From multiculturalmamilia.com
UPDATE: KRAFT HAS RESPONDED TO THIS ORIGINAL POST.
I truly can’t believe that I have to write what I’m about to write. Via a Sociological Images post by Bradley Koch, I found out about a KRAFT campaign for their new MilkBites, a snack that is “part milk, part granola.”
The campaign uses an anthropomorphized version of the MilkBite, a little male MilkBite named Mel. The series of commercials, which appear to be both TV spots and online-only “diary” entries to better introduce Mel, set him up as a confused character who “has issues.” Here’s his introduction.
His very first line, as he looks in the mirror is, “Who are you? What am I?” It’s followed by an introspective, “Maybe you’re nothing,” as he sits alone on a park bench. He tries to convince himself that’s not true: “I’m valuable.” But that positive assertion is immediately undercut when he is ignored by a waitress as he tries to get a refill. “Mel has issues” pops up on the screen, and then he’s back in front of the mirror. “Are you milk? Are you granola? What are you?” he asks himself. There’s a shot of him sitting on a couch and looking at a bowl of granola and a glass of milk (his parents, we’ll find out in a future commercial), then he’s back at the mirror. “I don’t know.”
The campaign is clearly setting Mel up as a biracial character, and its using that biracialism as a source of anxiety and confusion. As Koch writes:
“The problem with a marketing campaign like this is that it trivializes the experience of people with multiple racial/ethnic identities who are still often met with derision and confusion. The first ad above perpetuates the self-fulfilling prophecy about “confused” identities. As a child, I remember family members telling me that they didn’t have a problem with interracial couples but worried about how others might react to their children.”
I completely agree that those are problematic aspects that are blatantly present in this campaign, but I’m also going to go one further. Not only does KRAFT use the construction of a biracial identity (of which there aren’t really a lot of pop culture displays to begin with) in a way that perpetuates stereotypes about “confused” identities and the tragic mulatto myth, but–upon a closer examination of the commercials–I also think they’re using that trope to perpetuate a narrative of white supremacy.
I know that sounds extreme. I know I sound like one of those people who overanalyzes things with my own agenda firmly in place and then stretches them to my will. But I truly didn’t seek this out. Really. Take a look at these.
EXCERPTS FROM KRAFT’S MILKBITES CAMPAIGN
Mel Confronts His Parents for What They’ve Done to Him
Mel is upset with his parents. “You didn’t think, did you? You didn’t think what life was going to be like for me. Mom? Dad? For your son.” Deep sigh. Disappointment. Frustration. Anger. How could Mel’s parents do this to him? Mix races and create a conflicted, identity-less monstrosity?
Even more frustrating is what comes after the voiceover about the product–”a snack like nothing else.” Mel appears again, forlorn and lonely. “Find me in the dairy aisle.” Pause. “Please,” a weak and desperate plea.
First, the announcer’s claim that Mel is “like nothing else” negates any similarity that he has to either of his parents, a parallel that suggests individuals of multiple races have no connection to any of the cultural pieces that make up their heritage–a preposterous and insulting claim, in my opinion.
Then, Mel’s plea to “find him in the dairy aisle” can be read as a plea to identify him as white. After all, the “dairy” part of his heritage is the “milk,” the white parent. In this way, Mel could be asking for people to allow him to “pass” in a way that suggests he sees the white part of his identity as superior.
Think I’m reading too much into that? Well then you clearly haven’t seen this next commercial.
Mel Erases His “Granola” Heritage to Get Dates
Here, Mel’s on a blind date with a conventionally attractive white woman. She cuts him off mid-sentence to say “I just have a question. Your profile said you were milk?” He affirms. Then she says, “You just look like granola.” Mel says, “I get that a lot.” He doesn’t admit that he actually is part granola, and he immediately decides “this was a mistake.” The woman tries to stop him as he walks off. “No wait. Please don’t go. I’m . . . I’m kind of into it!”
