Hating Hispanics: Has Arizona Ignited Firestorm After Decade of Simmering Tension?

Activists Say Immigation Law Has Given Rest of Country Free License to Discriminate Against Hispanics

By SARAH NETTER
July 19, 2010

Jumped by three men wielding chains and bats, Adolfo pleaded with his attackers to consider his family.

"They started calling me a stupid Mexican and threatening me," the 25-year-old Staten Island, N.Y., resident said. "I tried to ignore them but they kept saying, 'You stupid Mexican, we're going to kill you.'"

It was an attack, he said, that changed everything about his life in America.

"I always felt safe in this country," he said in Spanish. "I feel very alone now."

Adolfo, whose last name is being withheld by ABC News.com at his request, is not alone.

The country's changing demographics and ongoing struggle with immigration policy have stirred anti-Hispanic sentiment, said activists who reported anecdotal evidence that Arizona's controversial immigration law has contributed to a fresh round of discrimination.

"For us, there's always been a simmering anti-immigrant sentiment," said Lisa Navarrete, vice president of the National Council of La Raza, an Hispanic advocacy group. "What Arizona does, is it brings it to a whole new level."

And it seems to have brought it to places not normally regarded as hotbeds of racist activity.

New York City's Staten Island has seen as many as seven hate-crime beatings of Hispanic men since April. The attack on Adolfo was one of the first there. The situation has become so tense that the U.S. Department of Justice held a community forum last week.

New York City Councilwoman Debi Rose, whose district covers the Staten Island, said that while there are large and diverse immigrant populations living in the borough, Hispanics seem especially vulnerable right now, particularly the immigrants who fear arrest and deportation if they report the violence.

"I think the immigration debate has brought much more attention to who's living in the community," Rose said.

"And also people see the Mexican day laborers and they're working and they have money," she said. "Sometimes I think it's a crime of opportunity. Because you know people feel like they could rob them of their money and possessions and they wouldn't report it."

Adolfo, who was beaten unconscious and spent about a week in the hospital with a fractured skull, said he would have died if someone hadn't called police after finding him laying battered in the road.

"I was covered in blood and they probably thought I was dead so they left me there," he said of his attackers. " I lost consciousness and later woke up. I tried to drag myself to the door of my home, but I couldn't make it."

Adolfo, who came to the United States 14 years ago and is raising three children, has no plans to go back to his native Mexico, saying the U.S. is "my country, too."

But he's seen firsthand the increased hostility toward the Latino community in the months leading up to the passage of Arizona SB1070 and the approval that came less than three weeks after his beating. The law is scheduled to go into effect on Thursday.

"Everything changed after Arizona. You feel it. You feel insecure," he said. "You're treated like you don't belong, but we're here to work. We're raising families and contributing. Our children are American."

Navarrete, who is first-generation Cuban, said she believes racists and so-called Nativists are using the debate over the Arizona law as an excuse to not only broadcast their hatred for Hispanics, but also act upon it.

"It's given people license," she said. "We think immigration is the politically correct way, at least in people's minds, to talk about it."


Minutemen Project Founder: 'There's a Lot of Resentment Coming From the White Population'
Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minutemen Project, which calls itself an immigration law enforcement advocacy group, said that neither he nor his supporters condone violence, but that they do encourage "peaceful rebellion."

"I think there's a lot of resentment coming from the white population," Gilchrist said. "It goes to heritage."

"The resounding cry I hear is that we are tired of being treated like second-rate citizens in our own country," he said.

In 2001 Americans considered blacks to be the mostly likely target of discrimination, but according to a 2009 Pew Hispanic Center Survey, Americans considered Hispanics the most likely racial or ethnic group to be discriminated against, with one in four saying Hispanics are discriminated against "a lot."

But the same survey noted that 32 percent of Hispanics, about one-third of respondents, reported that they, a family member or a close friend had experience discrimination because of their racial background, down from 41 percent in 2007.

Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project, said he believes that the fear of whites losing their majority is what is likely driving a lot of the animosity towards Hispanics, the fastest growing minority.

