Dear Mexican: Six generations of my family have been born and raised in Brownsville, Texas. Everyone speaks Spanish most of the time. Right now, almost every Republican in the state is trying to redistrict Texas so that the bumper crop of Mexican-American candidates are kept from coming up. They passed voter-ID laws recently, and you begin to get the idea after a few citizen deportations to Mexico that the Texan Republican Legislature doesn’t really like us.
Ron Paul has gotten some trace traction with Puerto Ricans and Florida Hispanics recently. That doesn’t fix the fact that all of his homies in Texas who have voted for him every year HATE LOCAL HISPANICS. His rhetoric sounds good sometimes, because it seems so constitutional.
Can you take a quick look at his immigration and border policies and tell me what kind of mess it would make (or not) for a Mexican American to pick Ron Paul?
Valley Vato
Dear Wab: I actually know more than a few Mexicans who are Ron Paul supporters (shout-out to P. Sergio!), because—as I’ve noted many times before—Mexicans are natural libertarians: They want the government out of their lives, hate the drug war, and love money.
But when it comes to the issue of immigration, Paul is two tacos short of a combo plate. For a man who believes in open commerce, he wants to severely regulate immigration. For someone who believes in people being able to determine their own lives free of governmental diktat, he doesn’t support the DREAM Act and wants to repeal birthright citizenship. For someone so right-on about America’s imperial wars, he’d have America’s military patrol the U.S-Mexico border.
The fact that Ron Paul’s immigration policy is basically no different than that of his Republican colleagues—in the face of an otherwise-impressive policy platform—is costing him millions of Mexi votes and is the biggest disappointment a liberty-loving Mexican has faced since the Mexican national soccer team.
Unlike many gabachas living in Tucson, I love living in a bilingual city and am trying to learn to speak better Spanish. Because of this, I am watching a lot of Spanish-language television.
My problem? I am a science-fiction nerd. Although I enjoy the novelas, horror movies and game shows, I haven’t found any good science-fiction shows to watch. I see lots of Mexicans at comic book/sci-fi cons/movies, and superhero and Star Wars cosplay seems popular with the kids, so the genre must have enough fans to support some programs. Where can I look for Spanish shows with spaceships and lots of pew-pew-pew?
Where No Gabacha Has Gone Before
Dear Gabacha: Gracias for reminding people outside of Southern Arizona that normal gabachos live in Tucson, and the city’s isn’t just spree-killers and Know Nothings who ban Mexican-American studies and books by Sherman Alexie from schoolchildren, lest Mexi kids learn and shit.
As for your query: I take it you haven’t mined the canon of Santo, the legendary silver-masked wrestler. He fought diabolical brains, evil brains and plain-ol’ invading Martians when not fending off vampire women and other horror tropes. There was a chingón 2008 indie movie, Sleep Dealer, that was like Blade Runner meets Born in East L.A., and UCLA had a film retrospective of Mexican sci-fi from the 1950s a couple of years ago.
But the greatest example of Mexican sci-fi, as you noted, is the Star Wars galaxy—I’ll mention the examples of Chuy Baca and Arturito, and leave ustedes to divine the rest!
This article appears in Feb 9-15, 2012.
Your statements about Ron Paul are very disingenuous to say the least. First, you claim that “when it comes to the issue of immigration, Paul is two tacos short of a combo plate.” Then, you go on to say, “For a man who believes in open commerce, he wants to severely regulate immigration.” Since when does regulating immigration have anything to do with “open commerce” which is your choice of words, not mine or Ron Paul’s? Sounds to me like you’re advocating open borders and giving up our national sovereignty. What Ron Paul advocates is a sound immigration policy and protection of our borders to stop the flow of illegal immigration, as well as defend our national security and the sovereignty of the United States. What’s wrong with that? There’s a difference between trading goods and services with other countries and allowing unregulated immigration. No country can maintain its sovereignty without some form of regulation on immigration. What Ron Paul believes in, as well as the majority of U.S. citizens, is a strong economy based on sound money and the free market system, along with a strong national defense. You further claim that “For someone who believes in people being able to determine their own lives free of governmental diktat, he doesn’t support the DREAM Act and wants to repeal birthright citizenship.” Ron Paul does not support the “DREAM ACT” precisely for the reason you stated. First, what does the “DREAM ACT” have to do with people being able to determine their own lives. The fact is there are and should be consequences to people’s actions. The “DREAM ACT” is asking government to intervene and dictate that certain people should not be required to accept the consequences of the actions of their parents who entered the United States illegally. Instead, it asks the government to reward a certain group of people regardless of the illegal behavior of their parents. Ron Paul believes, and so do most U.S. citizens, that illegal activity should be punished, not rewarded. The government should not be passing laws like the “DREAM ACT,” which undermines the rule of law and subjects the U.S. taxpayers to an undue burden. In addition, he believes along with the majority of U.S. citizens, that it is a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution to grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens just because the child was born on U.S. soil. There is nothing within the Constitution or Billl of Rights which gives the federal government the authority to grant citizenship to the children of (illegal aliens) people who entered or are otherwise in the United States illegally. Furthermore, how can you agree that Ron Paul is “so right-on about America’s imperial wars,” yet you do not agree that the best use of America’s military would be to have them patrol the U.S-Mexico border, as well as the U.S.-Canada border? Surely, you recognize that it is more important to the United States’ national security and indeed U.S. soveriegnty that the U.S. military protect our borders, not policing the world, nation building and protecting the borders of other nations. It’s not very difficult to tell with whom your loyalties lie. It’s quite obvious you do not share the same loyalty for the United States or your fellow U.S. citizens as you do for illegal immigrants.
It amazes me that there are people who are against the Dream Act. Many of the Dreamers were brought here by there parents when they were very young. The Dreamers grew up in the United States and are very integrated into the culture. Why would anyone be against these bright young people getting an education or serving in the military, thereby obtaining their citizenship? The United States would be shooting it’s self in the foot to lose this talent.
Doing away with birthright citizenship is just pure bigotry.
Free market capitalism, promoted by the Libertarians has never worked. We had that prior 1929 and capitalism collapsed. A good dose of Keynesian economics, strong labor unions and being the only industrialized country intact after WW2, saved the day.
Libertarians are just, mean spirited, self-absorbed Republicans who want to legalize drugs because they want to smoke dope.