Posted on 04/28/2006 11:01:45 AM PDT by SwinneySwitch
IMMIGRATION DEBATE
One Hispanic Minuteman says it's matter of law, not a race issue
Al Garza says he's proud of his Latino heritage, his race. La raza, he calls it, shifting easily from English to Spanish.
But he said he's not about to join the protesters who have taken to the streets of Houston and other cities in recent weeks in demand of amnesty for illegal immigrants.
"Personally, I'm very disappointed in our own raza at what they're doing," said Garza, a Texas native who wants to end the flow of illegal immigration across the U.S.-Mexico border.
"Just because I'm Hispanic doesn't mean I'm going to allow complete strangers trampling over property, vandalizing people's homes and ranches," he said.
Garza, former Texas president of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps and now the group's second-in-command, is one of the nation's most prominent Hispanic anti-immigration activists.
Ten percent of the Minutemen's 8,000 members are Hispanic, he said.
"This has nothing to do with race," said Garza, who was born in Raymondville in South Texas. "Anyone that has any racial agenda is not wanted in our group."
What matters, Garza says, is enforcing the law and getting control of the border. His view of illegal immigrants, some experts say, underscores long-held differences between American-born Latinos and foreign-born newcomers.
"There is a major divide between the immigrant community and the native community," said Guadalupe San Miguel Jr., a history professor at the University of Houston. "From the very beginning you see these differences, but over the years our differences have been maintained."
Indeed, some polls show that American-born Hispanics are more critical of immigrants than newcomers.
While the foreign-born are nearly unanimous in their belief that immigrants strengthen the U.S. with their talents and work ethic, native-born Hispanics are more divided.
Sixty-five percent say immigrants are a plus, but 28 percent say they are a burden, according to a 2005 study by the Pew Hispanic Center, a research group in Washington, D.C.
Differing opinions
Latinos' views vary widely depending on their socioeconomic status, country of origin, time in the U.S. and state of residence, said Rogelio Saenz, a sociology professor at Texas A&M University.
Some Hispanics try to "prove to society at large that they themselves are different, that they are not associated with immigrants," Saenz said.
While Hispanics tend to express positive attitudes toward immigrants, most do not support increasing the flow of legal immigration from Latin America, the Pew Hispanic Center said.
Spring resident John Martinez, 39, said that "when people think of Mexicans, they don't think of people like me." They think of the immigrant and the laborer, not someone who went to college and listens to pop radio, he said.
And when Houston students walked out of classes to protest a federal proposal to make illegal immigrants felons in late March, he said he was embarrassed by their defiance of the law, and said they in no way represented him.
Martinez said he was born in the U.S. and didn't have to go through the process of getting residency, "but I know that it's there and that people do what has to be done. I just think it demeans everything when those people are out there and they're expecting to have all the civil liberties and rights" as everyone else.
"This is not their country. What gives me the right to go to Mexico and demand those things that they're demanding?" Martinez said.
'There has to be a limit'
Another Hispanic who opposes increased immigration is Charles Esquivo, 87, a native Houstonian.
Esquivo, a World War II veteran and member of a group called Texans for Immigration Reform, said his main objection to illegal immigrants is he does not "want a group of people who are going to change the society."
His family's ancestry — his own ethnic background — was never important to him, he said. He's been to Mexico before, and "I don't see anything over there that I want," he said.
"There has to be a limit to the number of people who we are taking in. We can't take in all poor people, people who are being repressed," Esquivo said.
Absent a sizable, organized group of conservative Latinos who favor restrictions on illegal immigration, the rift among different segments of Latinos won't have much of a political impact, San Miguel Jr. said.
"In the 1960s and 1970s, there was a large segment of the (Mexican-American) community that saw (the Chicano movement) as too radical. But the movement still made gains," Saenz said. Moreover, today's immigrant movement has been national, versus regional, in focus and with a great deal of participation, he said.
Sentiment not new
During the Chicano movement, even the farm workers and Cesar Chavez were opposed to illegal immigration. They later changed their view and incorporated illegal immigrants into their fight.
Anti-immigrant sentiment among Hispanics isn't new.
The League of United Latin American Citizens opposed the Bracero Program, a binational temporary contract labor program initiated between Mexico and the U.S. in 1942, because of the exploitation of workers.
