You are here: Home / Archives for Politics

VIDEO: A 9-Year-Old Kid Schools Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel

May 21, 2013 by 1 Comment

Leave it to a 9-year-old boy to speak out against the school closings in Chicago.

Here is what the Chicagoist has to say about Asean Johnson, the boy in the video:

asean

Meet Asean Johnson. He is nine years old, and he is a third-grader at Marcus Garvey Elementary. He was downtown on Monday at the rally to protest the city’s plan to close dozens of Chicago’s public schools, where he delivered this powerful speech. His school is on the list of closures, and if closed, Asean will be heading to Mount Vernon Elementary.

Asean has been active in the movement to save his school, appearing at rallies and delivering speeches to the school board and district leaders. He was featured in a Sun-Times editorial, which also pointed out the receiving school Mount Vernon Elementary has lower test scores than Garvey. Watch this interview with Asean from Monday.

Filed Under: Injustice, Politics Tagged With: , , , ,

Ríos Montt Genocide Conviction Annulled by Guatemala’s Highest Court

May 21, 2013 by 1 Comment

Several outlets have reported tonight that the genocide conviction of former Guatemalan dictator Efraín Ríos Montt has been annulled. This is what Reuters reported: “Guatemala’s constitutional court on Monday overturned a genocide conviction against former dictator Efrain Rios Montt, throwing out all proceedings in his case since a dispute broke out last month over who should hear it.”

riostrial“

On May 10, Ríos Montt was found guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity. He was sentenced to 80 years in prison, according to Reuters, for “overseeing the deliberate killings by the armed forces of at least 1,771 members of the Maya Ixil population during his 1982-83 rule.”

Tweets from @NISGUA_Guate, which has been covering the trial from the very beginning, confirmed the news.

Reporter Xeni Javier provided more details about the decision:

The language of the court ruling specifies that the concluding phase of the trial has been thrown out, along with the verdict and 80-year prison sentence. It states that the phase of the trial in which victim testimony was delivered is still intact. But it’s possible that this effectively means the trial is annulled, and that there must be a new trial, or that there is no posssibility of a guilty verdict. Reporters and international observers I’ve spoken to aren’t exactly sure what is next, as far as whether a trial on the same charges will in fact be re-convened and repeated, or whether Rios Montt, 86, is now guaranteed to be a free man for the rest of his life.

Filed Under: Injustice, Politics Tagged With: , , , ,

García Padilla: Puerto Ricans Must Move Forward Together in Status Question

May 20, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Today, Puerto Rican governor Alejandro García Padilla (D), the leader of the island’s status quo commonwealth party, wrote a piece for The Hill in response to a statehood bill submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives on May 15 by Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, the leader of the island’s pro-statehood New Progressive Party.

Alejandro García Padilla

Alejandro García Padilla

Here is an excerpt of what he wrote:

In their zeal to attempt to demonstrate support for statehood, the New Progressive Party has worked tirelessly to mischaracterize the results of the plebiscite – so much so that both houses of the Puerto Rican legislature felt it necessary to pass a joint resolution on Wednesday to set the record straight.

The governor then closes with the following:

Every Puerto Rican agrees that any self-determination that is fair, transparent and democratic should give an equal opportunity to each and all of the viable options with respect to our relationship with the United States. I commend President Obama for his proposal to hold a new plebiscite in Puerto Rico, which is an act that acknowledges that any fair self-determination process must include all valid options: statehood, independence, free association and Commonwealth.

While Puerto Ricans may continue to have different views concerning our relationship with the United States, we should be united in our desire to improve the lives of our fellow Puerto Ricans. With unemployment still high and economic growth still not at our desired level, there is much work to be done to create the environment businesses and families need to thrive.

Since I took office in January, my administration has worked tirelessly to create and implement new economic development policies and crime-reducing strategies. For example, the Jobs Now Act, which provides incentives to new and existing companies based in Puerto Rico, will help create an additional 50,000 new jobs during the first 18 months of my administration. And the security efforts launched by my administration have brought about an across-the-board reduction in all crime indexes.

