Thursday, January 31, 2008 By Father Jonathan Morris
• E-mail Father Jonathan
As part of an orchestrated strategy to protest immigration policy, Mexican immigrant Flor Crisostomo, 28, has defied a deportation order and has found sanctuary in Adalberto United Methodist Church in Chicago.
The church’s pastor, Rev. Walter Coleman, has defended his recurring choice to provide shelter for illegal immigrants running from the law: “I fear God more than Homeland Security.”
Ms. Crisostomo says she is “taking up the torch” from her friend Elvira Arellano, who, for over a year, evaded law enforcement by hunkering down in the same church. Ms. Arellano’s use of holy grounds to play a blatant cat and mouse game with immigration officials elevated her profile as the martyr leader of the immigrants’ rights movement. In August of 2007, Ms. Arellano announced she would be leaving her safe haven in order to lead a rally in Los Angeles. She was arrested at the rally and immediately deported to Mexico.
The most salient element of this story is the political and moral quandary of a church providing material and moral sanctuary to illegal immigrants who are refusing deportation orders from the United States.
RelatedColumn Archive Chicago’s “Sanctuary” Church Strikes AgainBill Clinton’s Analogy Revisited: Barack Obama vs. Jesse Jackson Today Marks the 35th Anniversary of Roe v. WadeCandidates Should Put Their Political Philosophy on the TablePrimary Elections: No Superheroes, Please Full-page Father Jonathan Archive Is this Chicago church justified in bucking the law and harboring Elvira Arellano and now Flor Crisostomo?
The answer is unequivocally “no.” In fact, the Adalberto United Methodist Church, and Rev. Coleman are doing a disservice to all migrant workers — legal and illegal — and to the long and harrowed traditions of appropriate civil disobedience and political sanctuary. As a church, they are confusing political activism and subversive tactics with humanitarian aid and social justice.
I will explain.
As in many of the cases we examine in this column, we can assume the Chicago church’s mistake is not one of ill will, but rather of skewed ethical thinking, of bad moral logic. When you listen to the pastor speak, his sincerity is evident:
"It's unfortunate we have to do this. This church has other priorities, like helping the poor in this neighborhood, but God didn't give us a choice. When God says do this, we say, 'Yes, sir!'"
It is understandable that Rev. Coleman would come to the conclusion that God wants him to help these women in this way, if you accept his line of moral reasoning. Rev. Coleman argues that because God’s laws are superior to man’s laws, in the case of unjust law, we have the right to disobey civil authorities. Applying this logic to his own case, he says that because immigration policy in the United States is unfair, these women are doing the right thing in snubbing the law. He goes even further, suggesting he himself has a moral obligation to support them in their display of “civil disobedience.”
But Rev. Coleman’s logic has gaping holes. Yes, the moral law (God’s law) is prior and superior to civil law, but this does not give citizens the right to disobey every unjust law. If, for example, Rev. Coleman were convinced government tax policy unfairly burdens the rich, or the poor, or the middle class, would he be morally justified in not paying his taxes?
Acts of civil disobedience must be evaluated in the same way we assess the right to “conscientious objection.” We have the right, and even obligation, to disobey legitimate authority when we are commanded to do moral evil. But the principle of conscientious objection does not give us a license to be our own moral legislators, picking and choosing the laws we will follow based on their varying degree of moral perfection. As long as a law does not oblige us to do evil, our responsibility to respect legitimate authorities prevails over other concerns.
I can think of no better example to illuminate this point than the Gospel story in which the disciples ask Jesus about the necessity of paying taxes to the unscrupulous Roman authorities. Jesus’ response left no wiggle room for creative interpretation: “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” He then handed the disciples a coin and pointed them in the direction of the local IRS office. This is a perennial invitation by the greatest social reformer of all times to work for justice and redemption within the context of the law.
My critical analysis of this particular case in Chicago should not be mistaken as a sign of my satisfaction with our immigration status in the United States. Indeed, our de facto system is hypocritical and unjust. We make immigration processes slow, complicated, and expensive. Then, to compensate for the market’s apparent demands for more manual workers, the government turns a blind eye to a porous and dangerous border, then rewarding illegal crossing with massive quantities of irregular employment. Finally, the government gets tough, and plays catch and release, and then catch and release again, and again, and again.
The apparent winners in this hypocritical system are companies that depend on cheap labor and all of us consumers of their inexpensive produce and services.
The first of many losers, on the other hand, are immigrants who live in constant fear of unpredictable crackdowns, while all the time being subject to inhumane living conditions. And the list of other losers goes on and on… border states, public health and education systems, skilled laborers, border patrol agents, etc.
So what do we do?
As concerned citizens we must convince Congress and the new president to fix a broken system. Satisfactory solutions will take into account the right of every human being to leave his homeland (emigrate) in search of a better life. But they will also necessarily respect the right and obligation of every sovereign state to regulate this immigration at sustainable and safe levels. Success depends on statesmen rising to the challenge of balancing these two principles. In practice, this requires mobilizing groups of conflicting interests to sacrifice in the short term for the common good of our country.
But our zeal for reform must never admit turning a church into a public hideout for people running from the law. It is a crusade of lawlessness that tarnishes the good reputation of the millions of honest and hard-working Mexican and Latino people to whom the United States of America is deeply indebted.
As a pastor, and as a good neighbor, I would give food, water, clothing and medical aid to anyone who came knocking at my door, and I certainly wouldn’t ask for any government documentation. But what’s going on these days in a church in Chicago is quite another thing.
This article is part of a regular blog hosted by Father Jonathan Morris on FOXNews.com. You can invite new readers by forwarding this URL:www.foxnews.com/fatherjonathan.
Supermarket settles discrimination claim Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008 8:16 am
CHARLOTTE (AP) — A supermarket has agreed to pay a total of $40,000 to three former employees who accused the store of discriminating against non-Hispanic workers.
The former employees filed the complaint last year, saying they were forced out of their Compare Foods jobs in 2004 because they were not Hispanic. Two of the employees were black and one was white.
Compare Foods lawyer Phil Van Hoy said the company treated the workers fairly, arguing that a company with lots of Hispanic customers is allowed to have employees that can communicate with them.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission attorney Lynette Barnes said Compare couldn't prove that it was necessary job qualification to speak Spanish or relate to Hispanics. The company agreed to the settlement in federal court this week.
The grocery store chain was founded in Freeport, New York, and now has 50 supermarkets in seven states.
