Which Side Are You On ?

  Which Side Are You On ?

The Border is Invading America.  August 29,2025.  NY Times. Opinion.  Jean Guerrero. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/29/opinion/immigration-border-politics.html?unlocked_article

 Press title. Americs's Border Politics Are Coming for Your Rights. 

This piece is a misinformed application of a series of bankrupt, unrealistic political  arguments. 

Each of what is said is relatively accurate.  But, what is not said, is far more important. Yes, the Democrats did not do enough on immigration during the last  two decade. But, the fascist currently in power not only are worse, their movement is organized to destroy U.S. democracy, not only to oppose more immigration.  Yes, the author notes the terror, but that terror is connected to a political project of taking over the nation.  It is not only terror against immigrants. 

So, take each of the points argued and listed as Democratic Party weakness. But, what is not said. Well, Obama tried to pass the Dream Act, when it failed he created the Dreamers where 640,000 achieved some legality. The Democrats failed to pass real immigration reform- in part because of the arguments like those in the piece.

Biden, on day 1, tried to pass comprehensive immigration reform. It would have covered about 13 million.  It failed. Others tried to pass the Farm Modernization Act, it would have covered 3 million plus.  It failed.  Biden dismantled the many horrendous practices of Trump 2016-2020;

Who has been admitted.- and not considered in the essay ?  By my count is 4,700,000 in H-1 B, H-2A, refugees, Temporary Protected Status, refugees, and more. I am not arguing each of these programs were good.  When claiming there is little difference between the Democrats and the MAGA Crowd, you do need to count. 

I am uncertain if the author’s purpose is the support the MAGA claim that the actions of the Democrats on immigration are not significantly different that the current  militarized terrorism in the streets. This is a dangerous false argument supporting the destruction of our democratic constitutional order.

Or is there some other purpose ? I don’t know.  

But, this is a perspective being promoted on line particularly in right wing circles. The argument is neither right nor left.  It is nihilist and based  ignoring substantial history of change in immigration policies during the last two decades and upon totally unrealistic political perspectives and how change is made in the U.S.  The argument has contributed to the 40 year failure to adopt realistic political reform. 

Dr. Duane Campbell.  40 years engaged in the struggle for immigrants’ rights.

Author, Choosing Democracy – a practical guide to multicultural education.  1996- 2010.  Allyn and Bacon. 

 

 

Fighting Back Against the White Revolt of 2016

 

Bill Fletcher, Jr. and Bob Wing

   November 28, 2016

Verso Press

On the left and within progressive movements there were two immediate responses to Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential elections. First, shock, frequently accompanied by despair. How could an openly racist, misogynist authoritarian — personally unstable to boot — be elected president? Second, anger with the Democrats for the sort of campaign that they waged.At that point, however, a division emerged around a third point: what, we asked, was the source of Trump’s victory? And, even more important, what are the strategic implications?
It is important to approach any examination of the November election with a degree of nuance. As widely noted, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by what now appears to be at least two million votes. The Libertarian and Green Parties received far more votes than the margin of victory in no less than eleven states, including Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
This election was decided by a razor-thin margin due to the undemocratic Electoral College.
Approximately 55% of eligible voters went to the polls, down from both 2008 (61.6%) and 2012 (58.6%). Trump, then, actually received around 25% of eligible votes. This figure of 25% is quite significant because it appears to be that percentage of the electorate that has, for at least a decade, been fairly consistently reactionary.
Senator Bernie Sanders and several other commentators have attributed most of Trump’s success to the fact that he played to allegedly legitimate concerns of the masses. We disagree quite strongly. The vast majority of the Trump vote was the Republican base. These are the voters who have long adamantly opposed the Obama agenda from a staunchly rightwing perspective and, for that matter oppose almost all progressive causes. In various opinion polls what is notable is that for this segment of the electorate, terrorism and immigration are a top concern. It is also worth noting that, at least during the primaries, Trump’s base had a median income above both the national median and the median for both Sanders and Clinton voters.
So, while it is true that Trump received 14% more votes from white people with less than a college education than did Romney, and 10% fewer from whites with a college degree, Trump voters were not mainly poor and unemployed. As Mike Davis points out in a recent blog post, there was no massive defection of white working class voters to Trump. [http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2948-not-a-revolution-yet] [1] In fact, Clinton won the majority of voters earning under $30,000 (53% to 41%) and voters under $50,000 (51% to 42%). These figures are critical to keep in mind when commentators describe the Trump victory as a working class vote. How are they defining “working class”?
Moreover, it is never to be forgotten that Hitler and Mussolini had large support in the working class. The full Nazi party name was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Mussolini was previously a top leader of the powerful left wing of the massive Italian Socialist Party. Even had November 8^th been a working class revolt—which it was NOT—that could not be looked at in isolation from its politics and color.
Yet, Trump voters as a whole were overwhelmingly white, and herein lies the discussion that truly needs to happen.