Her assertion that she’s “kind of into it” is exoticism. She’s shocked to find herself sitting in front of someone who doesn’t read as “milk” (white), but now that he’s in front of her, she sees him as an opportunity to explore an “exotic” date. This is a problem that many people of color face when they’re dating, and a problem that Suheir Hammad captures beautifully in this poem, “Not Your Erotic, Not Your Exotic“:
Mel’s Dating Reveals More White Preferences
This video in the “diary” series–which begins with the tagline, “I’m milk, I’m granola, but mostly I’m confused”–and Mel introduces himself to potential dates. Eventually he lays out his preferences. His “one big thing” is “blonde hair.” He then corrects himself with “or brunette.” The he lays out a hierarchy of hair color, “blonde, brunette, strawberry blonde, redhead.” By privileging “blonde” above all else, Mel once again demonstrates his preference for white.
Mel’s self loathing turns outward in one of the “diary” videos (probably the most bizarre of the series), Mel uses a spork to go on a rant about miscegenation that echoes a lot of disturbing themes about race purity.
Mel introduces us to his friend Spork and shares that they’re similar because they’re both “two things.” He starts by listing Spork’s positive attributes, including his uniqueness. But then he says, “I’m sorry. I can’t do this.” He then goes on a long rant about how the Spork is totally unnecessary and a recent “invention.” He says there were two “perfectly good utensils” a “fork and a spoon” and that there’s no need for a Spork who’s “only in fast food restaurants.” He sadly says “I don’t get you” and then says “I don’t get me.” Though he eventually apologizes for putting his own insecurities off on Spork, his rant is pretty revealing.
First Mel rejects calls for diversity appreciation by saying that he “can’t do this” after giving lip service to Spork’s “individuality.” By talking about how there were two “perfectly good utensils,” Mel calls up “separate but equal” ideology that maintains that it’s not racist to insist that the bloodlines stay “pure” (a ridiculous narrative that’s actually meaningless as race is a cultural–not biological–construction). He then falls back into the now familiar trope of the tragic mulatto, claiming that his biracialism has left him unable to fit into any group. “They’re gonna say you’re not a fork, you’re not a spoon,” he warns Spork. He’s trying to convince himself that he has an identity, but the commercial ends with little hope.
BOTTOM LINE
These commercials outrage me. As the mother of a biracial daughter and a white woman married to a black man, I am frustrated with narratives that suggest people who “mix” are irresponsible and unconcerned with their children’s well-being. But even more than that, I am absolutely sick and tired of white supremacy narratives cropping up everywhere. This is a commercial for a breakfast snack, for crying out loud! Do we really have to racialize that?!
This is not to say that I don’t think race should be portrayed in pop culture. I am not of the “colorblind” camp. Of course race is an issue, and it would be ridiculous to pretend that it’s not. But part of the reason race is an issue is because of campaigns like this one, campaigns that perpetuate stereotypes and marginalize people who don’t neatly fit into preconceived categories.
I think it is immensely important that we call this type of narrative out when we see it. I know that people are going to say it’s “just” a commercial, but that’s how stereotypes work. There’s no one, big, overarching thing that we can destroy to fix racism. Racism is an insidious presence that entangles us through multiple avenues, many of which are subtle and easy to overlook. This KRAFT campaign is an example of that, and I think we have a responsibility as ethical consumers to be conscious of that.
Boycott KRAFT
I find this campaign unacceptable. It perpetuates damaging stereotypes about multiracial people and a narrative of white supremacy. I will not be buying any KRAFT products as long as this campaign continues.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
- Sign the petition. If you already signed it, share it.
- Like our Facebook page “Kraft MilkBite: Say NO to #TragicMel”.
- Use the #TragicMel hashtag to tell @kraftfoods this campaign is unacceptable.
- Post on Kraft MilkBite’s Facebook page to tell them what you think.
CLICK TO TWEET: RT @MFamMag: LIKE our Facebook page to tell @kraftfoods that you don’t approve of #TragicMel the #Milkbite! http://on.fb.me/MilL95
CLICK TO TWEET: Thank you @MFamMag & @BalancingJane for bringing @kraftfoods #TragicMel to my attention! I will not be burying anymore of their products!
READ MY FOLLOW UP POST ABOUT THE KRAFT MILKBITES CAMPAIGN »
This article was originally published on Balancing Jane.