A History of Mexican Americans in California: INTRODUCTION
In 1846, the United States invaded and conquered California, then part of the Republic of Mexico. This event, one aspect of the 1846-1848 U.S.-Mexican War, led to U.S. annexation of California through the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Mexican American history in California had begun.
But if the Mexican American era in California was new, the roots of the Chicano1 experience stretched back some three centuries to 1519 when Spaniards and their Indian allies carried out the conquest of the Aztec Empire in central Mexico and established what they called "New Spain." Exploration and colonization spread from Mexico City in all directions. This eventually included settlements throughout the northern frontier in the areas now occupied by the states of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and of course, California.
Hispanic settlement of what is now California began in 1769 when the Presidio and Catholic mission of San Diego were established. By 1823, 20 more missions dotted the California coast from San Diego to Sonoma, along with several military presidios and civilian communities. With few exceptions, the settlers and their descendants stayed close to the coast. There were few extensions into the California interior.
The California economy was based on agriculture and livestock. In contrast to central New Spain, coastal colonists found little mineral wealth. Some became farmers or ranchers, working for themselves on their own land or for other colonists. Government officials, priests, soldiers, and artisans settled in towns, missions, and presidios.
Socially, a combination class-caste system developed, although it lacked the rigidity of that in central New Spain. Most residents belonged to the lower and lower-middle classes, but some colonists arrived with or attained upper-class status, mainly through ranching or the acquisition of land grants. They reflected varied backgrounds — peninsular (born in Spain), criollo (born in New Spain of pure Spanish ancestry), Indian, Black, mestizo (of Spanish and Indian ancestry), mulato (of Spanish and African ancestry), and zambo (of Indian and African ancestry). Most colonists were of mixed racial backgrounds, and the process of mestizaje (racial mixture) continued in California, including mixture with various California Indian civilizations. Many mestizos strove, sometimes successfully, to become identified as pure-blooded Spaniards because racial identity affected socio-economic mobility. Whites generally held major government positions, church offices, and private lands, while mestizos and Indians were concentrated at lower levels of the social structure. However, many people with mixed blood did succeed in becoming ranch owners and leading Californios, which sometimes brought an accompanying change of ethnic identity.
For the most part, Spanish California developed in relative isolation despite nominal central government control through appointed officials. When Mexico won its independence from Spain in 1821, central government control was even further diminished. In particular, Mexican independence opened the California door to trade with other countries, especially the United States. In the early 1820s, Anglo-Americans2 developed an intensive trade with California via sailing ships around Cape Horn. The Old Spanish Trail, established in 1829 to link Los Angeles and Santa Fe, New Mexico, became the first major northern Mexican interprovincial trade route. Moreover, it linked California to the Santa Fe Trail between New Mexico and the United States.
Trade with the United States began the process of economic detachment of California and New Mexico from central Mexico. Ships brought hides and tallow from California in exchange for manufactured goods from both the United States and England. Increased trade led to increased demand for consumer goods, and therefore, greater dependence on the United States as the primary source of supply. Along with a burgeoning economy, California also experienced periodic revolutions, as large landowners vied for political supremacy, and the Mexican government made intermittent, sometimes unpopular, efforts to tighten the reins
One of the most dramatic and significant events of the Mexican period occurred in 1833, when the Mexican government secularized the missions. This meant that vast mission landholdings were taken over by the government, which in turn awarded them as land grants to Californios. Soon huge sprawling ranchos became the basic socio-economic units of the province. While upward mobility remained difficult, some Mexicans succeeded in making the transition into the California elite, particularly with the help of these land grants.
During the 1821-1846 period, Anglo-Americans began to settle in California. Many of these settlers, particularly those who had come by ship, eventually married Mexican women (usually of the local aristocracy), became Mexican citizens, and obtained land grants. In contrast, Anglo overland pioneers who settled in the Sacramento Valley of northern California brought their families, stayed to themselves, and resisted integration into Mexican society. It was this group that ultimately rebelled in 1846 against its Mexican hosts and formed the short-lived secessionist Bear Flag Republic, which disappeared during the U.S. conquest of California.
1 Chicano: a term for Mexican Americans or U.S. residents of Mexican descent. - Ed.
2 Anglo-American: a term sometimes used to describe non-Hispanic White residents of the U.S. (informally, "Anglo"). - Ed.
Agua Mansa Cemetery, Colton, San Bernardino County
A History of Mexican Americans in California: THE MEXICAN WAR
In 1846, the U.S-Mexican War erupted. Tensions between the two countries had been developing for years over the obvious U.S. goal of expanding to the Pacific coast. The United States had made several offers to purchase all or part of northern Mexico, offers that Mexico rejected. In 1842, the United States revealed that it was prepared to use force to take what money could not buy, when the commander of the Pacific squadron invaded and captured Monterey, the capital of California, and returned it with apologies.
On the other side, Mexico's antagonism toward the United States was exacerbated by annexation of Texas, a former Mexican province that had revolted in 1835. The Texas rebels had extracted a battlefield treaty from Mexico recognizing the independence of Texas, but the Mexican government had never ratified it. To Mexico, therefore, U.S. annexation of Texas was grand theft and unconscionable aggression.
The precipitating incident of the war came in April 1846, when small units of Mexican and U.S. soldiers clashed in disputed territory between the Nueces River (the Texas boundary recognized by Mexico) and the Rio Grande (the boundary claimed by Texas). The incident provided a pretext for an annexation decision already made by U.S. President James K. Polk, who ordered invasion by U.S. troops. Fighting in northeastern Mexico was followed by the landing of U.S. forces at Veracruz and an advance overland from there to Mexico City. Simultaneously, other U.S. forces occupied the province of New Mexico and then marched to California, most of which had already come under U.S. control as the result of a naval invasion and the Bear Flag Revolt.
The initial U.S. occupation of California occurred without bloodshed, but Mexican armed reaction ultimately broke out in both New Mexico and California. Mexican patriots, mainly citizen volunteers, were victorious in 1846 in battles at Los Angeles, San Pasqual, Chino Rancho, and elsewhere. But eventually they had to submit to the trained and better-armed U.S. forces. By early 1847, the United States had established control over California and the rest of northern Mexico, and proceeded to absorb this territory. The 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo between the United States and Mexico confirmed the land transfer.
A History of Mexican Americans in California: POST-CONQUEST CALIFORNIA
No sooner had the treaty been signed than the first major post-war influx of Anglos began, fueled by the discovery of gold in 1848. The 10,000 Californios (pre-conquest Mexican Californians) soon found the territory swamped by Anglo-American migrants and foreign immigrants. The latter included Chileans, Peruvians, Basques, and Mexicans, particularly miners from the Mexican province of Sonora. However, despite this Latino immigration, the Spanish-speaking population of California fell to 15 percent by 1850, and to four percent by 1870.