It is time to move beyond the election cycle and focus on the many challenges at hand. Puerto Ricans are yearning for its leaders to come together and work to create a better future for all.

Filed Under: Politics Tagged With: , , , , ,

Pierluisi: Puerto Ricans Living on Mainland Should Not Be Allowed to Vote on Island’s Status

May 19, 2013 by 1 Comment

On May 15, Puerto Rico’s Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi (D), a non-voting member of the U.S. House of Representatives, submitted the following bill to Congress:

 

PUERTO RICO STATUS RESOLUTION ACT

Full Text Below is a simple rendition of Congress’ official bill text.
1. Short title
This Act may be cited as the Puerto Rico Status Resolution Act.

2. Findings and purpose

(a) Findings

Congress finds the following:

(1) In 1898, Puerto Rico became a United States territory and persons born in Puerto Rico have been granted United States citizenship by law since March 2, 1917.
(2) Puerto Rico has been granted authority over local matters that is similar to the authority that the several States possess, but Puerto Rico remains subject to the powers of Congress under the Territory Clause of the Constitution of the United States.
(3) The approximately 3,700,000 residents of Puerto Rico do not have a democratic form of government at the national level, because United States citizens residing in the territory are disenfranchised in the election for the President and the Vice President of the United States, are not represented in the United States Senate, and their one representative in the United States House of Representatives can only vote in committees of the United States House of Representatives.
(4) The Federal Government may—and often does—treat Puerto Rico and its residents unequally under Federal program, tax, and other laws relative to the several States and the District of Columbia and their residents.
(5) On November 6, 2012, the Government of Puerto Rico held a two-part referendum. The first question asked voters if Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of territorial status. Of the 1,798,987 voters who chose an option, 53.97 percent voted against continued territorial status.
(6) The second question asked voters to express their preference among the three possible alternatives to territorial status: statehood, independence, and nationhood in free association with the United States. Of the 1,363,854 voters who chose an option, 61.16 percent voted for statehood.
(7) The number of votes cast in favor of statehood exceeded the number of votes cast in favor of continued territorial status.
(b)Purpose
The purpose of this Act is to provide for a federally authorized ratification vote in Puerto Rico on the admission of Puerto Rico into the Union as a State and, if a majority of voters ratify Puerto Rico’s desire for statehood, to describe the steps that the President and Congress shall take to enable the admission of Puerto Rico as a State of the Union.
3. Ratification vote

The State Elections Commission of Puerto Rico is authorized to provide for a ratification vote on the admission of Puerto Rico into the Union as a State, in accordance with rules and regulations determined by the Commission, including qualifications for voter eligibility, with the following on the ballot:

“As a State:

(A) Puerto Rico would be permanently united to the other States of the Union.
(B) All provisions of the Constitution of the United States that apply to the States would apply to Puerto Rico.
(C) Individuals born in Puerto Rico would be United States citizens by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, instead of by virtue of laws of the United States.
(D) Puerto Rico would be treated equally with the other States in all Federal laws of general application.
(E) There would be a period of transition to statehood, during which equal treatment of Puerto Rico in program and tax laws would be phased in.
(F) Puerto Rico would be represented in the United States Senate by two Senators, in the United States House of Representatives by a number of Representatives in proportion to its share of the national population (and the number of Members of the House of Representatives would be increased by the same number), and for the election of the President and the Vice President of the United States by a number of votes in the Electoral College equal to the number of its Senators and Representatives.
(G) The Government of Puerto Rico, like the governments of the other States, would have permanent authority over all matters not delegated to the Federal Government or the people by the Constitution of the United States.

