Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform / Hillary en español

Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform

The Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform or 'CAIR' is a nationalist organisation that seeks to oppose and reduce the current levels of immigration from Mexico and the associated legislative policies. Considering its website in isolation from any other elements of activism, they attempt to achieve these goals through sharing facts, opinion and anecdotes that propagate anti-Latino (as well as general xenophobic) sentiments. Often, short headlines and excerpts from articles belonging to other publications and websites are shared here, in order for such information to reach a wider audience and to be seen by members of the website who presumably hold unilateral views on immigration within Colorado.

According to CAIR, "nearly 20 percent of immigrant-headed households in Colorado receive some form of welfare benefit" and "Colorado spends $50 million per year educating immigrant children from Mexico alone." CAIR goes on to cite statistics regarding civic issues that do not, or should not have implicit links with the morality of immigrant assimilation. Among these more trivial issues is the fact that "11% of Colorado workers travel more than 40 minutes to work. The commute time [will] likely double by 2025." Clearly, the use of such statistics, whether true, false, or distorted beyond their original meaning, is intended to provoke anger from the viewer who witnesses the leeching effects of these aliens on his/her state welfare and his/her personal tax contributions. 

The self-evident political trajectory of this site makes it all the more intriguing when we realise that actually, CAIR avoids attaching any moral implications to the statistics and figures which characterise the majority of their information output, refusing to revert to racist generalisations or xenophobic slurs. Instead, they simply arm their readers with 'facts' and guide them conspicuously, quickly and efficiently to an unequivocal political position that allies itself with traditionally Republican-held stances on immigration. The reasons for CAIR's discernible policy remain elusive, but it is worth noting that these same tactics are replicated throughout the anti-Latino immigration platforms. It was then candidate Donald Trump who most famously implemented this strategy, relying on assertions that he was 'only referring to illegal immigrants' (despite the lack of distinction in his speech) and the oh-so-persuasive "I love Mexico!" line. In refusing to link the assumed evil character of Latino immigration with their own proposed facts, CAIR is perhaps attempting to shelter themselves from criticism or appeal to the more liberally-minded democratic voters that have won Colorado in the last 3 general elections.¹ 

In itself, this is but a natural extension of CAIR's own unofficial affiliation with the Republican Party which has itself seen much internal division over how to approach the Latino voting group. This is because, given the largely Catholic convictions (55% of Latino adults in America²) and cultural conservatism of Latino immigrants in combination with their rapid growth as a demographic within the United States, they constitute an ideal resource for Republican votes which could solidify Republican territories in the South-West and capture previously elusive states like Nevada and Colorado. This movement saw the rise of candidates like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio with Latin-American roots because of the tendencies of ethnic voting trends. Raymond Wolfinger summarises this and explains the rise of Rubio and Cruz by writing that "ethnicity will be more important in the absence of other plain cues to guide voters"³. However, Republican voters eventually sided with Donald Trump who ignored the potential gains of Latino support in an effort to capitalise instead on the white American vote with his anti-Latino rhetoric. It is into this strain of Republican politics that CAIR falls as it attempts to mobilise support from Coloradans to combat the influx of Latino immigration. 

Finally, CAIR's tagline of 'Advocating for the rights of future generations of Americans' provides further insight into their mission and its character or motives. In marketing themselves as a group concerned with rights, CAIR takes up a nationalist and patriotic stance, creating stark divisions across notions of American identity and how this should be defined. As outlined in this week's lecture, this argument is one that is intrinsically dependent upon assumptions regarding a certain narrative of American history in order for CAIR to construct a valid argument. For example, their advocacy for the rights of Americans assumes that Latino immigrants should not be considered American unless demonstrating full assimilation. Furthermore, this statement suggests that Colorado, whiteness and the English language are all determinant factors for this regional presentation of 'American'. For these arguments to be true and/or morally valid, America and its history must be viewed exclusive from a post-colonial perspective that foregoes the histories of indigenous annihilation and innumerable treaties that artificially constructed America itself. Indeed, Colorado itself was partially owned by Mexico and France before it was occupied in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848), and the Louisiana Purchase (1803), respectively. 