Northern California received the major thrust of the Anglo gold rush migration, while southern California remained heavily Mexican. This ethnic contrast was one factor in the debate over the possibility of dividing California into two states, as happened in the case of New Mexico and Arizona. However, the coming of the transcontinental railroad to southern California in the 1870s spurred a land boom and the state's second major population explosion. By the 1880s, Anglo settlers were also numerically dominant in the southern part of the state.
The presence of a Mexican majority in 1848 contributed to a promising start for good ethnic relations in California. Californios participated widely in the early post-conquest government, and provided eight of the 48 delegates to the 1849 state constitutional convention. There they won such transitory victories as a provision that all state laws and regulations be translated into Spanish. In southern California, where Californios remained a majority in some places until the 1880s, they continued to be elected to local and county positions, and a handful held state offices or seats in the legislature.
However, the rapid establishment of a heavy statewide Anglo majority quickly rendered Mexican Americans politically powerless at the state level. As a result, they could not prevent enactment of inequitable and sometimes discriminatory laws. For example, the legislature placed the heaviest tax burden on land, an abrupt and decimating shift from the Mexican system of taxing production rather than land. Although this tax also hurt Anglo landowners, it seriously undermined the Californio economic position, based primarily on ranching. The Foreign Miners' Tax of 1850, a $20 monthly fee for the right to mine, was applied not only to foreign immigrants but also to California-born Mexicans, who had automatically be come U.S. citizens under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The state anti-vagrancy act of 1855 was so obviously anti-Mexican that it became known popularly as the Greaser Law. Possibly the most blatantly anti-Mexican law was the 1855 act negating the constitutional requirement that laws be translated into Spanish. Finally, there were growing vigilantism and squatter violence against Californio landowners.
Land had been the basis of the California socio-economic system. The loss of land after the U.S. conquest undermined that system, in spite of the theoretical protections provided by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Holders of Spanish and Mexican land grants, most of whom were Mexican Americans, had to seek legal confirmation of their titles. In effect, the federal government placed the burden of proof on the landowners instead of automatically accepting all titles and then handling challenges on an individual basis.
Already suffering from heavy taxes and lacking capital, Chicano landowners had to go through the slow, expensive process of legally confirming their claims, and often were forced to borrow money at high interest rates to cover the costs of the legal struggle. Moreover, they had to argue their cases before U.S. judges and land commissioners unfamiliar with Hispanic legal principles and the land tenure system on which land grants were based. Even when they did win confirmation of their grants, Mexican Americans often found themselves personally destitute, or had to sacrifice their land to pay their legal expenses.
To adjudicate landholdings in California, Congress passed the Land Act of 1851, establishing a Board of Land Commissioners to review claims. If appealed, cases moved on to the U.S. district court, and even the Supreme Court. Of the 813 claims, 549 were appealed (417 by government attorneys), some as many as six times. The board went out of business in 1856, but multiple appeals caused land cases to drag on for an average of 17 years.
Loss of land contributed heavily to relegation of Mexican Americans to the lower echelons of the California socio-economic system. The loss eroded their economic base, undermined their political power, and displaced ranchworkers. Some Chicanos managed to find work in traditional occupations, such as vaquero or sheepshearer, but often only on a part-time basis. Most displaced Chicanos became laborers, poorly paid and often migratory, in expanding large-scale commercial agriculture. Others moved to cities, where their pastoral and agricultural skills were of little use. Many found employment in railroads, construction, and food processing.
Increasingly incorporated into the labor market in the nineteenth century as unskilled or semi-skilled manual laborers, Chicanos experienced job displacement, and in some areas, actual downward occupational mobility. Anglo hostility and low levels of education limited their access to jobs in the rapidly expanding white-collar sector, and Chicanos also encountered obstacles to upward mobility even in occupations in which they had considerable skill and experience. In Los Angeles, for example, Chicanos disappeared completely from the ranks of hatmakers, masons, and tailors. Despite long pastoral experience, Chicanos found employment on ranches only as ranchhands, while Anglos held most supervisory positions.
Another aspect of the nineteenth century economic shift was the entry of Mexican American women into the labor market. As Mexican American men found themselves more occupationally disadvantaged, women became increasingly employed as domestics, laundresses, farm laborers, and cannery and packinghouse workers. A rise in the proportion of female-headed households reflected these socio-economic stresses.
Concomitant with the Chicano economic decline was emergence of residential and social segregation. Chicano barrios and colonias consisted of various types. Some traditional Mexican towns became transformed into barrios as Anglos immigrated and established their own segregated neighborhoods, or as newly established Anglo cities expanded until they enveloped historic Mexican communities. Displaced Chicanos and immigrating Mexicans often established new barrios and colonias.
Barrios and colonias developed and survived through a combination of force and choice. In Anglo areas, anti-Mexican segregation, often embedded in restrictive covenants on real estate, slammed the residential door on the vast majority of Mexican Americans, the major exceptions being Chicanos with wealth, social status, light skins, and presumed Spanish identity. On the other hand, most Chicanos and new Mexican immigrants probably preferred living among people who shared their heritage, culture, and language. The little intermarriage that took place almost always involved Anglo men and daughters from wealthy "Spanish" families — events that often accompanied business partnerships or political alliances.
In Chicano areas, traditional extended family and community social life flourished. There were bullfights, rodeos, horse races, and various fiestas, including the celebration of Mexican Independence Day (September 16) and Cinco de Mayo (May 5 — the 1862 Mexican victory over the French at Puebla). The Catholic Church often provided a focus for social as well as religious life. Mexican American political, cultural, patriotic, and mutual aid organizations began to develop, but remained generally local in focus. Chicano newspapers strengthened community cohesion and spoke out against injustices, but they were undercapitalized, and were forced to engage in a constant, ultimately losing struggle for survival.
Faced with a pervasive pattern of economic dislocation, declining political influence, violence, and discrimination, Chicanos fought back.
Usually, they maneuvered within the system — through the courts, political channels, and newspapers — but at times they resorted to force to defend their rights. Some Chicanos, such as Tiburcio Vasquez, turned to banditry for survival and as a means of expressing grievances and frustrations with Anglo treatment. Nonetheless, by the end of the nineteenth century, Chicanos had declined from an influential majority to a relatively powerless minority.
