Este es el tema principal de abril de QueensLatino.com con ediciones digital e impresa. El foco es en inmigración y tenemos más de 10 columnistas que escribieron sobre este tema. El artículo de Arnoldo Torres es el más destacado y publicamos aquí las dos versiones, en español e inglés.
Ni republicanos o demócratas merecen nuestro apoyo
Arnoldo Torres*
Los medios de comunicación, ignorantes de la comunidad latina, se han enfocado en las últimas semanas en el senador Marco Rubio y lo que puede aportar al Partido Republicano. El interés que despierta es por ser latino y tener seguidores en la extrema derecha republicana como el Tea Party. Los medios lo han acogido como latino para mejorar la pobre relación entre los republicanos y los latinos. Mitt Romney, el candidato favorito a la presidencia entre los republicanos, también ha cambiado el tono hacia los latinos y en Wisconsin dijo que respeta a los inmigrantes y criticó al presidente Obama por no pasar una reforma de inmigración integral.
Rubio ha manifestado su interés en escribir su versión republicana del Dream Act para “hacer algo”. Nadie puede argumentar que no tiene derecho. El problema es su motivación y los detalles de lo que escribirá. Hasta que pronunció su discurso en Miami durante las primarias en Florida, se contradijo y fue oportunista en cuanto a inmigración. Ha apoyado el inglés como el idioma oficial, aún sabiendo que en 1980 los cubanos lo rechazaron con furia en Dade County. En 1993, cuando fue derogado, el entonces comisionado Miguel Díaz de la Portilla, hijo de inmigrantes cubanos, dijo que fue la ordenanza fue escrita en un clima de odio y temor. Luego de 19 años, Rubio sigue apoyando el inglés como idioma oficial.
En la convención de Miami, Rubio le dijo al candidato Newt Gingrich que detuviera los anuncios en donde acusaba a Romney de ser antiimigrante, actuando como el hombre sensitivo e incluyente, algo que nunca hizo en el pasado. Con base en este historial, es difícil pensar que su versión del Dream Act se inspirará en el bienestar general. El Dream Act es importante para miles de jóvenes, pero deja a un lado otros aspectos de inmigración que necesitan ser reorganizados. Pero Rubio sigue oponiéndose a la “cadena migratoria” que estos jóvenes crearían si se convierten en ciudadanos y luego traen a sus familias. La posición de Rubio y Santorum a esta “cadena migratoria” para los latinos es hipócrita porque es el sendero que han seguido los refugiados cubanos y fue lo mismo que hicieron los italianos hace un siglo. Pero en lugar de aprobar el Dream Act de conformidad con la tradición migratoria de esta nación, Rubio quiere que estos estudiantes se conviertan en soldados y no reciban la ciudadanía. Que se gradúen de la universidad no es suficiente para Rubio, que hagan trabajo comunitario o tengan buen récord, tampoco es importante para este senador.
Los latinos republicanos que apoyan a Romney están atacando al presidente Obama por no cumplir su “promesa” de una reforma inmigratoria integral. ¿Podemos disgustarnos con Romney por atacar a Obama? Quizás no, pero los republicanos se equivocan en la forma como presentan este asunto.
Las falsedades de Obama
Los latinos estamos criticando al presidente Obama por no mantener su promesa y por algo más grave: deportar más gente que cualquier otro presidente. Obama hizo una promesa política cuando estaba en campaña y recordemos que llegó a la presidencia como gestor del cambio. Cuando era senador, Obama votó a favor del muro y visitó la frontera sólo cuando se convirtió en candidato. Además, Obama votó por la enmienda “poison pill” que empujaron los sindicatos y le cerró la puerta en la cara a los inmigrantes. Obama hizo todo esto en contra de los inmigrantes y luego prometió una reforma de inmigración integral. Por eso los latinos tienen dificultad en apoyar al actual presidente Obama.
Romney critica a Obama por no pasar la reforma de inmigración y al mismo tiempo estimula otras legislaciones más tóxicas. En lugar de proveer liderazgo en el debate, tomar las cosas con más calma y hablar de los beneficios económicos que han traído los indocumentados desde la formación de esta nación, Romney tomó el opción de quién puede ofender más a los inmigrantes. A pesar de que su familia se mudó a México para evitar las leyes que exigen que una persona solo puede tener un cónyuge y en lugar de acoger a los latinos como lo hicieron los mormones en Latinoamérica y entre los hispanos de esta nación, Romney optó por la hipocresía, la falta de respeto e ignoró los valores y las prioridades de la fe mormona. Mientras trata a los latinos de esta manera, sin aportar algún tipo de liderazgo para fomentar una legislación balanceada, efectiva y humana, Romney critica a Obama por no mantener su promesa.