Overall, CAIR epitomises certain elements of Huntington's The Hispanic Challenge⁴, asserting that the continuation of this influx will provoke an episode of civic, economic and cultural ruin for the state of Colorado which is already notably ethnically diverse, with 20.7% Hispanics/Latino-Americans. Their arguments for the consequences of such immigration, both legal and illegal are communicated exclusive through facts, statistics and anecdotes of crimes committed by illegal aliens within the state. Like Huntington's article, CAIR's message relies on specific, artificial constructions of American identity and history which immediately undermine its claims to a sensible response to immigration. Nonetheless, CAIR articulates several of the pressing concerns raised by illegal immigration in states like Colorado and accordingly, should be considered and evaluated reasonably within the U.S government, irrespective of partisan allegiance. 

Hillary en español

In July 2016, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton created a Spanish version of her personal Twitter account as a part of her wider election campaign against Republican candidate Donald Trump. The site features Spanish translations of Clinton's own tweets as well as the sharing of pro-Hillary tweets that are framed specifically with regards to the Latino community. 

This was a clear effort to integrate the Latino community into the Clinton campaign and capitalise on Trump's dismissal of this voting group within his own campaign and superficially, it simply reaffirmed Hillary's commitment to liberal immigration policies that would have seen the maintenance of current immigration trends from Mexico and Latin America. However, in communicating directly using the Spanish language, Clinton connoted a rejection of assimilation which has always been the measure by which acceptable immigration levels and policies had been judged. In foregoing the idea of assimilation into Caucasian America, Hillary began to alienate many Americans and even defied some of the early rhetoric surrounding immigration such as President Theodore Roosevelt who stated that "exact equality" for immigrants was...

"predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American... There can be no divided allegiance here"⁵

However, Paolo Luisi, a "Latino content and creative strategist"⁶ within Hillary's campaign offers a more liberal and modern explanation for 'Hillary en español', stating that;

"We want everyone to know — including the more than 40 million Spanish speakers in this country — that no matter what language you speak, the values that unite us as Americans transcend narrow minded ideas on who we are or what we should sound like."

While groups like the CAIR rely on specific narratives of American history and society, Luisi's statement promotes a more diverse view
of what might constitute an American, even so far as to break boundaries of language. It is interesting to note how  Luisi's statement still hinges on the idea of America as a central rallying point for public support, it is simply a different interpretation of America. An interpretation that subconsciously acknowledges the multicultural origins of the American nation while celebrating this legacy today with regards to the Latino community and their sharing of the American "values that unite us".

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform - http://www.cairco.org/, 1995 - present. Last accessed 31/03/2017.

Hillary en español - https://twitter.com/hillary_esp?lang=en, 2016-2016. Last accessed 31/03/2017.

Secondary Sources 

1 - 270 to win, Historical general elections. Retrieved from <http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/>. Last accessed 31/03/2017.

2 - "The Shifting Religious Identity of latinos in the United States" May 7, 2014. Retrieved from <http://www.pewforum.org/2014/05/07/the-shifting-religious-identity-of-latinos-in-the-united-states/> Last accessed 31/03/2017.

3 - Wolfinger, Raymond E. "The Development and Persistence of Ethnic Voting" The American Political Science Review Vol. 59, No. 4 (Dec., 1965) pg. 908. pp. 896-908. 

4 - Huntington, Samuel P. The Hispanic Challenge, 2004. Retrieved from <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2495> Last accessed 30/03/2017.

5 - Roosevelt, Theodore speaking in 1907. Retrieved from <http://www.rense.com/general77/ted.htm> Last accessed 31/03/2017.

6 - Latimer, Brian. "Hillary Clinton Now Has Campaign Site En Español" NBC News, July 21 2016. Retrieved from <http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/hillary-clinton-now-has-campaign-site-en-espa-ol-n614071> Last accessed 31/03/2017.

Trouble at the Border: The Immigration Problem

Introduction: ‘Divisions at the Border’ 

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38996288)

Samuel Huntington’s 2004 article, “The Hispanic Challenge” and Andrew F. Lowenthal “Understanding the Hispanic Challenge” highlight the polarised views between ‘Liberal’ and ‘Conservative’ Americans regarding Latino immigration at the Mexican/American border. On the one hand Huntington argues in 2004 for tighter border control, asserting that ‘the single most immediate and most serious challenge to America's traditional identity comes from the immense and continuing immigration from Latin America, especially from Mexico’, which is a view shared by many Americans, especially those that live close to the border (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39435626). Although, many Americans disagree with this view highlighted by Huntington and instead would agree with Lowenthal, who argues that ‘An accelerating process of economic, demographic, social and cultural integration is taking place between Mexico and the US, not invited or formally condoned but nonetheless real and irreversible’.