Why Carlos Fuentes Matters
“Yo no soy mexicano. Yo no soy gringo. Yo no soy chicano. No soy gringo en USA y mexicano en Mexico. Soy chicano en todas partes. No tengo que asimilarme a nada. Tengo mi propia historia.” ― Carlos Fuentes
“To call me anti-American is a stupendous lie, a calumny. I grew up in this country. When I was a little boy I shook the hand of Franklin Roosevelt and I haven’t washed it since.” ― Carlos Fuentes
Today, Carlos Fuentes died at 83 years old.
To us, Fuentes will always be one of the world's greatest writers. Punto. No matter the language. He was one part of the "El Boom's" Holy Quartet , who along with García Márquez, Cortázar, and Vargas Llosa, transformed literature and our appreciation for it. Yes, Fuentes was Mexican, but he was also a Latin Americanist, as well as a citizen of the world. As proud a Mexican as he was, Fuentes thought beyond that, understanding that politics can be corrupt and ugly, while humanity can be beautiful and complex. And he wrote, even at 83 years old, he wrote.
Carlos Fuentes, 1984. CREDIT: http://laloborja-gmail.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.html
Fuentes was born in Panama City in 1928, the son of a diplomat, and really didn't come back home to Mexico until he was 16. As a child, he lived in Montevideo, Washington (where he learned to speak fluent English in a public school), Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, Santiago, and Quito, and it is ironic that one of Mexico's most beloved writers was almost a stranger in his own country when he came back with his family in 1944. In today's obituary from The New York Times, Fuentes credits his grandmothers' stories from Mexico as the main inspiration for his becoming a writer. We knew that story from the lit classes we took years ago, and at a time when authors of Mexican American descent are being banned by school districts in the US, it is people like Fuentes who remind us why we write in the first place. To keep our stories alive, and our history vibrant.
There was something badass about Fuentes whenever he was asked to comment about his country's political and social ills, or his disdain of Washington politics, or the absurdity from the cult of personality that is Latin American politics. Here was this bilingual man who could tell you to f-off with a little intelligence ("What the United States does best is to understand itself. What it does worst is understand others.") and back it up with prose that would rival anyone else in the world. Sure, there will always be those who think Fuentes was rich, a Mexican elitist, an author who just wrote and never did a lick to make this world better, but that is where his critics are wrong. Because his prose crept into the minds of his readers, his words inspired others and to many, the sight of a Mexican man sharing such eloquence and intelligence when discussing topics that mattered, was powerful. You want to break down stereotypes? Write like Carlos Fuentes, write with an honest voice, and just tell stories.
One of our most memorable Fuentes stories (outside of his accounts regarding his body of work) occurred in 1977, two years after he was appointed Mexico's ambassador to France. Once former Mexican president Gustavo Díaz Ordaz became ambassador to Spain, Fuentes quit. The reason? It was Díaz Ordaz who, as Mexico's president in 1968, had ordered force on student protesters in Mexican City. We are trying to think of what other famous authors at the height of their career would be so public about their beliefs. In this day and age, not many.
Tonight, we went back and checked our Fuentes collection tucked away in our libraries, from a worn copy of a highlighted La muerte de Artemio Cruz to the mural-covered Cambio de piel (we opened it up again tonight and read a passage that screamed 1960s cosmopolitan Mexico, like a freaky lounge scene from Mad Men). Fuentes mattered to us, and we think he will always matter to many.
Fuentes said something once that will always resonate with us: "Don't classify me, read me. I'm a writer, not a genre.” In a world where everyone wants to label you and put you in the box, Fuentes tells us, screw the box, kick yourself out of the box. Just write. Never stop writing, and never stop writing about what YOU want to write about.
No one can define you, you can only define yourself. That is Fuentes to us.
Rest in Peace, Carlos Fuentes: Video From One of His Last Interviews
We are still absorbing the news of the death Mexico's Carlos Fuentes, one of the greatest writers and literary figures of our time.
We plan to write more about what Fuentes meant to us in the next coming days, but right now we will share an interview Fuentes gave to CBC from late last year. He was a truth seeker until the day he died.
DOCUMENTS: Prosecution for Florida Vs. Zimmerman Releases Witness and Evidence List
Prosecutor Angela Corey, the lead Florida attorney in charge of the state's case against George Zimmerman, charged for the second-degree murder of Trayvon Martin, released her witness and evidence list.
