.
.
.
.
.
Flavia de la Fuente, the intelligent young woman who gave a really dope student commencement speech at UCLA this summer, wrote to the Democratic Party in the wake of the DREAM Act’s most recent demise. In a dreamactivist.org blog titled, “Dear Democrats: Change the Frame” the Texas activist by way of Irvine had some thoughts to share. First, de la Fuente offered her personal email to those disaffected by what went down in the Senate on Saturday and who may feel now as if their life is not worth living. (Yes, the repercussions are that serious)
Second, she sounded off on the Democrats, writing, “Yesterday, quite a few of us received a mass email from Mitch Stewart, Organizing for America, which stated, “I’ll be blunt: this vote failed because a group of Republicans stood with their party, instead of their principles.” De la Fuente publicly responded by saying, “I’ll be blunt: this vote failed because there is a crisis of leadership within the Democratic party and progressives in general when it comes to immigration, in addition to racist, fear-mongering rhetoric employed by the GOP.”
For the daughter of Chilean immigrants, the Organizing for America email was too Manichean and ultimately insulting. She followed with more blunt remarks of her own stating:
“Five Democrats voted against the DREAM Act, and another bailed completely and was at a Christmas party (granted, he ran on an anti-Obama platform). The Democratic party has been talking about how much they prioritize immigration since before the 2008 election, and yet the most they can muster is using the DREAM Act as a political football immediately prior to the midterm election (see: DOD attachment) and a vote on a narrow DREAM Act in the last week of the lame duck session to appease us and say, “hey, we tried!” (and this, only after months of civil disobedience, hunger strikes, and internal politics that threatened to expose some of our friends over at the non-profit industrial complex).
Please.”
Please indeed. She goes on to note in her message to the party that it delivered on record deportations over the last two years and also came through with $600 million dollars on border enforcement. The Democrats, as de la Fuente notes, utilize the conceptual frames of criminality in their political discourse as well. Turning to an example of the civil disobedience of the DREAMers that highlighted humanity as opposed to criminality, she says,”It’s time to capture the entire frame of the debate with this narrative. When Isabel Castillo from Virginia, was doing a sit-in in Senator Reid’s office, asking for a commitment to the DREAM Act, she asked a staffer, “You love your children, right? And you’d do anything for them, right? Including cross the border?”
When the DREAM Act came up for a vote during the DoD attachment, Senator Dick Durbin, in earning his first name, said in his time to speak, “We do not in this country hold the crimes and misdeeds of parents against their children.” I was deeply offended by the characterization from a supposed champion of the legislation. If that’s what the Senator has to say about the parents (while not being able to deliver a bill for their children) what hope in hell is there for just and comprehensive immigration reform for the community at large?
Changing the frames is indeed important. Immigration is a moral and economic issue. That’s why the “Drop the I-Word” campaign is essential. Introducing the economics of immigration beyond the knee-jerk “they are taking our jobs!” xenophobic rhetoric will be tougher. Both major parties were complicit in locking Mexico into neo-liberal structural adjustment reforms that, like here, made the Mexican elite wealthier and the rest of the population poorer – thus spurring immigration. It’s not like the Democrats didn’t know how it would all play out. Operation Gatekeeper was enacted to militarize a soon to be active U.S. – Mexican border. The name of that economic policy that has ruined Mexico is NAFTA and it is not spoken of very often. Changing the frame of criminality and criticizing NAFTA at every possible moment is a winning combination.
Oddly enough, an article in the Los Angeles Times this morning used “undocumented” to describe DREAM activists. It took me by surprise! Now, are the Democrats in Orange County and the rest of the nation game? If they were, that would REALLY take me by surprise. If they don’t change the frame, then it’s time to change the game.
Chile is a much better shape now!. Ms de La Fuete can go back there and make her life worthy!. One more time the racist Demcrats Failed to the people!.