The differences between the two views are prominent, with Huntington arguing that Latinos have not, and cannot assimilate into the ‘melting pot’ that is American society, whereas Lowenthal argues they have and are continuing to do so, and this process is ‘irreversible’. This polarised and argumentative nature seen between these two views shows the lack of a ‘middle ground’ present in contemporary American society, particularly in regard to the border issue. These polarised views can be ‘localised’ through two websites in which advocate pro and anti-Latino immigration into the USA, these are: ‘The Libertarian Party website’ and ‘The Minuteman Project Website’.

The Minuteman Project: Jim Gilchrist’s Commentary, January 12, 2017:

The Minuteman Project was founded by Jim Gilchrist in the early 2000s, and is essentially a group of ‘border patrol vigilantes’ who enforce controls across the US Mexico Border. Vice news states that between ‘2004 and 2009, Gilchrist's Minutemen were a powerful force in the anti-immigration movement, drawing in thousands of members who believed the government was doing too little to stop border crossings, and subsequently felt they should take enforcement into their own hands.’

In recent years, the importance of this project in the border area has dwindled, with some Republicans making the issue a nationwide problem. In a recent commentary in early 2017, Jim Gilchrist comments on the current situation surrounding the border, post the election of Donald Trump. Gilchrist begins by regurgitating points made by Huntington, stating that, in regard to Latinos, ‘there is a concerted effort underway in our nation to literally change our culture, our common bond of language, our geographical borders, our state and national sovereignty, and many other elements that comprise our nation’s unity.’ Although he then goes on to argue that he is Pro-Legal Immigration, as long as there are a ‘prescribed number of foreigners with the vocational skills and personal integrity necessary to continue our nation’. This assertion seems to show that Gilchrist is accepting to those Latinos who support and will conform to values of the USA, although not those who are ‘criminals’, of which he would presumably assert are a majority.  Gilchrist concludes his message by commenting on Trumps election, of which he believes, will ‘bring about a very positive change of course for our country’ and will ‘make America great again’, and unify an evidently divided country ‘by a common bond of language and respect for our rules of law’.

Gilchrist’s optimistic views towards Trumps election is shared by many Americans who live near the border, especially those who have been affected by illegal Latino immigration. Although, it is too soon for one to comment on Trump’s actions on the border, and the consequences this will have on Americans and Latinos.

The Libertarian Party: ‘Immigration Approved’

Founded in 1971, The Libertarian Party claims to be ‘the only political organization which respects you as a unique and responsible individual.’ In the recent 2016 election, the party’s leader Gary Johnson and his running mate Bill Weld (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXFb0eSYjEA) describes themselves as ‘Jeffersonian Liberals’, and so connecting their beliefs to the ‘liberal’ founder of the United States.

The issues page on immigration opens up with a photograph of an immigration application form stamped 'approved', which already begins to show the Libertarians view towards immigration into the USA. following this, the party states that ‘Libertarians believe that people should be able to travel freely as long as they are peaceful’ and they claim to welcome those who wish to improve their life in America, although will block anyone who has ‘credible plans for violence’. In terms of Latinos (and all immigration in general), Libertarians assert that,

‘Whether they are from India or Mexico, whether they have advanced degrees or very little education, immigrants have one great thing in common: they bravely left their familiar surroundings in search of a better life. Many are fleeing extreme poverty and violence and are searching for a free and safe place to try to build their lives. We respect and admire their courage and be proud that they see the United States as a place of freedom, stability, and prosperity.’

This view takes into account the problems that immigrants, especially Latinos, face when they leaving their ‘familiar surroundings’ in search of better surroundings, much like the pilgrims had during the beginnings of the 13 colonies. Furthermore it differentiates from Gilchrist’s argument that the USA should only take professional immigrants, by stating that anyone, from any background should be allowed into the USA.

The differences between the two website representations are prominent. The Libertarians, encourage immigration to the United States, whereas the 'Minutemen' argue for tighter controls. To preserve the values cited in the constitution and by those that founded the United States, these differences should be reconciled by politicians, whom should then put laws into practice, of which benefit both immigrants and current American citizens. Although, with the recent election, this positive resolve would seem unlikely, at least for the next few years. 