Así se han sentido los latinos en los últimos dos años con el candidato Romney y el presidente Obama. Sin liderazgo, respeto, honestidad y principios.
La propuesta
He trabajado en asuntos de inmigración por más de 35 años, desde los años 70 cuando la Reforma de Inmigración de 1986 comenzó a gestarse en Washington. En lugar de acusar al presidente Obama o a los republicanos, creo que la experiencia me permite ofrecer una visión diferente sobre la anhelada reforma de inmigración y el progreso de esta nación.
Primero, los políticos electos deben de mostrar la realidad con los pro y los contra. Deben de crear un debate honesto e inclusivo que informar sobre las leyes de inmigración, las regulaciones y los programas. Mientras que los republicanos y los demócratas hablan de su apoyo a la inmigración legal, no han presentado proyecto alguno para cambiar y mejorar el sistema de inmigración, las preferencias y los procedimientos legales que desde hace tiempo debieron corregirse. En estos 18 meses de debates, los candidatos republicanos a la presidencia no han presentado un plan de reforma que se ajuste a su liderazgo.
Segundo, también están obligados a reconocer el sustancial aporte económico de los indocumentados a esta nación. Cómo es posible que ignoremos el estímulo que esta fuerza de trabajo le ha otorgado a los estados del suroeste y a otras zonas país. En donde haya habido una economía agrícola, es imposible reconocer las contribuciones de los trabajadores no autorizados. Contribuciones que son más profundas que la agricultura. El crecimiento económico de los estados del sur está en deuda con los indocumentados que han trabajado en esa área desde finales de los años 80 y 90. Irónicamente, fueron los indocumentados los que limpiaron con sus manos a New Orleans. Muchos estudios regionales han reconocido la vitalidad económica y el trabajo ético que esta fuerza laboral no autorizada ha proveído a los pequeños negocios, las compras al por menor y el sector de las ventas en la economía de estas regiones.
Una realidad que en nada se diferencia con la experiencia de los movimientos inmigrantes en Europa de comienzos del siglo pasado. Los inmigrantes siempre han otorgado energía y estimulo a esta nación que consideran su nuevo hogar. Pero los inmigrantes del siglo pasado y sus descendientes (Santorum) consideran que su movimiento inmigrante fue superior al de esta nación en los últimos 30 años. Esta es la hipocresía y el doble estándar que por mucho tiempo han prevalecido en la discusión sobre inmigración.
Tercero, si los demócratas y republicanos realmente respetan y quieren una relación positiva con la comunidad latina, entonces deben de nombrar un comité especial en el Congreso que desarrolle programas y una nueva legislación de inmigración. No estará ligado a los recortes del presupuesto, sino que tendrá legisladores nombrados y dispuestos a dialogar, a resolver y a crear una reforma integral de inmigración. No tendrá extremistas para que dividan la discusión. Este comité bipartidista girará alrededor de ideas sobre la implementación de la ley, la reunificación familiar, los beneficios económicos y la justicia social.
Cuarto, debemos reconocer que en los desplazamientos de gente hay que empujar y jalar. Por eso hay que examinar factores como el narcotráfico en el flujo de personas de Latinoamérica hacia esta nación. Debemos reconocer que es más beneficioso el fortalecimiento de las economías en Latinoamérica, en lugar poner a las personas a que arriesguen sus vidas para poder sobrevivir. No es diferente a lo ofrecido a Italia, Irlanda y otras naciones europeas. Las zonas de libre comercio que se han creado en los últimos 10 años, incluyendo NAFTA, no han logrado que la gente se quede en sus naciones, sino que ha obligado a que más personas lleguen a buscar refugio económico. Los ricos se han vuelto más ricos en Latinoamérica y la mayoría está obligada a sobrevivir: vaya al norte o muera lentamente. Esto está pasando con las economías de narcotráfico de Honduras, El Salvador y Guatemala.
Si el presidente Obama es elegido, este es el plan que debe seguir.
*Arnoldo Torres es asesor y estratega político, además de colaborador de Univision. Vive en California y es de la voces disidentes y progresistas que están aumentando en la comunidad latina ante la inoperancia y la falta de ética de los representantes de los partidos políticos tradicionales.