Besides containing over six pages of witnesses and depositions, the documents also list video from February 26, the night when Zimmerman shot Martin. Here are images of all the documents.
Why Does Facebook Say Yes to a TIME Breastfeeding Cover But No to Other Breastfeeding Images?
So, by now, you have seen it. The "famous" TIME magazine cover. It was all over the social web. Everyone was posting it and everyone was talking about it.
When we posted it last Friday on our Facebook site, our community commented and we had a great discussion about cultural and social norms. Many people saw the beauty of the cover while others just saw TIME just being TIME and privilege being privilege.
Yesterday for Mother's Day, some of us Rebeldes posted a few other photos of indigenous women breastfeeding their child. The pictures were real, authentic and beautiful. The point was that all mothers are nurturing. All mothers represent love. We don't need a TIME cover to justify it or tell us what we think about nurture and love. Well, after a few hours, over 200 likes and about 50 shares, the photos we posted were gone, but the TIME cover was still up. The photos we posted were not only gone from our wall but on the walls of individuals as well. Guess Facebook deemed the photos "inappropriate" or someone reported us.
Nonetheless, when we said the following tonight on our Facebook site
So after getting such a response from others, we went ahead and posted another picture that we loved, and so does our community:
No mames, Facebook.
VIDEO: Senator Rand Paul Is Not Sure Obama’s Views on Marriage “Could Get Any Gayer”
Speaking to the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition last night, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (R) made a bizarre comment about President Obama's position on gay marriage.
This is what he said:
“[Obama] said his views were evolving on marriage. Call me cynical, but I wasn’t sure his views on marriage could get any gayer."
This is what Sen. Paul thinks is funny? And what an author from the Iowa Republican thought was an "interesting take" on marriage? Dear Senator Paul, #NoMames.
As the US DOE’s Office of Civil Rights Files a Complaint Against TUSD, Tensions Continue to Mount
Last week the US Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights filed a complaint against the governing board of the Tucson Unified School District, the latest in a series of events that continue to gain national attention, from book bans to Daily Show appearances of TUSD board members.
Photo: Fernanda Echavarri
Here is what the Arizona press is saying about the complaint, as well as a local news segment:The U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights is investigating TUSD's treatment of Latinos at Governing Board meetings.
A complaint filed against the district alleges that it discriminated against Latinos by attempting to limit their participation at board meetings that have been of particular interest to the Latino community.
It has also been alleged that the Tucson Unified School District discriminated against minority individuals with limited English proficiency by failing to provide them with access to district board meetings, the district's website and board policies. The Tucson Unified School District confirmed Friday that it received the complaint, but said it had been forwarded to outside counsel for review, as is district practice with these type of complaints.
The district had no further comment, said TUSD spokeswoman Cara Rene.
Further details about the allegations, to include who filed the complaint, were not available as the investigation is ongoing, the U.S. Department of Education said Friday. According to the Three Sonorans blog, the complaint was filed by the nonprofit Civil Rights Center Inc., which is headed by Silverio Garcia Jr.
Efforts to reach Garcia on Friday were unsuccessful. Phone numbers associated with Garcia were disconnected and a website connected to the Civil Rights Center of Phoenix did not work.
The tension continues to mount at TUSD, so much so that Three Sonorans founder DA Morales, a fervent critic of the TUSD board, made his first public comments in front of the TUSD board. The video is below, but we shared the following words that Morales said at the end of his remarks:
"You guys are going to go down in history, you know what's going to happen, we've seen this history before, the Office of Civil Rights comes in, this is like the Deep South. And you guys are in charge of it, and you guys are going to go down."