The U.S. Census prediction that whites will lose their majority by 2050 was a kind of death knell to some.

"It's not about urban sprawl, people taking jobs, which has been repeatedly been shown by real studies to be not be true," he said. "It's about the loss of white majority."

Potok, who tracks hate groups and their activities said the swell of interest in immigration policy in the last decade has created an opening for neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other well-organized hate groups to go mainstream.

"Hate groups have grown pretty much steadily in the last 10 years based almost exclusively on their exploitation of the immigration issue," Potok said, noting a 55 percent increase in the number of hate groups between 2000 and 2009.

And during that time the groups collectively abandoned their propaganda against blacks, Jews, Muslims and gays to go after Hispanics under the guise of supporting anti-immigration measures, he said.

"They were bright enough," Potok said, "to realize that broad swaths of the public agreed."

Documented hate crimes against Latinos have skyrocketed in the last decade.

Potok said the FBI reported a whopping 40 percent increase in anti-Latino hate crimes between 2003 and 2007 and that figure may be grossly underreported and are incredibly weak.

The FBI stats, based on state reports compiled from local law enforcement, showed between 6,000 and 10,000 hate crimes annually.

But a 2005 U.S. Department of Justice survey that looked at 3.5 years of victimization surveys led to a revised estimate of about 191,000 anti-Latino hate crimes each year.

Though the FBI stats show a 5.7 percent decrease in anti-Latino hate crimes in 2008, the most recent year for available data, Potok expects to see those numbers moved up again.

"It's gotten worse and worse more or less over the last year or so," he said of the blatant discrimination aimed toward Hispanics. ""In a sense it culminates in Arizona."

And it could get even more heated.


Signs of Anti-Hispanic Bias Popping Up Across the Country
Last week's publication of a list of illegal immigrants in Utah, complete with names, addresses and the due dates of pregnant women, was lauded by anti-immigration activists, but labeled a "witch hunt" by those on the other side of the debate.

Distributed to media and law enforcement by Concerned Citizens of the United States, the list of 1,300 names, and the residents addresses and phone numbers, has caused widespread panic after supporters demanded "immediate deportation."

Utah is considering a bill similar to Arizona's. In other states, including South Carolina and Nebraska, town councils have pass their own versions of anti-immigration laws, banning hiring or renting to illegal immigrants.

In other corners of the country, there have been signs of anti-Hispanic bias that, at the very least, sting members of the Latino community. In Florida, hackers were accused of getting into the digital highway signs and changing messages over the Palmetto Expressway to read "No Latinos" and "No Tacos."

And in Idaho, the Bonner County Republican Central Committee was castigated by its opponents for refusing to acquiesce to this year's Bonner County Fair theme, "Fiesta at the Fair." The committee objected to the Spanish word fiesta.

Committee President Cornel Rasor explained their decision in a June 29 letter to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer in which he told her his membership had voted to affirm the state's immigration law and that their stance on the word "fiesta" was evidence of their support.

"The Republicans at BCRCC want to make it very clear that English is our primary language, and call our booths 'Celebrate!,' he wrote. "We'd like to display some Arizona license plates if you have some to spare. Please let us know where we might obtain a couple."

In an e-mail to ABCNews.com, Rasor said the rally against the Spanish word "didn't seem to be a big deal." He pointed out his support for a local Latino congressman and said his opposition was to illegal immigrants only and not all Hispanics.

"This simple intent to support Arizona has been taken completely out of context," he wrote. "There were some in our committee who though the 'Fiesta' theme was poorly timed because of the illegal immigration issue."

But Gilchrist said some of the activists proclaiming the Arizona law unfair or unconstitutional need to think of the other side. He pointed to the recent rallies in protest of SB1070 and the images of Latinos taking to the streets waving flags from Mexico and other countries, calling the demonstrations "outright insults to our people."

When Latino communities respond in outrage to beatings and murders, he asked them to consider the murders of Americans at the hands of illegal immigrants.