Do you want Puerto Rico to be admitted as a State of the United States? Yes__ No__”

4. Implementation

(a) Presidential action
If a majority of votes cast in the ratification vote held under section 3 are for the admission of Puerto Rico as a State of the Union, the President, not later than 180 days after the certification of the vote, shall submit to Congress legislation to admit Puerto Rico as a State of the Union on an equal footing with the several States in all respects, consistent with the terms of this Act.
(b) Legislative action
If a majority of votes cast in the ratification vote held under section 3 are for the admission of Puerto Rico as a State of the Union, this Act constitutes a commitment by Congress to act, through legislation, to admit Puerto Rico as a State of the Union on an equal footing with the several States in all respects, consistent with the terms of this Act.

Pierluisi made an appearance today on Univision’s “Al Punto” with Jorge Ramos to discuss the bill. Besides stating his case for the bill, Pierluisi did say the estimated 4 million Puerto Ricans living on the U.S. mainland should have a say in the statehood bill, and that current Governor Alejandro García Padilla, who favors the island’s current commonwealth system, is not allowing the voice of the Puerto Rican people to be heard.

PRico

Here is the video in Spanish.

Pierluisi and Ramos spent considerable time on especially the criticisms of the bill. Members of Pierluisi’s own pro-statehood party, including former governor Carlos Romero Barceló, believe that the bill leaves it way too open to allow Puerto Ricans living on the mainland to vote in a final binding plebiscite. Rep. José Serrano (D-NY) believes that mainland Puerto Ricans should be allowed to vote.

This is what Pierluisi told Ramos, “The decision must be in the hands of Puerto Ricans living on the island, 3.7 million American citizens residing in Puerto Rico.”

Pierluisi also did not support Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL), who believes the statehood bill is heavily biased towards a statehood option.

“In a democracy, at least in America, you vote where one resides. At the moment, one may consider whether Puerto Ricans in the diaspora could also express their views, but usually, what always happens is that you vote where you live.”

In the end, Pierluisi’s words were still very vague, and it is clear to us that this topic is no way near resolved, especially if Serrano and Gutiérrez are involved.

Filed Under: Politics, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , ,

U.S. State Department Official Points to Success of Gangnam-Style “Visa” Video from Costa Rican Embassy

May 17, 2013 by 2 Comments

In response to questions as to whether the U.S. State Department authorized and approved a Gangnam-inspired “USA Visa Style” parody video produced and uploaded to YouTube by the U.S. Embassy in Costa Rica, a State Department official provided us with the following statement:

Our embassies and consulates around the world are always looking for new and creative ways to educate and inform applicants about the visa process. The U.S. Embassy in San Jose is no exception. Consular section representatives regularly visit small communities across Costa Rica to bring a similar message as that in the video, warning of the dangers posed by visa scammers and coyotes who will take people’s money and jeopardize their chances of legally obtaining a visa—or even jeopardize their lives in the cases of those who are trafficked.

The video was designed for a Costa Rican audience, and meant to bring that same message in a more humorous way. It has succeeded. The public response in Costa Rica has been overwhelmingly positive, and it has been well received in the local press – ADN radio, Radio Monumental, and Channels 9, 11, and 42 so far. Comments on the Embassy’s Facebook site (146K + followers) have been overwhelmingly positive, with 743 likes, 150 comments and 256 shares. It has been viewed more than 20K times on YouTube, and while comments there are disabled, thumbs up reviews are running double to thumbs down reviews.

USA

The video, which has gone viral on the embassy’s YouTube channel, shows embassy employees, including Anne Slaughter Andrew, the U.S. Ambassador to Costa Rica, dancing, as they warn of the dangers of using unauthorized means to secure a visa to the U.S. One individual is dressed up as a “coyote” who is trying to scam potential visa applicants. We provided our initial thoughts last night, as well as a running commentary about the video.

While the majority of the posts from the embassy’s Facebook page have been positive, other comments were critical. Here are just a few examples:

“This is a business where people are enticed to apply for a visa, pay a lot of money to then be sadly disappointed. I know many people who have met all the criterion to obtain a visa and they have been given a lame excuse as to why they are not eligible. I’m not saying go the illegal way but don’t make it sound that getting a visa is a walk in the park. The video was very fun though. With warm regards, an american citizen”

Other comments spoke to the real hardships of obtaining a visa, and questioned why the video makes it seem so easy to obtain. One commenter said in Spanish (our translation): “It is cute, but the reality is much different… when you deny people a visa and you don’t know why… only money supports the embassy.” Another commenter said, “If you are from a rich family in Costa Rica, you will get a visa with no problem, but if you are a person who wants to enter legally, unlike the Mexicans and other people from Central America, you won’t get your visa.”