Leo Carillo Ranch, San Diego County
A History of Mexican Americans in California: REVOLUTION TO DEPRESSION: 1900-1940
The first three decades of the twentieth century saw rapid growth in the size of the California Chicano population. However, the stage for this growth had been set by years of social and economic changes in Mexico and the United States.
Development of mining and industry in northern Mexico, as well as building of north-south railroad lines, attracted large numbers of Mexicans to the northern part of the country in the late nineteenth century. There they learned new industrial, mining, and railroad skills that would be useful later in the United States. The railroad also provided a quicker and easier means of travel to the north. At the same time, economic pressures were mounting. Many small landowners were losing their holdings to expanding haciendas, while farm workers were increasingly and systematically trapped into peonage by accumulating debts.
Finally in 1910, political opponents of President Porfirio Diaz revolted. He was quickly overthrown, but replacement of his government did not end the Mexican Revolution which spread throughout the country and took on deep social and economic, rather than merely political ramifications. The resulting chaos drove thousands of Mexicans north. Beyond physical proximity, the United States offered jobs — in industry, in mines, on railroads, and in agriculture — and all at wage levels far higher than those in Mexico. World War I further increased the demand for Mexican labor.
In the 1920s, the pace of emigration increased, spurred in part by the short but violent Cristero Revolution (1926-1929), while the U.S. economy continued to expand and attract Mexican labor. Nearly one-half million Mexicans entered the United States on permanent visas during the 1920s, some 11 percent of total U.S. immigration during that decade. Thousands more entered informally, before passage of restrictive regulations. Even after establishment of more stringent immigration rules and procedures, thousands continued to cross without legal sanction. Many of them were ignorant of the required legal processes; others sought to avoid the head tax, the expense of a visa, and bureaucratic delays at the border. Coyotes — as the professional labor contractors and border-crossing experts were known — often received commissions from U.S. businesses. They began the industry of smuggling people and forging documents that continues to the present.
Most Mexican immigrants settled in the Southwest. By 1930, more than 30 percent of Mexican-born U.S. residents lived in California. They entered nearly every occupation classified as unskilled or semi-skilled. Chicanos became the bulwark of southwestern agriculture. By 1930, manufacturing, transportation, communications, and domestic and personal service had become the other major sectors of Chicano employment. Chicanos made up 75 percent of the work force of the six major western railroads. They also held blue-collar positions in construction, food processing, textiles, automobile industries, steel production, and utilities. In California during the 1920s, Chicanos constituted up to two-thirds of the work force in many industries.
A small Chicano middle class developed, often oriented toward serving the Chicano population. The growth of barrios and colonias fostered expansion of small businesses such as grocery and dry-goods stores, restaurants, barber shops, and tailor shops. Small construction firms emerged. Chicanos entered the teaching profession, usually working in private Chicano schools or in segregated public schools.
Many factors kept Chicanos in a marginal status. The geographical isolation of employment sites, particularly in railroading, agriculture, and agriculturally related industry, often reduced opportunities for Chicanos to gain familiarity with U.S. society through personal contact. Chicanos also encountered various forms of segregation. These included maintenance of separate Anglo and Mexican public schools, restrictive covenants on residential property, segregated restaurants, separate "white" and "colored" sections in theaters, and special "colored" days in segregated swimming pools. Numerous government agencies, religious groups, and private social service organizations, however, made special efforts to assist in the acculturation of Chicanos by providing instruction in the English language, U.S. culture, and job skills.
The dramatic increase in Mexican immigration affected Chicano residential patterns. Thousands settled in older barrios, causing over crowding and generating construction of cheap housing to meet the sudden demand. In some barrios, Mexican immigrants attained such numerical dominance that U.S.-born Chicanos became a minority within a minority. Immigrants sometimes formed new barrios adjacent to historical Chicano areas or new colonias in agricultural or railroad labor camps.
The growth in the size and number of Chicano communities fostered the growth of community activities. In the early twentieth century, there was a major increase in Chicano organizations, particularly mutualistas (mutual aid societies). Some adopted descriptive or symbolic names, such as Club Reciproco (Reciprocal Club) or Sociedad Progresista Mexicana (Mexican Progressive Society). Others selected names of Mexican heroes, such as Sociedad Mutualista Miguel Hidalgo (the father of Mexican independence), Sociedad Mutualista Benito Juarez (the famous Mexican Liberal president), or Sociedad Ignacio Zaragosa (the victorious Texas-born general at the Battle of Puebla, 1862).
Casa de Tableta/Buelna's Roadhouse, San Mateo County
Membership varied. Some organizations were exclusively male or female; others had mixed membership. Most developed as representative of the working class, but others were essentially middle or upper-class, or reflected a cross-section of wealth and occupations. Although each mutualista had its special goals, they all provided a focus for social life with such activities as meetings, family gatherings, lectures, discussions, cultural presentations, and commemoration of both U.S. and Mexican holidays.
Most provided services, such as assistance to families in need, emergency loans, legal services, mediation of disputes, and medical, life, and burial insurance. Some organized libraries or operated escuelitas (little schools), providing training in Mexican culture, Spanish, and basic school subjects to supplement the inferior education many Chicanos felt their children received in the public schools. Mutualistas helped immigrants adapt to life in the United States. Many mutualistas became involved in civil rights issues, such as the legal defense of Chicanos and the struggle against residential, school, or public segregation and other forms of discrimination. Some engaged in political activism, including support of candidates for public office. At times, mutualistas provided support for Chicanos on strike. Coalitions of Chicano organizations were formed, such as La Liga Protectora Latina (Latin Protective League) and El Confederacion de Sociedades Mexicanas (Confederation of Mexican Societies) in Los Angeles.
In addition to mutualistas, a variety of other cultural, political, service, and social organizations were developed in the early twentieth century, as communities grew or were formed. Possibly the most turbulent Chicano organizational activity of that era was in the labor sphere, where Mexicans played ironically conflicting roles. Because of depressed wages and unemployment in Mexico, Mexican workers could earn more in the United States, even by accepting jobs at pay levels that Anglos refused. Employers thus used Mexican labor to hold down pay scales, and often reached across the border to recruit Mexicans as strikebreakers. Because of the antipathy Mexicans generated in these roles, and also because of the biases of union leaders, local chapters of U.S. labor unions often refused to accept Chicanos as members, or required them to establish segregated locals.
There were Mexican strikers as well as strikebreakers, though. Chicanos were in the forefront of agricultural strikes. In 1903, more than 1,000 Mexican and Japanese sugar-beet workers carried out a successful strike near Ventura. In 1913, Mexican workers participated in a strike against degrading conditions on the Durst hop ranch, near Wheatland, Yuba County. Although the intervention of National Guard troops and the arrest of some 100 migrant workers broke the back of the strike, the Wheatland events contributed to establishment of the California Commission on Immigration and Housing, and recognition of the oppressive living and working conditions of agricultural laborers.