  

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Libertarian Party: Website for Libertarian Party of the United States

<https://www.lp.org/issues/immigration/>

Minute Man Project: Website for pro border patrol control vigilantes <http://baesic.net/minutemanproject/commentary-by-jim-gilchrist/>

Secondary Sources:

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38996288> “Border rules: Texans fight over Trump's border wall”

< https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/what-happened-to-arizonas-minutemen> “Whatever Happened to Arizona's Minutemen?”

African American Women: From Slavery, to Segregation to the White House

Introduction:

W.E.B. DuBois (1868-1963) in 1903 wrote about the ‘Double Consciousness’ that plagued the minds of African Americans. This ‘Double Consciousness’, as Du Bois explains, is being ‘both a Negro and an American’ (Souls of Black Folk) and the concept of having these two conflicting identities brings unrest to the ‘soul’ of the ‘American Negro’. Although praised and developed many critics, it is evident that when DuBois formed his theory of ‘Double Consciousness’ he only shaped it around the male ‘American Negro’. In a blog by Kathy Henry, she claims African American have a ‘Triple Consciousness’, in which she claims is ‘being born black, American, and female, with second-class citizenship across the board’. Here, Henry highlights the concept of having ‘second class citizenship across the board’, which suggests that being an African American Female is somewhat ‘worse’ than being a white women, or an African American.

Although, despite the physical and psychological difficulties faced by female African Americans throughout history, there situation has been improved since the founding of the USA. The National Women’s History Museum have put together an online museum named ‘Claiming Their Citizenship: African American Women from 1624-2009’, in which explores periods in which the lives and status of African American women have been improved. This Blog will focus two of these sections, in which have drastically improved the situation for female African Americans. These are: The Civil Rights and Vietnam era (1955-1979) and the New Millennium (2001-Present).

The Civil Rights Era (1955-1979)

“Black women since the nineteenth century have initiated civil rights campaigns. They established black women’s organizations that improved the conditions for African Americans. They organized black consumers, supported labor unions and worked in politics and journalism…in the 1960s, during the height of the civil rights movement, they were the backbone of the movement. All over the South, black women were crucial as grassroots leaders, stimulating mass participation in the movement.” (Hine, Black Women in America)

The ‘Civil Rights Era’ chronicles an important period in American History in which saw African Americans rally together in order to gain support in improving their situation in the USA. The section dedicated to this period on the National Women’s History Museum features prominent male figures campaign such as ‘John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King’, ‘Robert Kennedy’ and ‘Lyndon Johnson’ whom were all instrumental in encouraging civil rights and also in implementing domestic policies improving the situation of African Americans. Although the section concludes by introducing the actions of Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus boycott as the origins of the Civil Rights movement. Furthermore it discusses the importance of other women’s roles in the ‘national movement’ that ‘demanded an end to de jure segregation.’ One example the site gives is of Jo Ann Robinson, who was president of the ‘Women’s Political Council, an organization of black women active in anti-segregation activities and politics’. Robinson, also notably published a memoir, The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the Woman Who Started It in 1987.

The Civil Rights Era as an important historical period is often remembered through the eyes of those aforementioned ‘male heroes’. Although, the roles of women during the civil rights era, encapsulated in the introductory quote and throughout this blog, should also be praised for advocating change.

The New Millennium (2001-Present Day)

The video above from ‘The United State of Women’ highlights the position of women in America today. The Video highlights a multicultural and multi-faith approach in which distinguishes ‘the new millennium’ from the civil rights era. Instead of advocating a form of unity between men and women, blacks and whites like those during the civil rights era had, this video represents a separatist approach towards gender. Although, this approach does help to distinguish prominent 21^st century Women (and African American Women) from there ‘male counterparts'. Furthermore, this approach blurs the lines of skin color, which had 50 years earlier had defined your position in America. 

Many of the African American Women featured in the video are prominent figures within the realms of politics and pop-culture, and many of them continue positively influence others with the focus on professionalism and education, rather than their physical representations. An example of one African American Women, who also features in the National Women’s History Museum, is First Lady Michelle Obama. The Women’s History Museum describes Michelle as an ‘ivy-leagued educated, professional, black woman’ and that her presence has ‘led to celebration throughout the country.’ This professional description further exemplifies the equal and/or 'level playing field' between men and women in modern day America.