Comments from our network, mostly from U.S. Latinos, were also not as positive:

“Sequester much? We have money for this sh-t? Remember the ‘training’ video the IRS made? Ridiculous! Where the hell is the oversight?”

“Ridiculous!!! And so not the way they treat us at US embassies in Latin America. We get treated like damn criminals. This makes me ill.”

“Slap to the Central Americans.”

Chicago’s Gozamos (who alerted us to the video) said: “Video depicts immigration like a vacation.”

It seems that there is a clear distinction between a video that was intended a local audience, yet can easily be seen by global audiences. One emailer told us, “Holy mother of GOD, WHAT THE HELL! I don’t know whether to laugh or cry!”

We do appreciate getting an official response from the State Department, although we still think that such a video was inappropriate to begin with. The behavior was unprofessional, and the concept makes a mockery of an issue that rips families apart. Is the arduous process of getting a visa a laughing matter?

We sure hope that this is just an isolated incident, and doesn’t become a standard strategy by the diplomatic arm of the U.S. government. We can only imagine what other “viral videos” are being planned.

Filed Under: Immigration Nuttiness, NoMames, Politics Tagged With: , , , ,

In Case You Missed It: Colbert Addresses the Heritage Richwine Controversy

May 16, 2013 by Leave a Comment

This past week Stephen Colbert addressed the controversy surrounding the Heritage Foundation’s immigration study and the Jason Richwine controversy.

Stephen Colbert

Here it is.

Filed Under: Humor, Immigration Nuttiness, Politics Tagged With: , , ,

ProEnglish Radio Ad Invents “Fake Illegal” to Speak Out Against Immigration Reform

May 15, 2013 by Leave a Comment

It really doesn’t surprise us that ProEnglish, which was formed in 1994 by John Tanton, the very same John Tanton who heads up a network of some of the most racist and anti-immigrant organizations in this country (with help from the Vice Chairman of the Heritage Foundation), has now entered the push to stop comprehensive immigration reform.

tanton

As they following radio ad being run in South Carolina shows, ProEnglish will even invent a “fake illegal” to hammer its point, as it goes after Senator Lindsay Graham, a proponent of the current Gang of Eight immigration bill.

Buzzfeed ran an story about this ad, and also mentioned how ProEnglish is defending it:

“ProEnglish will run the ad in South Carolina for as long as it takes to get the message out,” said spokesman Phil Kent. In fact, Kent said the ad campaign might expand beyond South Carolina.

“If we feel if this is successful we may target senators in other states,” he said.
Graham isn’t responding to the message of the ad.

“South Carolina remains the central battlefield in the fight over immigration reform,” said Kevin Bishop, a Graham spokesperson.

Tanton founded ProEnglish in 1994, and he is still a board member. The organization is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Buzzfeed also mentioned the organization’s latest history:

ProEnglish is led by Robert Vandervoort, who caused a stir in 2012 when he was invited to speak at a CPAC immigration panel despite his “past ties to the white nationalist group Chicagoland Friends of American Renaissance,” as it was described in contemporary media reports. American Renaissance warns against “Multiculturalism and the War Against White America” and “The War on White Heritage” on its website.

Ardent reform opponents steer clear of Vandervoort. Republican Kansas Sec. of State Kris Kobach — architect of the controversial immigration laws in Arizona and Alabama — distanced himself from the ProEnglish leader after appearing on the CPAC panel with him.

The group shrugs off critics who call it racist. “As for dishonest opponents, we choose to ignore smears and lies,” Kent said.

As for the ad, who is the guy in Spanish who did it, and did he wear his Self-Hate Badge when he recorded the commercial?