Throughout the late 1920s and early 1930s, Mexicans heed or participated in a number of agricultural strikes throughout California. Mexicans struck Imperial Valley melon fields in 1928 and 1930. In 1933, El Monte strawberry fields, San Joaquin Valley cotton fields and fruit orchards, Hayward pea fields, and many other locales were affected. Strikes spread to Redlands citrus groves in 1936, and to Ventura County lemon groves in 1941. Mexicans also challenged the related food-processing industry through strikes by lettuce packers in Salinas in 1936, cannery workers in Stockton in 1937, and others.
Chicanos created a number of their own unions. El Confederacion de Uniones Obreras Mexicanas (CUOM, Confederation of Mexican Labor Unions) was formed in 1928. Among its goals were equal pay for Mexicans and Anglos doing the same job, termination of job discrimination against Chicano workers, and limitation on the immigration of Mexican workers into the United States. At its height, CUOM had about 20 locals and 3,000 workers.
In the early 1930s, Chicanos established some 40 agricultural unions in California. The largest, El Confederacion de Uniones de Campesinos y Obreros Mexicanos (CUCOM, Confederation of Mexican Farm Workers' and Laborers' Unions), created in 1933, ultimately included 50 locals and 5,000 members. Most of these unions later joined the American Federation of Labor or the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
The Great Depression brought a dramatic population reversal among Mexican Americans. Tabulated immigration to the United States from Mexico fell from nearly 500,000 during the 1920s to only 32,700 during the 1930s. At the same time, official figures indicate that some half- million persons of Mexican descent moved to Mexico.
The Depression displaced millions of American workers, and the drastic midwestern drought dispossessed thousands more, many of whom headed for California. As a result, California Chicanos not only lost their jobs in the cities along with other Americans, but also found themselves displaced from agricultural jobs by Dust Bowl migrants. Whereas before the Depression Anglos had composed less than 20 percent of California migratory agricultural laborers, by 1936, they had increased to more than 85 percent.
The shrinking job market caused Anglo attitudes toward Mexicans in the United States to change. Previously welcomed as important contributors to an expanding agriculture and industry, Mexicans now were seen as "surplus labor." No longer considered the backbone of California agriculture and invaluable contributors to other employment sectors, Mexicans instead were viewed as an economic liability, and had become objects of resentment as recipients of scarce public relief funds.
The government's solution was the Repatriation Program. In cooperation with the Mexican government, which had regretted the loss of so many able workers, U.S. federal, state, county, and local officials applied pressure on Mexicans to "voluntarily" return to Mexico. At times, this procedure resulted in outright deportation. Mexican aliens who lacked documents of legal residency, including many who had entered the United States in good faith during an earlier period when immigration from Mexico was a more informal process, were particularly vulnerable. Among the victims of the process were naturalized and U.S.-born husbands, wives, and children of Mexican repatriates, who had to choose between remaining in the United States or maintaining family unity by moving to Mexico.
The Depression era also sharpened long-existent Chicano distrust of government, particularly its agents of law enforcement. During the Depression, the use of violence to break strikes and disrupt union activities was widespread and added to Chicano antagonism toward law-enforcement officials. The Repatriation Program further increased Chicano distrust of government.
La Union Espanola de Vacaville, Solano County
A History of Mexican Americans in California: WORLD WAR II AND ITS AFTERMATH
World War II marked another sharp reversal in the course of Chicano history, renewing hope where the Depression had brought despair. The Depression had left in its wake a population decline, devastated communities, and shattered dreams; the war brought population growth, resurgent communities, and rising expectations.
World War II caused a tremendous labor shortage. When the military forces called for recruits, Mexican Americans responded in great number and went on to serve with distinction. Some 350,000 Chicanos served in the armed services and won 17 medals of honor. The war also brought industrial expansion, further aggravating the labor shortage caused by growth of the armed forces. Chicanos thus managed to gain entry to jobs and industries that had been virtually closed to them in the past. These new opportunities liberated many Chicanos from dependence on such traditional occupations as agriculture.
The turnaround from the labor surplus of the 1930s to the labor shortage of the 1940s had a special impact on agriculture and transportation. For help, the United States turned to Mexico, and in 1942 the two nations formulated the Bracero Program. From then until 1964, Mexican braceros were a regular part of the U.S. labor scene, reaching a peak of 450,000 workers in 1959. Most engaged in agriculture; they formed 26 percent of the nation's seasonal agricultural labor force in 1960.
Along with opportunities, World War II also brought increased tensions between Chicanos and law-enforcement agencies. Two events in Los Angeles brought this issue into focus. In the Sleepy Lagoon case of 1942-1943, 17 Chicano youths were convicted of charges ranging from assault to first-degree murder for the death of a Mexican American boy discovered on the outskirts of the city. Throughout the trial, the judge openly displayed bias against Chicanos, and allowed the prosecution to bring in racial factors. Further, the defendants were not permitted haircuts or changes of clothing. In 1944, the Sleepy Lagoon Defense Committee obtained a reversal of the convictions from the California District Court of Appeals, but the damage had been done. Los Angeles newspapers sensationalized the case and helped create an anti-Mexican atmosphere. Police harassed Chicano youth clubs, and repeatedly rounded up Chicano youth "under suspicion."
In the aftermath of the convictions and the press campaign, conflict broke out between U.S. servicemen in the area and young Mexican Americans who often dressed in the zoot suits popular during the wartime era. Soldiers and sailors declared open season on Chicanos, attacking them on the streets and even dragging them out of theaters and public vehicles. Instead of intervening to stop the attackers, military and local police moved in afterward and arrested the Chicano victims. Spurred on by sensational, anti-Mexican press coverage of the "zoot-suit riots," these assaults spread throughout Southern California and even into midwestern cities. A citizens' investigating committee appointed by the governor later reported that racial prejudice, discriminatory police practices, and inflammatory press coverage were among the principal causes of the riots. The Sleepy Lagoon case and the zoot-suit affair provided the basis for Luis Valdez's Zoot Suit, which in 1979 became the first Chicano play to appear on Broadway.
Despite such events as these, the World War II era proved to be generally positive for Mexican Americans and is often viewed as a watershed in their history. Progress continued after the war. The G.I. Bill of Rights gave all veterans such benefits as educational subsidies and loans for business and housing. Moreover, returning Chicano servicemen refused to accept the discriminatory practices that had been the Chicanos' lot. The G.I. generation furnished much of the leadership for post-war Mexican American civil rights and political activism.