Gay Marriage Quickly Goes Partisan After President Supports Equality for All Couples
We are now convinced that no matter what the President of this country (whether it is our current President, former Presidents or future Presidents) says when he (or she) decides to take a stand about an issue, someone in the new media age will quickly condemn it.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-announces-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.html
Case in point, take the case of President Obama's support for gay marriage today. While many praised the decision, the response by the Log Cabin Republicans (a grassroots LGBT Republican group) was so partisan and so sad, you wonder how we ever get anything accomplished in this country any more (oh, wait, we don't):
“That the president has chosen today, when LGBT Americans are mourning the passage of Amendment One, to finally speak up for marriage equality is offensive and callous,” said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director. “Log Cabin Republicans appreciate that President Obama has finally come in line with leaders like Vice President Dick Cheney on this issue, but LGBT Americans are right to be angry that this calculated announcement comes too late to be of any use to the people of North Carolina, or any of the other states that have addressed this issue on his watch. This administration has manipulated LGBT families for political gain as much as anybody, and after his campaign’s ridiculous contortions to deny support for marriage equality this week he does not deserve praise for an announcement that comes a day late and a dollar short.”
This is what Log Cabin Republicans were responding to. From the President himself:
"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”
Other reactions to the President's words can be read here. Here are two more GOP ones that just have us scratching our heads:
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus:
"Because our children's future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives. Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character. Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems. We support the courageous efforts of single-parent families to provide a stable home for their children. Children are our nation's most precious resource. We also salute and support the efforts of foster and adoptive families. Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.
"Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage. As the family is our basic unit of society, we oppose initiatives to erode parental rights."
GOProud chief strategist Christopher R. Barron
“It is good to see that after intense political pressure that President Obama has finally come around to the Dick Cheney position on marriage equality. I am sure, however, the President’s newly discovered support for marriage is cold comfort to the gay couples in North Carolina. The President waited until after North Carolina passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. This is hardly a profile in courage by President Obama. For years now, President Obama has tried his hardest to have it both ways on this issue. The real kudos here goes to LGBT activists and their allies who finally forced the President into yielding on this issue.”
Nice Try, New Jersey: Court Says Landlords Under No Legal Obligation to Inquire About Immigration Status
From Juan Cartagena, President and General Counsel LatinoJustice PRLDEF
Immigration policy is a complex web of competing local interests and national norms that has seen its share of debate in New Jersey in recent years. As the federal administration struggles to pass comprehensive immigration reform some New Jersey governmental units have impatiently jumped into the fray to either limit routine work encounters by day laborers (Freehold), expand the workload of local law enforcement to include immigration enforcement (Morristown) or delineate the appropriateness of referrals to immigration authorities (NJ Attorney General’s Office). As important as work, and education, public safety and health, is to the state’s immigrant community, no area of daily life is as tied to presence in this country as is housing. Regulating the housing market by definition regulates the presence of immigrants. And on that score, New Jersey recently added an important chapter to the protection of the civil rights of Latino and immigrant households in a federal court decision last month.
A landlord in Plainfield was sued in a novel application of federal racketeering laws by one its tenants who alleged that the landlord rented apartments disregarding a prospective tenant’s immigration status, knowingly soliciting undocumented immigrants for rentals and accepting flawed documentation as to their lawful immigration status. By refusing to investigate the lawfulness of its tenants’ presence in this country, the landlord allegedly harbored undocumented persons in Plainfield and induced others to come to this country illegally. And all of it, presumably, as an illegal racketeering enterprise under the RICO laws.
The case, Bolmer v. Connelly, was unprecedented, and if victorious would have completely altered landlord – tenant relations. Landlords would become immigration agents and forced to navigate the intricacies of immigration law to determine who is lawfully present – and if they got it wrong, criminal penalties would follow. Tenants would be subject to increased housing discrimination and potential homelessness with a disproportionate number of Latinos, lawful permanent residents and citizens alike, all subject to the worse aspects of attempting to import complex immigration expertise to untrained realty owners in the private sector.
LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the organization I direct, welcomed the opportunity to address the court to support the landlord and halt this misguided attempt to decentralize immigration enforcement of what is essentially a national issue. Our client was the Latin American Coalition, a nonprofit organization in Plainfield whose members include tenants, residents and property owners in the city and whose mission is to provide social services to Latinos in the area. Before the final arguments were made to the federal court the defendant landlord was unable to participate after initiating bankruptcy proceedings and the court invited our team of attorneys to take the lead on the defense. We prepared our arguments and with the help of a local law firm, Duane Morris, presented a vigorous defense to stop the extension of racketeering laws to routine landlord – tenant encounters. Last month we were vindicated when Judge Julio Fuentes of the U.S. Court of Appeals wrote an opinion recognizing that renting is not harboring in the criminal sense and dismissed the RICO claims.