Chile’s poverty level actually rose for the first time last year for the first time in twenty-three years. Their new president will more than likely continue the trend.
http://www.santiagotimes.cl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19323:chiles-poverty-levels-rise-for-first-time-in-two-decades&catid=43:human-rights&Itemid=39
That commenter doesn’t care about facts, she’s just doing her usual “get out of America wetback” thing. Hey hag, Flavia is a US citizenl! Not that you would understand fighting for justice for others.
Haha, ok. Hey Vern, how long do you think this base disaffection with your party can last?
Dunno. They got a few good things done this week, for once.
I wish the party gave me more to boast of. But when it comes to making this party more progressive and effective, I’m in for the long haul. Standing on the outside and criticizing has its uses, but doesn’t seem like the best use of MY time.
Even though that’s an option that some exercise (standing outside and criticizing), it’s not the only alternative to engaging the system from within. People who don’t participate in the two-party system are also capable of expressing their political energies through other forms and organizations. They make positive contributions to their respective communities without having to explicitly support an elected official nor be one themselves.
Troo that, troo that.
By the way, dunno if the Flav has contacted you yet or not, but she asked me to correct a little spot in your story – she’s not an “immigrant from Chile” but a “daughter of immigrants from Chile.”
Yeah, she messaged me. I was was going to change it but you already did!
Now, I wish there was a youtube clip to share, but I only have a transcript. I was watching the O’Really Factor last night with guest host Laura Ingraham. She had Linda Chavez and Francisco Hernandez on to debate the DREAM Act within a rightist framework. (Something I’m keenly interested in)
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007214&docId=l:1328109145&isRss=true
Unfortunately, it looks like Ingraham’s perspective is what rules the Senate chamber… anything to provide a pathway to citizenship, no matter how compromised or how many overtures are made to the right-wing, is rabidly denounced as “amnesty”
as an opponent of the DREAM act being rushed through I want to state that I see the logic of its basic platform. To make it more palatable to oppenents I suggest: the students profess their love of America rather than bash Americans who are concerned over illegal immigration; quit acting like it is their right to cut in line and acknowledge they are asking for a major gift (not demanding it); make the standards for the program very tight such as having to have been here ten years, continual schooling, no arrests (or at most two misdemeanors); no allowance for chain migration or legalizing parents; securing the borders first; full scrutiny of all documentation presented (this could take years); had to be in this country before 2001 (otherwise we will be flooded with more illegals and phony paperwork); etc. Basically I would want to see a change in attitude from the applicants and their supporters, a tightening of standards, time to read the actual bill to root out loopholes, make sure every application is fully vetted, a fee to cover costs of processing, and no criminals (including DUI). There are millions of people waiting to immigrate who provide fees and paperwork and stand their place in line. The process could take some time and the students would be facing deportation during that time so we should address that also.
Is 10 years your definition of “rushed through?”
That’s just the first of your many distortions.
Shit, a lot of that’s already in there.
One thing we get confused about when we talk about this is the various degrees – being undocumented (the “I” word), legal residency (green card), and finally citizenship. You show that confusion in your last sentence. In this latest iteration of the bill (which is defeated for a while) the applicants would not be facing deportation for the following ten years, but it would take that long to become a citizen.
It’s progress that deadwhitemale is opening up his mind just a crevice to progress and justice. It’s interesting he is so concerned with the “attitudes” of the bill’s proponents. Remember, most of the bill’s most vocal advocates such as Flavia ARE US citizens, and criticizing your own country to spur it to (what you consider) progress is a grand old American tradition.
And I’m pretty sure this DREAM Act only applies to people who’ve already been here a certain time, not future immigrants, doesn’t it, Gabriel?
“Securing the borders first” is something you guys always say, and it is impossible to measure, someone will always find a way to get in, and one of you guys will always point that out. Obama has done everything possible to “secure the borders,” even going overboard with enforcement and deportations; it’s time to work on the other aspects of reform.
i withdraw my opening. attitude counts.
Oh, damn! Hey Gabriel, remember that one morning where, just for an hour, deadwhitemale was actually putting a little thought into issues instead of just being the usual knee-jerk malevolent xenophobe, but then you and I blew it by not being immediately deferential and grateful?
Good times…