Veterans were instrumental in the founding and growth of a variety of Chicano organizations. Among the heavily political organizations, the Unity Leagues and the Community Service Organization registered voters in California and supported Chicano candidates. These groups also engaged in such diverse activities as language and citizenship education, court challenges against school segregation, and assistance in obtaining government services. Even more overtly political has been the Mexican American Political Association (MAPA).
Chicano progress since World War II is reflected in occupational patterns. Changes in Mexican American job concentrations reflect to some extent changes in the state economy. Since 1940, California has experienced a manufacturing boom and rapid growth in such areas as government, product distribution, consumer-oriented activities, and professional services. Percentages of Mexican Americans in agriculture and unskilled labor positions have declined, while percentages in professional, technical, managerial, clerical, skilled craft, and semi-skilled occupations have risen.
The post-Depression era brought socio-economic gains for Mexican Americans, but not equality. Although percentages of Mexican Americans in professional, technical, managerial, and clerical positions have increased, they still fall far short of parity according to their population numbers. Moreover, in nearly every major occupational group, Chicanos tend to hold inferior jobs, and Chicano earnings in the same job classifications tend to be lower than those of Anglos.
Inequitable economic conditions are paralleled by comparatively low Chicano educational attainment and severe underrepresentation among elected officials. The latter has resulted partially because thousands of Mexican immigrants have lived in California for decades without obtaining U.S. citizenship. With Mexico so close, many come with plans ultimately to "return home," although these dreams often go unfulfilled. Some Mexican immigrants, although harboring no desire to live in Mexico, have refused to surrender their Mexican citizenship. In comparison to immigrants from other parts of the world, Mexicans and other Latinos have been more reluctant to become naturalized citizens.
Other factors have also contributed to Chicano electoral underrepresentation. In 1977, for example, a California legislative committee on elections partially attributed Chicanos' limited representation on most city councils in cities with significant Chicano populations to the predominant use of citywide at-large elections instead of district elections. There were no Chicano council members at all in 42 such cities in California. The committee argued that local at-large elections prevent "minority voters from exercising their potential political weight," since "their votes disappear in a sea of majority group votes." On the other hand, some contend that at-large elections make it less likely that candidates will write off minority votes as irrelevant, as can happen in ward-based contests.
When it comes to military service, combat decorations, and wartime casualties, however, Chicanos have been overrepresented in terms of population. Because of their lower educational attainment and restricted employment opportunities, Chicanos have traditionally viewed military service as a viable economic option. And since they were underrepresented in higher education, Mexican Americans did not benefit from student deferments as frequently as Anglos.
Finally, the 1970 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report, Mexican- Americans and the Administration of justice in the Southwest, documented unequal treatment of Chicanos by law-enforcement agencies and the judicial system. Among widespread abuses cited in this and other studies are the lack of bilingual translators in court proceedings; underrepresentation of Chicanos on grand juries, as judges, and as law-enforcement officers; unequal assignment of punishment and probation to convicted Chicanos; excessive patrolling of Chicano barrios; anti-Mexican prejudice among police and judicial officials; and even wrongful use of law-enforcement agencies. In the search for undocumented Mexicans, the U.S. Border Patrol has exacerbated antipathy among Mexican Americans by periodic raids on houses, apartments, restaurants, and bars in Chicano communities and predominantly Chicano places of employment.
Quinto Sol Publication's first office location, Alameda County
A History of Mexican Americans in California: THE CHICANO MOVEMENT
This negative side of the post-World War II Mexican American experience provided background and impetus for the Chicano movement
Rising from the turbulent 1960s and drawing on the century-long foundation of Mexican American experience, the Chicano movement has be come a dynamic force for societal change. The movement is not a monolith, but is rather an amalgam of individuals and organizations who share a sense of pride in Mexicanidad, a dedication to enhancement of Chicano culture, mutual identification, a desire to improve the Chicano socio-economic position, and a commitment to making constructive changes in U.S. society.
A major focus of contemporary Chicanos has been politics. Political goals have included increasing the number of Chicano candidates, convincing non-Chicano candidates to commit themselves to the needs of the Mexican American community, conducting broad-scale voter registration and community organization drives, working for appointment of more Chicanos in government, and supporting passage of constructive legislation. Some Chicanos have chosen to work through the two major political parties or through theoretically nonpartisan organizations, such as the Mexican-American Political Association. Others have channeled their political efforts through El Partido de la Raza Unida (PRU, United People's Party), which was founded in south Texas by Jose Angel Gutierrez. While Chicanos have not demonstrated political influence commensurate with their growing numbers, the increase in Chicano elected and appointed officials reflects growing Chicano political presence.
Chicanos have given considerable contemporary attention to economic change. Goals and strategies have varied — upgrading occupations, creating more private businesses (Brown Capitalism), and forming cooperative community development enterprises are examples. The most visible and publicly dramatic aspect of the Chicano economic struggle has been the United Farm Workers' movement led by Cesar Chavez.
Cesar Chavez family home in Delano, Kern County
Education has long been a primary target of Mexican American reformers. Well before the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed school desegregation in the Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954, California Chicanos had challenged educational discrimination. In 1946, Mendez v. Westminister School District resulted in banning separate Chicano schools in California. Yet the U.S. Civil Rights Commission pointed out that in the late 1960s, one-quarter of Chicanos in California attended schools with more than 50 percent Chicanos.
The Chicano movement has striven for a variety of educational goals, including reduction of school drop-out rates, improvement of educational attainment, development of bilingual-bicultural programs, expansion of higher education fellowships and support services, creation of courses and programs in Chicano studies, and an increase in the number of Chicano teachers and administrators. The traditional campaign for desegregation and the newer drive for bilingual-bicultural education, of course, involve objectives that are not always easy to reconcile. In a seeming turnabout after years of struggling for desegregation, some contemporary Mexican American educational leaders recently have taken strong stands against cross-town busing in such communities as Los Angeles, fearing that dispersion of Chicano students will prevent them from participating in hard-won bilingual educational programs.
At times, Chicanos have adopted the traditional tactic of working quietly through existing channels, or attempted to elect Chicano or pro-Chicano school board members. At other times, out of frustration, they have turned to walkouts, sit-ins, and direct confrontations with school boards and administrations. Students have provided much of the effort toward educational reform through such organizations as the United Mexican-American Students (UMAS) and Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA, Chicano Student Movement of the Southwest). The Chicano movement has also spurred establishment of Chicano alternative schools and institutions of higher education, such as Universidad de la Tierra in Goshen, Universidad de Campesinos Libres in Fresno, and Deganawidah-Quetzalcoatl University in Davis, Yolo County, the first Chicano/American Indian university.