Filed Under: Immigration Nuttiness, News, Politics Tagged With: , , , , ,

Latino Rebels Radio Podcast: Our Interview with The Washington Post’s Manuel Roig-Franzia

May 14, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Here is just another one of our early podcast segments that we recorded a few weeks ago. In this segment, we interview Manuel Roig-Franzia of The Washington Post. Recently Manuel co-wrote with Peter Wallsten called, “Hispanic consciousness lends weight to Jeb Bush as GOP eyes 2016 presidential race.”

manuel-dustjacket

We talk to Manuel about this story.

For other segments, you can check out the #NoMames podcast here and our interview with Fernando Espuelas.

Filed Under: News, Politics Tagged With: , , , ,

Richwine: “I Don’t Apologize for Any of the Things that I Said”

May 13, 2013 by 1 Comment

Jason Richwine, who resigned last Friday from The Heritage Foundation over his “IQ and Immigration Policy” dissertation from 2009, went on record today with The Washington Examiner to defend his work and speak about the reaction it received (for example, Google “Jason Richwine racist” and see the millions of entries you will get). Here are just are just some of the excerpts he told the Examiner’s Byron York:

JasonRichwine

“It seemed like that day lasted forever,” says Jason Richwine of last Wednesday, when he found himself in the middle of a media firestorm over his writings about Hispanic immigrants and intelligence. “I knew that this probably would not end well.”

Richwine knew he was in trouble the minute the first story broke. “The accusation of racism is one of the worst things that anyone can call you in public life,” he says. “Once that word is out there, it’s very difficult to recover from it, even when it is completely untrue.”

“It still amazes me that it would be me who is portrayed this way,” Richwine says. “I have a pretty good educational background, I have a good background in doing very good quantitative work. The idea that I am some sort of foaming-at-the-mouth extremist never even crossed my mind.”

“I am a much better writer than I am a speaker,” he told me. “I probably would have written those things differently than I spoke them. What I emphasized was that ethnic group differences in IQ are scientifically uncontroversial. That being said, there is a nuance that goes along with that: the extent to which IQ scores actually reflect intelligence, the fact that it reflects averages and there is a lot of overlap in any population, and that IQ scores say absolutely nothing about the causes of the differences — environmental, genetic, or some combination of those things.”
“I don’t apologize for any of the things that I said,” Richwine continued. “But I do regret that I couldn’t give more detail. And I also regret that I didn’t think more about how the average lay person would perceive these things, as opposed to an academic audience.”

“I’m not naive about that,” he said. But he wanted to make clear that he defends his work. “I do not apologize for any of my work,” he told me. “I’m proud of it. But I do regret the way it has been used.”

” What remains to be seen is how radioactive people consider me,” he says. “My goal right now is that people understand that I’m not someone who has to be avoided. I’ve always considered myself a mainstream scholar. If people associate me with these three days for the rest of my life, it will be very difficult.”

You can read the entire story here.

Filed Under: Immigration Nuttiness, Politics Tagged With: , , , ,

Could the Scaife Foundations of Heritage’s Vice Chair Be Key to Group’s Immigration Extremism?

May 12, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Earlier today we posted an article detailing how the family foundations run by Richard M. Scaife, the current Vice Chairman of the Heritage Foundation’s Board of Trustees, had given funds to several organizations associated with John Tanton, an individual whom many believe has created “most influential anti-immigrant network in the country.” These donations coincided during a time when Heritage’s immigration policy began to shift from a moderate stance to a much more extreme position, culminating in one of Heritage’s worst weeks ever: its 2013 immigration report and the controversy surrounding Jason Richwine, the report’s co-author.