English version:
LETS BE HONEST ABOUT IMMIGRATION REFORM:
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS HAVE NOT EARNED OUR SUPPORT
BY
ARNOLDO TORRES
In the last two weeks the political media, largely ignorant of the Latino community, has focused on U.S. Senator Marco Rubio and what he could bring to the Republican Party. The interest in Rubio is caused by his being Latino while having a strong following among the extreme elements of Republicans like the Tea Party. Some media have anointed him THE Latino to bridge the poor relations that the Republican Party has created with Latinos.
Also, Republican Presidential favorite Mitt Romney began to change his tone and attitude towards Latinos by announcing in Wisconsin that he respected immigrants while criticizing President Obama failure to keep his promise on passing comprehensive immigration reform.
In an interview last week Rubio spoke about his efforts to write his version, a Republican version of the DREAM Act. He has taken the opportunity, the initiative, to “get something done” on the DREAM Act. No one can control that nor argue that he shouldn’t. The issue is the motivation and the details of what that “something” will look like. It is appropriate and fair to have questions about his motivation. Up until “the speech” in Miami during the Florida primary, he had been contradictory and opportunistic about his positions on immigration. He had supported English as the official language even though the Cuban community was enraged about the 1980 ordinance in Dade County in Miami. In 1993 when it was repealed then Commissioner Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, a son of Cuban immigrants stated that the ordinance was written in a climate of hate and fear. “It excludes people,” he said. “What is the American culture? Who’s going to define it? We’re a country of immigrants.” Yet 19 years later Rubio has supported such public policy.
A day prior to “the speech” Rubio called on Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich to stop his political ads accusing Romney of being anti-immigrant, thus stopping the debate that Rubio now has taken advantage of by acting as the sensitive, concerned Latino who wants his party to be sensitive, respectful, and inclusive. Where were these sentiments prior to his “being born again”? Did someone threaten to hurt him politically, economically or physically if he expressed these humane feelings before “the speech”.
Based on this background his efforts to bring about a pared-down version of the DREAM Act can hardly seem to be motivated by his quest for good, just, and balanced public policy. He was critical and negative of the Dream Act leading up to his election to the U.S. Senate and he maintained this position throughout the primary season until the day before the Florida primary. The Dream Act is important for many young adults but it is far from dealing with many other issues around immigration that could clean up a process which all agree needs recalibration. However, Rubio is true to his comments about opposing “chain migration” and he does not want to allow these students to become citizens because they would then have their family members become citizens. I find it so hypocritical that Rubio and Santorum oppose “chain migration” for Latino immigrants and forget that his is the pattern that Cuban refugees followed and much more so Italian immigrants in the early 1900’s.
Rather than introduce Dream Act legislation that is just and speaks to the rich traditions of this country’s immigrant foundations, he wants these students to enlist in the military and not be granted U.S.citizenship. He speaks to these students having to earn citizenship. Being enrolled or having graduated from college is not sufficient for Rubio. What about the requirement for community service as opposed to military service? Why not acknowledge that a vast majority of students have a stellar record of being great citizens of this nation already and the only thing missing is allowing them to continue to contribute to this nation?
Based on these actions and positions taken by Rubio it is difficult to see anything but “etch-a-sketch” politics that his Presidential candidate will no doubt practice during the general election. In fact Romney already has begun this while in Wisconsin and the comments he made on immigration.
Supporters of Romney and Latino Republicans responsible for protecting him have consistently pointed out that President Obama and the Democratic Party did not honor the famous “promesa” Obama made to Latinos when he was first elected of passing comprehensive immigration reform. Is it fair to be angry with Romney for pointing out that Obama didn’t keep his “promesa”? But these Republicans are gravely mistaken in how they approach this issue.
Not only are Latinos criticizing President Obama for failing to keep his promise but for much more—deporting more people than any President in contemporary history while during these deportations expressing to the Latino community his concern and respect for us and criticism of Republican candidates. President Obama made a promise, not a qualified objective but a political promise. Remember this came from the candidate who presented himself as the ultimate agent of change! While in the U.S. Senate he had voted for an unprecedented border fence than changed his mind when during this campaign he finally visited the border region, and also voted for a “poison pill” amendment pushed by labor that closed the last door of opportunity on immigration reform. He had served in the Senate and had cast these votes but then turn around and promised to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Yes, there is much to trouble Latinos about voting and supporting President Obama for any political position.