"This is the wakeup call we as a nation need," he said. ""We're going to win this contest. It's a contest, not a war."

ABC News' Ray Sanchez contributed to this story.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/hating-hispanics-arizona-ignited-firestorm-decade-simmering-tension/story?id=11179708&page=2

So... this is what The Republicans and Tea Party members are turning the so-called greatest democracy on earth into. Bigotry and prejudice will always exist; it seems to be a part of human nature, but before conservatives stirred up this hornet's nest it was always simmering below the surface. Now it's gotten ugly. It reminds me of these Lou Reed lyrics:

Give me your hungry, your tired your poor I'll piss on 'em
that's what the Statue of Bigotry says
Your poor huddled masses, let's club 'em to death
and get it over with and just dump 'em on the boulevard

alland wrote:So... this is what The Republicans and Tea Party members are turning the so-called greatest democracy on earth into. Bigotry and prejudice will always exist; it seems to be a part of human nature, but before conservatives stirred up this hornet's nest it was always simmering below the surface. Now it's gotten ugly. It reminds me of these Lou Reed lyrics:

Give me your hungry, your tired your poor I'll piss on 'em
that's what the Statue of Bigotry says
Your poor huddled masses, let's club 'em to death
and get it over with and just dump 'em on the boulevard

You're painting a whole ideology and the Tea Party movement for the actions of the few. Not cool. Should i say all liberals are communists? That they all love Hugo Chavez? Or that they all are like the people in the Earth Liberation Front? Would that be fair?

It's not just a few; that's the problem. When more and more of them are acting like this and the rest aren't speaking out against it, it's hard not to see that it's a popular movement. Now they're talking about changing the 14th amendment, which I think is highly unlikely to happen at best, but just the fact that it's being seriously discussed is a good indication of just how unhinged the right has become. It's not just the actions of a few anymore. These sorts of things are in the press on virtually a daily basis and gaining momentum.

That was out of order alland.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:That was out of order alland.

Why do you say that? It's a perfectly legitimate assertion.

Am I going to be censored every time I make an unpopular post? That's not what I came here for. You're getting power-hungry, Spyglass.

alland wrote:It's not just a few; that's the problem. When more and more of them are acting like this and the rest aren't speaking out against it, it's hard not to see that it's a popular movement. Now they're talking about changing the 14th amendment, which I think is highly unlikely to happen at best, but just the fact that it's being seriously discussed is a good indication of just how unhinged the right has become. It's not just the actions of a few anymore. These sorts of things are in the press on virtually a daily basis and gaining momentum.

The 14th Amendment does need to be changed. As it stands right now, a foreign national can come here illegally to have a baby and that kid is a US citizen via the current amendment. Would you stand for that in your country? Should any country allow people who come here illegally to have children so that they can become a US citizen automatically even though that parent broke the law coming here? No, no and no. That amendment was created by us here to make former slaves citizens. By that time, they were all born here under slavery but were denied US citizenship because of the shitty laws back then. It was a rightful amendment back then for that purpose. By the same token, an ambassador of a foreign country has a kid here and they aren't citizens due to another law.

Let's create a hypothetical scenario for the sake of argument. Let's say that people can become citizens in Canada the same way here.... by being born there. I don't know if that's a law there or not. Anyway, i want to go to Canada because they have free health care and i want my soon-to-be born kid to have that free stuff. So, i illegally g to Canada and my illegal wife pops the kid and, BINGO, the kid is now a Canadian citizen and entitled to anything free that the Canadian gov't provides.

Do you support that even where you live?