In 1954, LULAC supported Operation Wetback, the federal government's push to deport undocumented workers.
And the American G.I. Forum, a Mexican-American veterans-based group, had little sympathy for illegal immigrants, co-producing a study titled "What Price Wetbacks?" which maintained that these immigrants displaced American workers, damaged the health of the American people, harmed retailers and posed a security threat to the nation, according to the Texas State Historical Association.
These organizations later shifted their positions as civil rights advocates pushed to incorporate all Hispanics.
Saenz said that while third-, fourth- and fifth-generation Hispanics may try to distance themselves from immigrants, divisions in the community won't likely hurt the pro-immigrant movement.
"The majority of Latinos tend to oppose the most restrictive parts of the immigration bill," San Miguel Jr. agreed.
"Many people really believe undocumented people are here because of U.S. actions, immigration policies" and a demand for cheap labor, he said.
"People know the United States' (foreign) policies in Central America and Latin America have contributed to disruptions, and that's why they leave."
cynthia.garza@chron.com
I used to - before the "Americans will obey us" protests.
So the good guys are now bad?
There's also the Constitution Party. They may be more to your liking.
Not really. I just see immigration from a different perspective now, and it's not a pretty picture. 4,000,000 illegals are from other countries, too. They've simply overstayed their visas. We have no idea who they are or where they're from.
You know, I've wondered about that. It seems a very odd mindset to me, but this guy sounds otherwise great, so I started thinking.
Maybe the reason it seems so odd to us is that race hasn't as mattered as much for us. But south of the border, there has long been a distinction drawn between the more European upper classes, and the lower classes with a higher percentage of Indian blood. The "you're not as good as us because our blood is more pure" line of thinking was pervasive down there for a long time. The "dirtier" people were supposed to know their place. They resented that, and try to overcome that with the "pride" thing.
For some of them, I suppose what they really mean isn't that they're "proud" of their racial background, but that they're not ashamed of it. That distinction between being "proud" and not being ashamed probably gets lost a bit in translation, though.
If Mexico has a lot of resources, and those resources are being squandered, then what good is more money from us going to do? I think we'd help the situation more by cutting off aid to that government, and letting it sink or swim.
Maybe. I'll have to check around. I thought Libertarian because it's the closest alternative to a viable party right now.
"I thought Libertarian because it's the closest alternative to a viable party right now"
I've voted for a few Libertarian candidates in the past. Some of their stances are admirable, some are pie-in-the-sky, and some are suicidal. If you dislike the open borders contingent of the Republican party, you'll have a coronary over the Libertarian view on same. It's jumping from the frying pan and into the fire.
Constitution Party is the place to go for secure borders. I have issues with them too; the old smear about being "theocrats" directed at conservatives in general might actually have some merit applied to them, but they're going to benefit greatly from the controversy over illegal aliens.
We could invade Mexico. If it's good enough for Iraq, then it's good enough for Mexico. Hey, Winfield Scott did it in the 1840s.
I think the good guys see it the same way you and I do.
What fascinates me is that various sub-groups of Hispanics who hate each other. Mexicans don't like Cubans who don't Central Americans who don't like Americans of Hispanic backgrounds who don't like white Hispanics who don't like brown Hispanics...
I'd like to see minimal social programs - or none. The churches can handle the needy. Let the "wanting" find their own jobs.
I'd like to seal both borders, so we know exactly who is coming in.
I would really like to see social issues be the responsibility of the states, and even then if there's controversy, the people will be given a chance to vote on it.
I suppose I may be too demanding, but I'd like to see us once again live in a free Republic. We've become such a socialist country (sometimes boarding on communist, i.e., political correctness legislation) that I doubt we'll ever truly be a free people ever again.
Libertarians are for open borders.
"I'll vote for the Libertarian candidate who doesn't have a snowballs chance of winning, even if Doggett got run over by a truck."
That pretty much sums up my past forays into voting Libertarian. If the vote mattered, it went to the Republican. I'm being forced to reconsider my voting strategies now, though. Time will tell.
All I can say is that third parties - especially when it comes to immigration control - are looking more attractive to more people. If Republicans don't want to lose, they might try waking up to that fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.