Bibliography:

Du Bois, W.E.B, The Souls of Black Folk, USA: First Yale University Press Edition.2015

Hine, Darlene. Black Women in America (Oxford University Press, 2005), 233. 

National Women's History website link

https://www.nwhm.org/online-exhibits/africanamerican/index.html   

Triple Consciousness and the Black Woman, Kathy Henry. 

http://www.beyondblackwhite.com/triple-consciousness-black-woman/

Calling All Women! Fighting the Booze and The Bullets

The Temperance movement in America needs to be considered well outside of the narrow remit of limiting alcohol consumption. It was a central component contributing to the emerging suffrage movement in the nineteenth century. The national movement for equal rights and the vote for women was against absolute power in the forms of patriarchy, church administrations and slavery. Although there was considerable suffrage activity across the country, egalitarianism proved irrelevant to many Americans in the post-Reconstruction period of adjustment and reunification. There were many injured and maimed soldiers struggling to adjust to their former lives. Women who had taken on more responsibilities for earning during the war, returned to the domestic sphere. But the veteran soldiers sought solace and escape away from home, preferring the male companionship of the drinking saloons. Women were determined to alter men’s behaviour and protect themselves from the frequency and severity of domestic violence and abuse. Additionally women had no financial rights to protect them and  there was the issue of limited control of household expenditure, particularly if it was squandered on alcohol. In 1876 Frances Willard, a former teacher and leader new to the temperance cause, saw the potential of linking this ‘feminism of fear’[1] to the evolving suffrage movement. 

Rather than just seeing the vote as a way to achieve prohibition, she broadened the appeal by promoting a gendered, moral transformation of politics. With her “Home Protection” speech in October 1876 Willard said that political activism, particularly voting, would help produce personal protection by winning temperance legislation. Her ideology chimed with those women whose main goal was physical security for themselves. By combining temperance and suffrage issues in this way, the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) founded in 1874 became the most powerful women’s organisation in the late nineteenth century. The WCTU is also considered instrumental in preparing way for the later 18^th Amendment in 1919 which prohibited 

the sale of alcohol nationwide.

The close links between the suffrage campaign and temperance were explored in the none too serious Western “The Hallelujah Trail” in 1965, based on a novel by Bill Gulick[2]. Critically it was dismissed as an "absurdly inflated, prolonged, uninventive comedy western with poor narrative grip; all dressed up and nowhere to go".

Finally, emulating the concepts from the recent lecture on ' The Great Gatsby' which concentrated on locating the fiction within the real events of the historical period, this illustration advertises a Temperance event in New York at the time when the novel  'Ragged Dick' was published. 

The Steinway Hall went on to have an illustrious history as part of the New York cultural scene. See here for more details.

Partners in Winning the War

American Women and the Second World War

In the decades before World War Two, women’s role was largely seen as that of wife and mother, attending to the narrow demands of the domestic sphere. Following the Pearl Harbour attack, America was fully committed to the war effort and that meant the utilisation of female labour in all aspects of the war industries. 

They took office and clerical jobs in the armed forces in order to free men to fight. They also drove trucks, repaired airplanes, worked as laboratory technicians, rigged parachutes, served as radio operators, analysed photographs, flew military aircraft across the country, test-flew newly repaired planes, and even trained anti-aircraft artillery gunners by acting as flying targets.

At the beginning, there was an urgent need to recruit women for these jobs. A creative approach was taken to make contact. As so many were based at home with their domestic responsibilities, the radio was used to recruit women into the services.

Women heard radio appeals that offered the following logical reasoning: “If you can run a vacuum cleaner, you can run a machine in a factory.” Bibliography Suzanne, M. Marilley, Woman Suffrage and the Origins of  Liberal Feminism in the United States 1820 -1920 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 1996 http://www.truewestmagazine.com/writing-at-the-bend-of-the-river/ https://www.nwhm.org/online-exhibits/progressiveera/wctu.html http://www.steinwayhall.com/about-us/steinway-history http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?awh:84:./temp/~ammem_D2Q2:: http://www.nationalww2museum.org/learn/education/for-students/ww2-history/at-a-glance/women-in-ww2.pdf https://www.nwhm.org/online-exhibits/partners/1.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Radio

---

[1] Suzanne, M. Marilley, Woman Suffrage and the Origins of Liberal Feminism in the United States 1820 -1920 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 1996

[2] http://www.truewestmagazine.com/writing-at-the-bend-of-the-river/