Yeah, anyone born in canada is automatically a Canadian citizen. In fact, someone born to a Canadian citizen in another country can apply for and is automatically granted citizenship. I think it's the same in the States. What I think would be a somewhat more fair compromise might be to let the law stand so those born to those there legally are automatic citizens, but I think it's unfair to punish children whose parents broke the law. I don't like th idea of people going to The US to have anchor babies -- that's a misuse of the law -- but I wonder just how often it happens. My gut tells me it's too rare to be a real problem.

alland wrote:Yeah, anyone born in canada is automatically a Canadian citizen. In fact, someone born to a Canadian citizen in another country can apply for and is automatically granted citizenship. I think it's the same in the States. What I think would be a somewhat more fair compromise might be to let the law stand so those born to those there legally are automatic citizens, but I think it's unfair to punish children whose parents broke the law. I don't like th idea of people going to The US to have anchor babies -- that's a misuse of the law -- but I wonder just how often it happens. My gut tells me it's too rare to be a real problem.

That's the whole point of this supposed legislation - anchor babies. Gov't estimates that there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year here. Who pays for them? I do. Certainly if the parents are here illegally, any social service they use is illegal. But no citizen is denied that service. It's a bad, bad thing happening. It's costly bullshit.

I forgot to ask; is it legal when i'm there illegally in Canada to have a child that becomes a Canadian citizen? Is that fair to you people? No.

People from other countries need to ask themselves how they'd feel about illegal immigration and the anchor baby issue in their own country before they criticize what we're proposing.

That said, if a person is here as a permanent resident, their kid should become a citizen. But not someone here on a temporary visa.

But what I wonder is how many of those 300,000 are born to parent(s) who are there illegally. Is it a significant enough number to be a real concern?

TexasBlue wrote:I forgot to ask; is it legal when i'm there illegally in Canada to have a child that becomes a Canadian citizen? Is that fair to you people? No.

People from other countries need to ask themselves how they'd feel about illegal immigration and the anchor baby issue in their own country before they criticize what we're proposing.

That said, if a person is here as a permanent resident, their kid should become a citizen. But not someone here on a temporary visa.

Anyone born in Canada, regardless of the status of their parents, is automatically a Canuck. I know it's not fair to taxpayers, but I think that the gov't should show some compassion. It's certainly not the fault of the baby either. If you or anyone wants to complain about those sort of things you could also complain about your tax dollars going to other countries for humanitarian aid, but I don't hear anyone on the right bringing this up -- certainly not to the point that it's becoming an issue like immigration or anchor babies. Sometimes we have to do what's right as people, and not what's right as a liberal or conservative.

alland wrote:Am I going to be censored every time I make an unpopular post? That's not what I came here for. You're getting power-hungry, Spyglass.

I'll let Tex be the judge of that. If you have a problem with me, take it up with him and he can take it up with me. You've been quick to take offence at others words, perhaps you ought to practice what you preach?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:
I'll let Tex be the judge of that. If you have a problem with me, take it up with him and he can take it up with me. You've been quick to take offence at others words, perhaps you ought to practice what you preach?

I don't have a problem with you -- just your heavy-handed style as a mod. I've noticed it before but never commented because it was in threads involving Tex and BubbleBliss. We come here to discuss, but if we have to fear censor, or censure, each time we make a comment it stiffles debate and impedes growth of the forum. I broke no rules as far as I can tell by quoting those lyrics and it seems to me my post was edited on a whim.

I only step in where nothing constructive could come of the debate. They were and do bicker like an old married couple . It doesn't look good for the admin and the former moderator to be filling the board with posts like that. Would you want to sign up for a board like that if you weren't a member?

I had no problem with the lyrics, hence I did not delete them. I had a problem with the tone of your post in general. As Tex said, would you just sit back and take it if he said all left wingers were Communist? And be sure if he ever does, I would admonish him too. Being admin doesn't make him immune as you have seen.

Okay... well... your word is final. There's nothing I can do.

alland wrote:But what I wonder is how many of those 300,000 are born to parent(s) who are there illegally. Is it a significant enough number to be a real concern?