R

Richard M. Scaife (from the Heritage Foundation site)

Further examination of Scaife Foundations’ disclosure statements reveal additional information that we did not include in our first story. Here is what we discovered:

  • Scaife’s Carthage Foundation donated $37,500 in 2010 to NumbersUSA. (Disclosure statement)
  • Richard M. Scaife is listed as the Chairman of all three Scaife Foundations: the Alleghany Foundation, the Carthage Foundation, and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.
  • All three foundations are located at the same address: One Oxford Centre, 301 Grant Street, Suite 3900, Pittsburgh, PA 15219-6401
  • The Sarah Scaife Foundation gave a combined total of $1,637,500 in 2011 to Heritage, Numbers USA, Center for Immigration Studies, and the Federation for American Immigration Reform. In 2010 that combined total was $975,000, and in 2009 the combined number was $862,500. So from 2009–2011, Sarah Scaife Foundation gave an overall total of $3,475,000 to these organizations. (The Sarah Scaife Foundation also gave the Cato Institute $40,000 per year during the three-year period.)
  • The 2010 contribution of $37,500 for NumbersUSA came from the Carthage Foundation and not from the Sarah Scaife Foundation. The Sarah Scaife Foundation gave NumbersUSA $37,500 in 2009 and 2011, but not in 2010. That $37,500 came from Carthage.
John

John Tanton

Richard M. Scaife became a member of Heritage’s Board of Trustees in 1985, and according to one listing about his family foundations, has given close to $20 millon to Heritage. In addition, the listing says, donations to Tanton-associated organizations have been occurring at least since 2007.

The largest recipient of Scaife largesse over the decades has been the Heritage Foundation. Since 1985, the Heritage Foundation has received $19.6 million from the Sarah Scaife Foundation and smaller amounts from the Carthage Foundation. The Allegheny Foundation concentrates most of its giving on conventional organizations in western Pennsylvania.

The Sarah Scaife Foundation, formerly the Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation, has the largest endowment of the three foundations, with assets totaling $305 million according to tax records. In 2005, the foundation awarded $15 million to a variety of organizations, including the Heritage Foundation ($100,000), the American Enterprise Institute ($300,000), Center for Security Policy ($350,000)…

According to the Carthage Foundation’s 2007 annual report,  it gave out $2.09 million in grants in 2006, including to the Federation for American Immigration Reform ($300,000), the Counter Terrorism & Security Education and Research Foundation’s Investigative Project ($125,000), and the Institute for Religion and Democracy ($200,000).

Meanwhile, more attention to Tanton-associated organizations have begun to hit the mainstream media, as this opinion piece from USA Today says:

But there is a third element that has inserted itself into the conversation: those who oppose immigration — legal and illegal.

This group is led by three major anti-immigration organizations: Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), NumbersUSA and Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). Their work on immigration has led major news media to often label them “conservative.” Yet the reality is that these groups do not share conservatives’ interest in ending illegal immigration, if doing so might mean more legal immigration.

CIS Executive Director Mark Krikorian openly admits that illegal entries are not the main issue for him. “For too long the Republican story line has been ‘Too Much Lawbreaking,’ when instead the real problem is ‘Too Much Immigration,’” Krikorian wrote in a 2009 National Review article that explained his strategy for GOP immigration reform.

The other organizations agree. According to its website, NumbersUSA President Roy Beck’s “greatest concern” is population growth — that his “grandchildren’s grandchildren” will “live packed in a highly-regimented country approaching a billion people.” In his book The Case Against Immigration, he wrote that America has become “a nation of too many immigrants.”

“Legal immigration could be stopped with a simple majority vote of Congress and a stroke of the president’s pen,” Beck argued. But that argument cuts both ways. Illegal immigration could end just as easily and these groups know it. As Krikorian put it in his 2009 article, “You just legalize the whole thing and the issue goes away — no illegals, no problem.”

But FAIR, CIS and NumbersUSA don’t want this because their interest is not fewer illegal crossings, but fewer people. Like NumbersUSA, FAIR argues, as they did in a 2009 report, that “the United States is already overpopulated.” In his book, The New Case Against Immigration: Both Legal and Illegal, Krikorian called immigration “a government-administered population policy,” that is “just like Communist China and the Soviet Union” (p. 188).

Filed Under: Immigration Nuttiness, Politics Tagged With: , , , , ,
«Older Posts