Latinos and the Fracturing Democratic Party Coalition

By Rodolfo F. Acuña / 21 November 2016

Protesters greet Hillary Clinton at East Los Angeles College, May 2016.

The 2016 U.S. Presidential Elections saw old alliances and loyalties shattered by the fall of the Democratic Party and the rise of con man Donald Trump into so many pieces that they, like Humpty Dumpty, can never be put together again. Politics as we know them are beyond repair.

Although Latinos formed a vital piece of this makeup, the non-Latino American public made little effort to learn anything about them. The political pundits reduced them to numbers and stereotypes. Absent were Mexican American newscasters or political players; to the media, every brown-skinned person was an immigrant. Latinos — Hispanics in polite society — looked and thought alike.

The lack of intelligent an analysis failed to counter the fake news Trump and his supporters spread via social media and the networks. Truth be told, Latin American nationalities share colonial history but that is far as it often goes. They are racially and culturally different. Not all Latinos, for example, enjoy or eat spicy foods, and they do not all live in the same places.

Delusions with the Democratic Party in Arizona

An Illusion Becomes a Delusion

Maybe I am Missing Something

By

Rodolfo F. Acuña

The delusion takes over in ordinary life to the point that we develop a false consciousness.  During 911, for example, many Americans were convinced that we never violated the sovereignty of another state, although history is replete with examples to the contrary.

Thus, our delusions obfuscate reality. We don’t know that Donald Duck is not real.

I guess illusions are great if you want to control children by fixating them on the television tube.  But when the illusions become delusions and create false consciousness we have a problem.

This is how I felt about my last article dealing with the Arizona Democratic Party, criticizing its neglect by not building a core and its failure to protect the rights and interests of Latinos within that state. A small sector of readers reacted as if I were criticizing Holy Mother the Church. 

Their defense of the Democratic Party was delusional. I am accustomed to the excuse, “Well I vote Democrat because it is better of two evils.” I can buy that, but to say that the Party is looking out for the interests of Mexicans in Arizona is a bit much.

The email that bothered me most was from Luis Heredia, a longtime Democratic Party operative. Heredia worked for Raul Grijalava more than a dozen years ago. Since then he has tied his kite to the official Party bureaucracy.  His brother is the head of the Arizona Mi Familia Vota.

Democratic Party politicians fail Latinos

All Politics is Local

Democratic Party’s Abandonment of the Core

By

Rodolfo F. Acuña

The fitness exercise pilates, from my limited understanding of the exercise method, works on the principle of developing “a strong core or center (tones abdominals while strengthening the back), and improving coordination and balance.” The principle fascinates me because it can be applied to almost any endeavor.

          

For example, when San Jose State Chicano professors approached me in 1969 with a plan to start a Mexican American Studies program at the Master of Arts level, I responded that I did not believe that a MAS graduate program could grow without a solid undergraduate degree. My thinking was that “a strong core or center” had to be developed to allow for the coordination and balance of a large program.

The core’s abdominal muscles are the masses of students. The only programs that are subsidized in the higher education are those blessed by the institution.  Logical persuasion would not develop a discipline or method to educate neglected sectors of society. You needed bodies to build the core. 

I have applied this principle to politics. Unless you have bundles of money such as the case of Republicans and you can buy elections, Mexican Americans and Latinos are not going to bring about changes in the political arena. A strong core is essential for coordination and balance to leverage this outcome.

The building of the political core does not depend as much on individual political activism as it does on the core, which is not built by electing Latino elected officials. You can have progressive representatives such as Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva but his power although concentrated at the core can easily be isolated by the system.

In many ways Grijalva is an aberration, elected in an island of Mexican American and white liberal constituents. Even so he has problems raising political capital and he has organized successful re-election campaigns despite the Democratic National Committee whose main purpose is keeping control of the White House.