Often lost in the immigration debates at the state level is that Congress has declined to establish criminal sanctions related to the mere presence of unauthorized persons in the country. A corollary to this scheme is that the Executive Branch frequently exercises its discretion not to remove persons who may lack lawful immigration status for a host of economic and humanitarian reasons. It was in this context that the lawsuit filed against Plainfield New Jersey property owners was lodged as part of a concerted effort to push the courts to make it difficult for New Jersey’s immigrants to assimilate into the social fabric through lawful means. The plaintiffs in Bolmer were represented by Deasey, Mahoney & Valentini, a law firm that unsuccessfully represented the City of Hazelton, Pennsylvania in support of its anti-immigrant ordinance against day laborers and tenants in that town. The Immigration Reform Law Institute also lent its support to the case and the Institute is tied to the Federation of American Immigration Reform, founded in the 1980s by John Tanton who has funding ties to modern day eugenics movement.
Thus Plainfield was caught in the middle of a unsavory national effort to localize immigration enforcement when the only sane and rational response to immigration in our ever increasing flat world of globalization is a national, federal response. Luckily for New Jersey’s Latino communities the federal courts stepped in and stopped what would have been a major housing crisis in the Garden State.
To learn more about LatinoJustice PRLDEF, visit the organzation here.
Secure Communities Program Expands to Massachusetts, Despite Objections by Governor Patrick
For those who think that the immigration issue applies only to border states, yesterday the federal government announced that the secure communities program, which targets undocumented individuals (specifically those with criminal records), will expand into Massachusetts on May 15, according to The Boston Globe.
From: http://s-comm-nj.blogspot.com/
The article said that the announcement caught state officials by surprise, since the original plan was to launch the program by the end of 2013. Governor Duval Patrick, a Democrat and a surrogate to President Obama's 2012 campaign, has consistently said that such a program is discriminatory and unfairly locates undocumented immigrants with no criminal record.
This is what Governor Patrick said last year:
"I'm persuaded that here in the commonwealth, we will give up more than we get. We run a serious risk of ethnic profiling and frankly fracturing incredibly important relationships in communities that are necessary for law enforcement."
Now let's get this straight: most people (including us) agree that people who committed serious crimes should indeed be arrested and if they have immigration issues, they deportation is an option. However, the secure communities program has quickly become yet another symbol of anti-immigrant hate, as well as it being anti-Latino. On Boston radio today, many callers were supporting the program because this is all about "those illegals taking our jobs" and "using our services." The fact is that the immigration issue is complex (for example, economic need for cheap labor, those jobs that Americans can apply for, but they decide not to) and by creating a wider net, there is the risk that if you don't speak English or "look different," you will get checked about your immigration status. This is how it started in Germany, people, whether you agree with that or not, check your history.
But that won't stop the neo-nativists, who quite frankly, have become an influential voice in the Republican Party. That is why Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown (R) was quick to comment about the expansion of the program into his state. According the to Globe, Brown said the program is "an important tool in keeping our citizens safe and giving our law enforcement officials, especially the sheriffs, the tools and resources they need to do their jobs."
"The people of Massachusetts will finally have the protection they deserve from violent criminals who have entered our country illegally."
The fact is that this is all about ONE high-profile case in Massachusetts: the death of 23-year-old Matthew Denice, who was killed by Nicolás Guaman when Guaman's pickup truck struck Denice's motorcycle. Now there is an "illegal alien criminal" problem in Massachusetts, and Massachusetts residents are being hounded by the "illegal criminal" menace. We do wonder if Sen. Brown feels the same way about the US Border Patrol's killing of Anastasio Rojas? We doubt it.
In the end, Worcester County Sheriff Lew Evangelidis, whose office investigated Denice's death, had vowed to bring the secure communities law to Massachusetts:
"Following the tragic death of Matthew, I made a promise to his family that I would do everything in my power to bring this program to Massachusetts so that other families would not have to endure the pain they suffered."
One tragic crime and now Massachusetts has a controversial program being launched. Fear is alive and well.