Among other institutions affected by the Chicano movement has been the Catholic Church. Although many individual Catholic priests have historically made non-religious contributions to Mexican Americans, the Church as an institution tended to avoid involvement in Chicano societal issues. During the Repatriation Program, for example, the Church generally remained silent, and did little on behalf of affected Mexicans. Although some Catholic priests and Protestant clergymen have taken their place alongside Cesar Chavez and his followers, priests serving in strike areas have often withheld support for the strikers so as not to alienate growers. The Chicano movement generated such organizations as Catolicos por la Raza (Catholics for the Chicano People), which challenged the Church for pouring its money into opulent structures while neglecting too invest in social services to improve conditions for the Chicano poor. Some critics addressed the Church's failure to recruit and promote Chicano priests.
The Chicano movement has also generated a Chicano cultural renaissance and has contributed to a broader Hispanic cultural renaissance in the United States. Art, music, literature, theater, and other forms of expression have flourished. Spanish-language and bilingual media, including television and radio stations, newspapers, magazines, and motion pictures, have expanded in number and impact.
Particularly in the twentieth century, Chicanos have worked in such fields of art as painting, drawing, sculpture, and lithography, and in recent years, have developed a full-scale Chicano art movement. Possibly the two most distinctive vehicles of contemporary Chicano art are muralism and graffiti.
Muralism harks back to the tradition of the great Mexican muralists of the post-Revolution era. Mural themes run from dramatizations of the Mexican Revolution to depictions of the Chicano experience too abstract expressionism. Things form of visual expression is a true people's art, oriented toward the many of the community rather than the few in the art gallery. It can be seen on outside walls of stores, schools, churches, hospitals, and government buildings, in public parks, and even on freeway support pillars, often blended imaginatively with architectural elements. Some barrio gangs have become involved in mural painting, at times using murals as boundary lines between their respective turfs.
The pop-art companion to mural art as an omnipresent symbol of barrio expression is Chicano graffiti. Unlike crude or clever sayings and rhymes written on public walls, Chicano graffiti consists of purposefully conceived sets of symbols or symbolic words, notable in their careful, angular lettering. Barrio gangs generally have developed their own special symbols — placas — too denote their territory or their presence on the turf of other groups. Some Chicano muralists have integrated graffiti into their work, at times incorporating existing graffiti by painting around the symbols.
Pan American Unity Mural by Diego Rivera, San Francisco College, San Francisco County
Along with the contemporary movement in the visual arts among Chicanos has come a literary movement. Novels, poetry, short stories, essays, and plays have flowed from the pens of contemporary Chicano writers. Two special characteristics are common too many of these writings. First, they often emphasize Mexican American culture and experience, especially the themes of Anglo prejudice, discrimination, and exploitation. Second, they are often bilingual — usually written primarily in English with a smattering of Spanish words and phrases, though some works, particularly poetry, are entirely in Spanish.
One distinctive aspect of current Chicano expression is the teatro (theater). Most famous is El Teatro Campesino (Farm Workers' Theater), founded in 1965 by Luis Valdez as a component of Cesar Chavez's United Farm Workers' movement, but now an independent organization. The teatro also emphasizes themes of Anglo discrimination, Chicano resistance, and Mexican heritage. Productions blend English and Spanish, and often include music. Some presentations are a series of relatively brief actos, although the teatro also offers full-length plays. Using an epic theater style in which actors interact directly with the audience and demythologize theater, El Teatro Campesino has attained broad popularity, and has inspired creation of other teatros in barrios and universities throughout the country.
The Chicano teatro movement has included both ephemeral groups (some university teatros disappeared after graduation of their founders and early leaders) and some that have managed to survive despite constant financial pressures. A recent artistic trend has been away from the teatro popular toward a more professional theater, and greater use of English (partially owing to increased professional training, the growth of U.S.-born Chicano audiences, and the attempt to attract non- Chicano audiences). In 1978, Zoot Suit by Luis Valdez premiered, and enjoyed a long run in Los Angeles. The following year, it became the first Chicano play to appear on Broadway.
California has also been the scene of a boom in Chicano publications as a whole, including newspapers, magazines, and scholarly journals. Chicano newspapers have existed in California since the 1850s. However, most have had limited circulation and even more limited longevity, primarily for two reasons. First, the Chicano population remained relatively small until the early twentieth century, and the reading public was rendered even smaller by limited literacy. Second, such papers were plagued by undercapitalization and limited local advertising. That they achieved even a limited success, particularly during the nineteenth century, is a tribute to the determination of Chicano journalists. This determination paid off in the twentieth century when some Chicano newspapers, such as La Opinion (1926- ) of Los Angeles, became permanent.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: explora,
The impetus of the Chicano movement in the 1960s and 1970s brought a rapid expansion of the Chicano press, but the problems of undercapitalization and of educating large institutional advertisers to the potential of the Mexican American market remain.
Possibly the newest surge of Chicano expression has come in the field of motion pictures. Chicano filmmakers have expanded from documentaries to feature films, and are sometimes helped by Mexico City studios. Los Angeles, quite naturally, has been the most active movie-making area, with several independent Chicano production companies located there.
Chicano Park/Logan Heights, San Diego County
A History of Mexican Americans in California: THE FUTURE
Unquestionably, Chicanos and other Hispanics will play increasingly important roles in California's future, if for no other reason than numbers alone. Since World War II, Mexican immigration has remained at a constantly significant level. While the Bracero Program and the entry of countless numbers of undocumented workers have received the most scholarly and journalistic attention, there has been a parallel increase in immigration of Mexicans with permanent visas. During the past decade, in particular, there has also been a sharp increase in immigrants from Central America and South America.
Along with this continuous immigration from Latin America, the number of U.S.-born Latinos in California continues too rise. Birth rates and family size among Hispanics continue to be larger than the U.S. average, although recent years have witnessed a decline in the Hispanic birth rate. Moreover, the Hispanic population is considerably younger than the over all U.S. population, another indicator of potential future population in crease. One reflection of the changing demographic face of California is the fact that Hispanics now compose about half of all kindergarten students in the Los Angeles Unified School District, the state's largest district, while other school districts are reporting equally dramatic increases in His panics.