Romney criticizes President Obama for failing to pass comprehensive immigration reform while making the environment for passing any legislation on immigration even more toxic than were things began in 2009. Rather than providing leadership in re-framing the debate, toning it down, speaking to the clear economic benefits unauthorized immigrant workers have historically contributed to this nation since its inception, Romney took the path of competing for who of the Presidential candidates could offend and malign Latino immigrants more. Despite this own family history of moving to Mexico to avoid compliance with cultural practices and legal requirements on marriage (you are only allowed one) and the Mormon embrace and witnessing to Latino communities in the U.S. and throughout Latin America, he chose the politically expedient route of disrespecting Latinos, hypocrisy, and ignoring vital values and priorities of his Mormon faith. While hurting Latinos in this manner, providing no leadership whatsoever to find a solution or even create a better environment for developing a balanced, effective, and humane legislative approach, Romney criticizes Obama for not keeping his promise!!
This is what many Latinos have seen and felt over the last two years from candidate Romney and President Obama. No leadership, on respect, no honesty, no principles. So does Romney really have any legitimacy in going after Obama when he has been absolutely no better after having such a low bar to clear?
I have worked on the issue of immigration for more than 35 years, since the late 1970’s when the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was being developed and written in Washington, D.C. Rather than only point out the dishonesty of the Republicans and President Obama, I believe the experience I have acquired from this experience should offer a different vision for what could be done to bring about immigration reform legislation and progress on this issue.
First, elected officials must provide leadership in placing the complete picture of pros and cons on the table. This must happen by engaging in an honest and focused debate of improving and updating U.S. immigration laws, regulations, and programs. While Republicans and Democrats speak about their support and approval for legal immigration, there has not any legislation introduced that speaks to revamping and improving the legal immigration system, preference categories, and legal procedures that have long been identified in need of correction. Republican Presidential candidates have repeatedly spoken about their firm support for legal immigration, during the more than 18 debates to date, not one has submitted a comprehensive vision of how these areas of need would be improved under their leadership.
Second, part of the complete picture must be the positive and substantial economic contributions that the unauthorized work force has contributed to this nation. How is it possible that we ignore the economic stimulus this workforce has contributed to communities throughout the southwest states, as well as to many other communities throughout the nation. Wherever there is an agricultural economy it is impossible to recognize, on the facts, the contributions and dependency on the unauthorized workforce. This contribution goes well beyond just agriculture. Many portions of the southwest and south owe a great deal of their economic growth and vitality to this workforce. It has been key to the rebuilding period many local communities in the southwest and south experienced in the late 1980’s and 1990’s. Ironically, it was the unauthorized workforce that lent a hugh hand in the New Orleans clean up. Several regional studies have acknowledged the phenomenal work ethic and economic vitality this workforce has provided to the small business, retail, and sales sector of these regions economies.
These realities are not much different than what this country has experienced with immigrant movements from Europe at the turn of the century. Immigrants to America have always provided a great energy and stimulus to this nation, their new home. Yet the very immigrants of the turn of the century and their offspring (Santorum) seem to consider their movement more legitimate and legal than what has been taking place over the last 30 years. It is this hypocrisy and double standard that has for too long dictated the discussion and tone.
Thirdly, if Democrats and Republicans truly respect and desire an honest and positive relationship with the Latino community, the leadership of both parties in Congress should appoint reasonable and informed representatives to a special committee on developing a package of legislation that would comprehensively reform U.S. immigration policy and programs. This would not be patterned after the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. Rather it would have representatives appointed who are problem solvers, creative, willing to have dialogue with impacted communities, and recognize the urgency and importance for this nation to undertake this reform. It should not include the extreme elements that currently control the discussion and idea pool in the House of Representatives. These House Members are not interested in solving challenges and problems but rather insist on applying their rigid and ideological thinking. Give this joint committee a chance to succeed as opposed to what was done on deficit reduction. This joint committee would be about ideas that provide a balance between enforcement, family reunification, economic benefits, and fairness.
Fourth, it is imperative that we recognize that there are “push” and “pull” factors that stimulate and dictate mass movements of people. We must examine, assess, the consequences of the drug trafficking on immigration movements from Mexico, Central America, and Latin America. We must recognize that it is a far better investment to make in strengthening the economies of “sending countries” so that their citizens have another choice than to risk their lives coming north in order to survive. It is no different than what we saw with Italy, Ireland and other European countries. However, we have this history to help us devise other economic policies that make such movements unnecessary if constructed properly. The free trade zones of the last 10 years including NAFTA have not resulted in people staying home but rather have caused more to migrate north because of the limited focus of these economic proposals. They have made the rich in these countries richer, while creating greater economic pressures for survival—go north or die a slow death. We see this happening with the drug economies in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.
President Obama, if reelected should lead the way with such an approach.