, as authorized through DACA. She worked at internships and studied on the side, preparing for college during her free time in the hopes that tuition equity would, one day, pass in Tennessee.

Chávez’s powerful statement had a therapeutic effect on some of our representatives. Kent Calfee (R-Kingston) described the moment as “an epiphany” because he was set to vote against the bill, but was swayed by Chávez.

Representative Johnnie Turner (D-Memphis) invoked the civil rights struggle during a moving, passionate speech.

Representative Mark White (R- Memphis) sponsored and shepherded the bill that ultimately fell short. He deserves credit for recognizing the moral imperative behind this legislation and the positive impact it would have in Tennessee. Last year, this same bill bitterly divided the state legislature and never made it out of committee. This year, a broad coalition led by the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC), Latino Memphis, Inc., and hundreds of students organized a bold campaign that, while not managing to provoke new legislation, still made significant progress.

In these times of seemingly interminable partisan bickering, we need a state legislature that leads and helps us all look to our better angels. Offering young people the opportunity to take command of their lives through education, dedication, and focused work is the right policy option for Tennessee. We hope the myopia recedes, just a little bit, in the next legislative session.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

You Lose, Cruz.

We doubt that Senator Ted Cruz will win the 2016 Republican nomination, much less the presidency, and he’ll lose because of the hypocritical position he’s adopted on immigration. Everyone who follows politics can see this, except Ted Cruz.

Cruz is a well-educated man with an undergraduate degree from Princeton, a law degree from Harvard, and a judicial clerkship with former Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Despite this, and the fact that Cruz and his family have benefited from generous immigration laws and policies in the United States and Canada (his father emigrated from Cuba to the U.S. in 1957, Ted was born in Canada), he offers zero creative leadership in addressing a broken U.S. immigration system.

Senator Cruz’s focus is on “border security.” He sponsored a bill to increase, by 300 percent, the number of immigration agents at our southern border. He’s also called for abolishing the Internal Revenue Service and sending all revenue agents south to secure the border. We really don’t need an army of accountants at the border, and Cruz, of course, ignores the fact that the border patrol is already five times larger than it was 20 years ago. Next, Cruz calls for overturning President Obama’s executive orders on deferred action, which allows millions of undocumented people to live, work, study, and keep their families together (at least temporarily) in the U.S. Cruz also signed onto a friend of the court brief in support of the lawsuit brought by 26 states that has halted the President’s “Deferred Action” program.

Cruz’s gaze south is disconcerting at best and racist at worst. His emphasis on militarization of the southern border suggests that threats to our national security originate in our geographic south, though there’s no real evidence to support this.

Cruz’s position of more security and penalties for undocumented immigrants who have “jumped the line” to come to the U.S. will not play well with Latino voters. Such voters want Latino citizens, visitors, and the undocumented treated respectfully by American politicians and citizens. They want educational opportunities — such as tuition equity policies — they want access to basic health care, and they want a pathway to succeed in our nation through hard work, not via handouts. Cruz’s inability to grasp the extent of his own immigration privilege has led him into a Latino lasso from which there is no escape.

The difference between Cuban-Americans and other Hispanics among us is significant and requires some historic perspective. First, the 1959 Castro revolution in Cuba, which started out nationalist and quickly turned Marxist-Leninist, has deeply influenced United States immigration policy toward that island nation. Essentially, Cubans who fled Cuba in the aftermath of the revolution have been welcomed and supported by the United States’ people and government. 

The path of Cuban immigrants contrasts sharply with that of immigrants from the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean, many of whom suffer serious social deprivation in their homelands. For example, Haitians are treated unkindly by our immigration system despite United Nation-supplied social statistics that show deep economic despair: Life expectancy in Haiti is 64 years, compared to 80 in nearby Cuba. Public expenditure on health care in Haiti as a percentage of GDP is 6.4 percent (in Cuba it’s 8.6 percent), and the population living below minimum level of dietary energy consumption is 51.8 percent in Haiti, in Cuba it’s 5 percent.