But numbers alone do not tell the story. While progress has generally been slow, Chicanos and other Hispanics are now making strides in education, political sophistication, and effectiveness for constructive societal change. Their ability too accomplish this change should be further strengthened as pan-Hispanic identity among various Latino national-origin groups becomes a greater reality. These three factors — numerical growth, developing skills and awareness, and greater pan-Hispanic identity — make it almost certain that Hispanics will have an unprecedented influence over the future of California.
Sixteenth Street Victoria Theatre, San Francisco County
Immigration Is Destroying California by Alan Caruba
There was a time when America needed immigrants to work in its factories, to help build its infrastructure of roads, bridges and tunnels, to go West to farm its plains, and all the other tasks necessary to nation-building. That era is over. Now immigration, especially illegal immigration from Mexico, Central and South America, is the source of major economic and social problems. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has just declared the Mexican government's "Matricula Consular" card, issued to Mexicans living in the US, to be an unreliable form of identification, posing a criminal and terrorist threat.
No where is this more evident in California. It is being destroyed by US immigration policies. A June 2000 report by Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) dramatically confirms this. Based on information from the California Department of Finance, along with statistics provided by the US Census Bureau, it reveals that, between 1990 and 2000, one single decade, "virtually all population growth in California is due to direct immigration and births to immigrants."
When you combine direct immigration (57%) with births to foreign-born women, 98% of California's rise in population over the passed decade is making life difficult, stressful, and costly for its citizens. Migration from other States to California is no longer a factor. During the last decade, California had the largest population jump in history, fully 13%, adding 4,208,000 people. That's more than the entire population of Ireland. If this trend were to continue, the State's population would double in forty years.
By contrast, California's native-born (US) population increased by a scant 2%. This is attributed to the fact that many Californians are moving to other states. Out of 5,588,653 births between 1990 and 2000, those of native-born Californians increased by only 90,000, while births to immigrants rose 45%!
The CAPS report concludes that "Mass immigration is the cause of most of California's most pressing problems: too many people living in poverty, the shortage of schoolrooms and teachers, the closing of hospitals, and the impact of overpopulation on biodiversity. For all of the above reasons, California's present and predicted future size is a wakeup call for the State and the nation."
To understand California's immigration problem, during the same decade, all of the northeastern States from Maine to Virginia, combined, gained less than four million people, i.e., native-born along with both legal and illegal immigrants. However, it's worth noting that, during the same decade, the population of illegal immigrants in New Jersey doubled.
I was recently in Los Angeles and even a brief visit demonstrated the problems this massive influx of immigrants is creating. Highway congestion in that metropolitan area is a nightmare. California's answer, however, is to build more highways. The CAPS report estimates that more than three million new vehicles were added to roadways in the passed decade. Statewide, there is an increasing water crisis. It is locked into disputes with other States and even Canada to secure sufficient water for its exploding population.
Education is suffering statewide in California. "The State's university system, once the envy of the nation, has fallen in quality combined with increased demands for admission by an ever-growing number of applicants," says the CAPS report. In the schools, from kindergarten through twelfth grade, enrollments rose from 4.8 million in 1990-91 to almost 6 million ten years later. By 2000, "there were more Hispanics than other children enrolled in the State's schools." California is currently spending $6,837 per student, "so more than $16 billion was spent last year on students whose native language was other than English."
California has been so mismanaged by its governors and legislature that it is billions in debt. This most politically correct, politically liberal State continues to struggle to provide affordable electricity and, as noted, is desperately trying to provide water. The CAPS report does not address the issue of crime, integral to the increase in immigration, but it too must be considered. Soon enough it will begin to export its immigration problems to contiguous States.
The simple fact is that Mexico has a deliberate policy of flooding California and the American Southwest with its population. By doing so, it insures those immigrants will send billions back to Mexico. This is much easier than trying to solve its own massive economic problems or addressing widespread corruption underwritten by drug cartels.
California is the template for the problems our virtually non-existent immigration policies represent. It is a national problem and the solution is just too obvious, just too politically incorrect. The US has to significantly restrict immigration or it will undermine all aspects of our economy, our national security, and the quality of life in this nation.
Alan Caruba is the author of "Warning Signs", published by Merril Press. His weekly commentaries are posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center.
A powerful meeting on the struggle for immigrant rights was held Jan. 22 in New York, with a panel of speakers representing, as event chair Teresa Gutierrez described, “people who are actually fighting the racist attacks the U.S. government commits everyday.”
Teresa Gutierrez, Emma Lozano, Victor Toro, Arturo J. Pérez Saad, Flor Crisóstomo, Marc De La Cruz and Shahid Comrade. Photo: Walter Sinche
Víctor Toro, a founder of the Movement of the Revolutionary Left (MIR) in Chile in the late 1960s, who faces deportation from the U.S., discussed taking advantage of the economic crisis to build a broad movement, calling on all those affected by the crisis to come together and march in May Day rallies in 2008.
Marc De La Cruz, one of the Sentosa 27—Filipino nurses and one physical therapist who are being tried for trumped-up charges in Long Island, N.Y., after they complained about exploitative working conditions—described their case, where several of the nurses, if convicted, face jail time and deportation.
Flor Crisóstomo, a Mexican immigrant and mother of three, described how she and her brothers ended up in the U.S. from her native Oaxaca: “Every day in Mexico showed the necessity of work and food. ... My brothers were already in college [in Mexico], but in 1995 NAFTA devaluated the Mexican currency and obliged me and my brothers to go north.”
Tearfully she declared, “It’s not easy being without your children for seven years; working, not even asking for welfare and paying taxes, and facing these attacks. ... I am Indigenous and I don’t need to ask permission to come here. This country forced me to come here to work. ... If you really want me to leave, leave us in peace in our own countries.”
On Jan. 28, Crisóstomo announced that she would be taking sanctuary at the Adalberto United Methodist Church in Chicago—the same church Elvira Arellano received sanctuary.
Black and Brown unity was a recurring theme during the evening. Emma Lozano, a key figure in the support of Arellano and Crisóstomo, pointed out that her brother, Rudy Lozano, was assassinated after helping to forge the unity that resulted in the election of the first Black mayor in Chicago, Harold Washington, in 1983. She said the U.S. is becoming “more people of color—which is ok to them if you’re serving them, but not if you’re resisting.” “Flor says to me,” Lozano reported, “let Blacks and Latin@s unite, and they will tremble.”
The event was sponsored by the New York May 1 Coalition for Immigrant Rights (http://may1.info/).
E-mail: ldowell@workers.org
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011 Email: ww@workers.org Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Add to del.icio.us