Look, we have a really bad problem with illegal aliens in this country. It's been out of control for over 20 years and is getting worse. 300,000 children born to illegal parent is nothing to sneeze at. These people (the parents) aren't supposed to be here. Why can't we as a sovereign nation demand to know who's coming to this country. We have a huge problem with that apparently. Some here don't want us to know. These families know exactly what they're doing when they come to the US and have a child born on our soil. We know and understand exactly what they’re doing. For illegals, having a child born in the US becomes the golden ticket to staying here in this country. They become eligible to sponsor for legal immigration most of their relatives, including their illegal alien mothers, when they turn 21 years of age, thus becoming the US “anchor” for an extended immigrant family.

Then there's the cost of these ids being born here. $6 billion. Paid for by whom? Me and US taxpayers.

Lemme ask a question; why do you support these people doing this to my country? You wouldn't tolerate it in yours.

alland wrote:Anyone born in Canada, regardless of the status of their parents, is automatically a Canuck. I know it's not fair to taxpayers, but I think that the gov't should show some compassion. It's certainly not the fault of the baby either. If you or anyone wants to complain about those sort of things you could also complain about your tax dollars going to other countries for humanitarian aid, but I don't hear anyone on the right bringing this up -- certainly not to the point that it's becoming an issue like immigration or anchor babies. Sometimes we have to do what's right as people, and not what's right as a liberal or conservative.

You can't equate illegals and our spending dollars on humanitarian efforts at all. These people have a country. They can go thru the correct channels if they want to live here. It's that simple.

This is why the left is getting a worsening rap in this country alone.... with the support of such b.s. Nobody in their right mind would allow this in their own countries when they're faced with a burgeoning population of people who didn't come here thru the lawful channels. Everyone on the left talks about doing things lawfully, but when this issue comes up, it's a 180° turn.

alland wrote:Okay... well... your word is final. There's nothing I can do.

It's the blanket assumption that all conservatives, Republicans, etc are for whatever the flavor of the day is when it comes to other people doing things (hate groups). It's totally unfair to do that as it would be for me to say that the left is everything i stated hypothetically in the post at the start of this thread.

As for Matt's modding, i have him here to do a job. If i was to do it, people would say i was being biased because i'm a conservative and that i have admin privileges. Therefore, i have a guy who's on the opposite side of the political spectrum to even it out. It wouldn't look good to have another conservative as a moderator. What people here need to realize is that even I have received PM from Matt on things i've said. Sound crazy? Not if you're just a regular member.

I take things to heart from people when they present it in a decent manner on issues relating to conduct here. For instance, i used to post in another forum quite often and, as a joke, i put an avatar on my sig that used a sickle & hammer and equated liberalism with communism. It was to give the liberals in that forum fits. They really didn't like it and PM'd the mod whom in return PM'd me and asked me to take it down. I did and then i apologized to everyone if i offended them. Guess what? None even acknowledged that.

I could be an ass and do things my way. I could if i want. I prefer not to. I won't. The only time i'd actually do moderating is when he's not available. He's 7 hrs ahead of me and isn't always here when everyone else is. But i consider myself just another person debating here. That's all.

Everyone would prefer to keep this forum clean and free from bull. Making out either side with blanket accusations or assumptions could create a flame-fest if this forum had many more members. If i allow it now, then why not lat6er when it could morph into a larger problem.

So, don't take offense, Allan. Take a breath and move on to the next topic. Or don't post things that you have strong feelings about. Want a good example? Take the Global Warming issue. I learned (on my own) not to debate that with Matt. He's much more well-versed in that subject than i am. I have an opinion on it but not an extreme opinion. But it's best left for those who know more about it than me. I don't like arguing about things i know nothing about or am not well-versed in. One can be made an ass of quickly in that regard.

But let's just move on and try to keep things on the up and up. If anyone has a problem with a mod, they can PM me about it or the mod themselves rather than making it public.

Also, if this forum picks up more members over time, i would prefer to not be as visible in debates as i am now. If i didn't post at all, there wouldn't be much happening here. When one creates a forum, they have to attract members and they have to post subjects to spur debate.... just to get it going. If there's not many subjects on a forum, it's dead.

In the future, i'll be more on the sidelines. But if this place never takes off, then i'll always be here like i am now.