People of Mexican descent living in the United States are neither impressed nor energized by the Cruz anti-immigration rhetoric. Of the roughly 54 million Hispanics living in the U.S., 64 percent are of Mexican descent. By comparison, 3.7 percent are of Cuban descent. Mexican Americans, Haitian Americans, and others who wish to come to the U.S. recoil against sanctimonious speak from those who have enjoyed special immigration privileges. Cruz, like any candidate seeking to win a national election, can only succeed by building a strong coalition with Hispanics across racial, cultural, and socio-economic boundaries. He’s unlikely to sway anyone in the U.S. with tired, hollow talk of militarizing the border. Only bipartisan, thoughtful, comprehensive immigration reform can help create a sane, equitable, and humane system. The Texas senator has energetically fought against this sort of reform. For this reason alone, Ted Cruz seems determined to lose.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

The Raging Bull in D.C.

It’s ironic that one day after his reelection to a sixth term as senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, the soon-to-be Senate majority leader, characterized the Congress as an angry, raging bull. In a stern, public admonition, McConnell warned President Obama against invoking executive action to alleviate our chronic immigration crisis, comparing such action to “waving a red flag in front of a bull.”

Ironic and sinister. The Republican leadership, which gained control of the U.S. Senate in the November 4th election and now controls both houses, blocked all attempts at reasonable immigration reform during the most recent session of Congress. Then, they blamed the president for any and all immigration crises, including the arrival of thousands of women and children from Central America this past summer. Then, they accused the president of being weak/soft on immigration and as frustration set in, the president’s numbers with Hispanics fell precipitously. Then, the day after their victory, the Republican leadership warned the president against taking much-needed action to solve our broken immigration system — action favored by the majority of Americans.

This script, written in Washington, seems to have emerged out of a Gabriel García Márquez novel. 

President Obama has the opportunity to lead via executive action, and he should do so immediately. He can end deportation of those in the country under irregular circumstances, excluding, of course, those who have committed serious, violent crimes. Rolling through a stop sign should not be grounds for deportation. He can put in place a program whereby millions of people are offered authorization to remain in the country, if they wish. They could apply for work permits; they could pay taxes with greater ease, and live here — temporarily — in relative peace.  

Obama’s ratings with Hispanics dropped 20 percent during the past two years. People are frustrated by the lack of action on immigration reform, and they blame one man, the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, rather than Congress, with its many faces, multiple agendas, and 50 shades of long-term deception on the immigration issue.

Executive action on immigration is not what any of us had hoped for as the solution to our broken system. But it looks like it will happen, and any executive action can be signed away by the next executive. It’s entirely possible the next executive will be a Republican, assuming Democrats behave as badly and awkwardly as they behaved in the most recent election cycle.

The most cited example involves McConnell’s Kentucky opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes, who wouldn’t say whether she voted for Obama, when asked by reporters. It’s not a trick question, and it’s not an unfair question for a woman running as a Democrat for the United States Senate. Democrats lost (Grimes lost by 16 points) because they refused, in many places, to run as Democrats or to champion the many accomplishments of the past six years. Instead, they ran as lite, low-calorie Republicans, and many moderate Democrats and Independents simply voted for the real thing.  

On immigration, Democrats need to hold together as a party and support a president who has very few options at this point. Democrats need to develop a short-term strategy to support those with irregular immigration status who want to live and work here. Then, the Democratic leadership needs to develop a long-term plan to win the White House in 2016, retake the Congress, and pass comprehensive immigration reform. Americans are demanding this type of activist, bold leadership. The American people are much further ahead of their political leaders on this issue, and when the Democratic Party realizes this, they’ll return to power.

But it might be time for some new ideas within the Democratic leadership. Many pundits assume that Hillary Clinton is a lock for the Democratic nomination, but Clinton’s glide-path to the White House is fraught with turbulence. Elizabeth Warren, the senior senator from Massachusetts, claims she’s not running, but we’d like to see her energy, brilliance, fearlessness, charisma, and leadership in the White House.

Can the nation endure an actual liberal from Massachusetts in the White House? We know what we can’t endure: the raging bull that’s de rigueur in D.C. these days.