Searching for Answers for Illegal Immigration

As has been said too many times, there are no easy answers to the illegal immigration problem. No one is taking down borders. No one is combining nations. The fact is that Mexico itself has far tougher immigration laws and consequences than we do. While we can sit here and whine that they want a double standard (okay for them, not for others) it does nobody any good. So what to do?

Welcome to America

As much as some would love to round ‘em all up and deport them en masse, that is neither practical nor fiscally possible. Like it or not, it just isn’t. But, the opposite – i.e. anmesty for all – is dangerous in its precedent. To offer such would throw open the doors of the entire Am/Mex border and engrave a permanent welcome mat. Not the answer when we are supposed to be sovereign nations with our own economies, our own peoples and our own aims.

Yes, Mexico has serious problems. If they were doing well, their people would stay home. We can’t solve them! That’s up to the Mexican people and gov’t to do. We can offer what aid we have, we can encourage, guide when asked, etc. But ultimately, Mexico’s economy is up to them to resolve. On the same ticket, our problems are up to us – not them. We can ask Mexico to step up and be counted in this, but frankly, whether they do or not, the soup has spilled in our laps and we either clean up the mess or live with it.

No one is saying all the US’s problems are caused by illegal immigrants. That’s simply asinine. And yes, even illegals pay taxes, believe it or not. Sure, not to the same extent that working class Americans do, but they pay, all the same. So, cut the griping.

What about this: Those in this country at this time have an option – Obtain citizenship/work permit within a certain period, say 6 mos, or be deported. The traditional citizenship test is tougher than most of us face in school. At least a working knowledge of English should be required (passed in Missouri, btw), as would a basic reading and math competency as well as basic knowledge of American gov’t and history. In that time, law enforcement (nat’l & local) work together, create a boatload of related jobs – for CITIZENS – and start recording this mess. Set up a monitoring system similar to the beef industry (if we can trace a diseased bovine to it’s origin, why are humans so much more difficult?) and actually use it! Penalize all lawbreakers – American and not. The law is the law and either we stand by it or there is no law at all.

This idea isn’t perfect. There is no perfect idea. If you have one better that can actually be put into real practice, please! Speak up! When we get a few truly workable ideas, present them to our congressmen and get something done. If they don’t act, vote ‘em out. “We the People” means us – no one else will do it for us.

America's illegal immigration problems will only be solved by America.

James McPherson Lecture Tonight!

There are certain advantages to being a university student. One is having an inside track into local events that

Lecture - Lincoln and His Generals

otherwise I’d probably never know about, nor would I realize what an opportunity is was. A few years ago Jane Goodall came to Bozeman to promote her new book. Admission was free, even. I really wanted to go and bring Rachel, our younger daughter who is something of an animal hugger. For whatever reason, other things got in the way and we didn’t go. Probably a once in a lifetime opportunity lost.

This time, that’s not going to happen! Tonight, James McPherson – a well known (Pulitzer Prize winning) Civil War historian – is lecturing here at MSU. Dr. Rydell, my American History prof, requested that we all attend. Absolutely! And I’m bringing my family. And my neighbor. And her family…:) You can see where this is going!

I have one of McPherson’s books, Of Cause and Comrades. We used it as a text for our coverage of the Civil War in first semester American History. It was very poignant in its personal view of day to day civil war life.

So, tonight my four children and I will be sitting in the SUB ballroom, listening to McPherson educate us on “Tried by War: Lincoln as Commander in Chief.”  I’m totally stoked! (Hope my nine-year-old can keep his feet still.) Rich, my husband, won’t be able to be there. He has to drive to Idaho on his regular run. Guess I’ll just have to fill him in on every last detail.

Roosevelt’s New Deal – A Question of Success

New Deal programs put 1/3 of America's destitute to work.

In the decades since the end of the Great Depression, debate has raged in the hearts of tax payers and politicians about the success or failure of the New Deal; President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s collections of legislative actions aimed at providing relief from and a way out of the economic chaos that was the Depression. When addressing the question of success or failure, one cannot simply look at the program as a whole, because it was not simply one program. Many acts were proposed and passed – some to great benefit and some to disappointment. This paper will show five programs in particular that hail the New Deal as a success for one specific reason: that these acts did exactly what they were intended to do – to stop the collapse of the banks and to bring relief to millions of suffering poor. These five acts are: the Emergency Banking Act, the National Recovery Act, the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the Civil Works Administration, and the Works Progress Administration.

The need for relief from the dire situation of the Great Depression is of no debate. The years from 1928 to 1933 saw unprecedented collapse of markets and economies across the nation. Businesses failed by the hundreds of thousands, large ticket sales plummeted to fractions of their earlier levels, millions of workers were unemployed, homes and farms were in foreclosure and people were hungry with nowhere to turn (Henretta 727-728). The inaction of the Hoover administration overtaxed charities to the breaking point. Newly elected President Roosevelt and the democratic majority Congress set to work immediately to shore up a failing economy with a whirlwind of legislative action. (Henretta 739) The sheer speed at which they addressed current economic concerns turned the mood of the nation around. Finally, the people of the U.S. had hope that relief would be forthcoming.

The first act passed was the Emergency Banking Act (EBA) of 1933. To stem the flow of bank closures (nearly 2300 in 1931 alone), Roosevelt “declared a national ‘bank holiday’” (Henretta 739), bringing an immediate, if temporary halt to any more closures. For one day, all banks closed their doors.  In a special session of Congress, the EBA demanded a Treasury Department inspection of any bank wanting to reopen to ensure they had enough cash reserves. Using the radio to reach the American public, Roosevelt convinced the people that their money was better off in the banks than out of them. With confidence returning, the follow-up to the EBA was the Glass-Steagall Act which gave birth to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, protecting deposits of up to $2500 from losses. These two actions brought enough confidence back to banking that bank closures topping 4000 in 1933 virtually ceased in 1934 when only 61 went under.

The National Recovery Act changed the way businesses governed themselves and how they set prices and production quotas. Of those changes, the most beneficial to the American people were the codes that outlawed child labor, set minimum wages and limited working hours for adults (Henretta 742). This group of actions prevented employees from being forced to work 16 hour days, thereby opening                      up man-hours for more employees. It moved children out of the work place, opening up more jobs while improving quality of life for children. And finally, wages were raised to a legal minimum across the nation, paying workers more for the hours they put in.

Bringing relief to the unemployed required a different action – one that would encourage people to continue looking for

There was a gnawing fear of "what would happen" if the Depression continued.

work while allowing them to feed their families and pay for their homes. The Federal Emergency Relief Administration was created to do just that. Its first director, Harry Hopkins, sent federal monies to state relief programs. The money was desperately needed and quickly distributed – $5million in just two hours after Hopkins started. In the first two years, over $1billion was spent (Henretta 742). It wasn’t a long term answer, but it was fast. The masses who continued to go without work were at least able to put food on their families’ tables.

Congress set up a construction program called the Public Works Administration (PWA). To fund it, Hopkins was then named head of a new Civil Works Administration through which he gave $400 million to PWA.  In 30 days, 2.6 million people had jobs. The following year, CWA would hit its high point, paying for the jobs of 4 million Americans. These jobs involved “repairing bridges, building highways, constructing public buildings and setting up community projects.” (Henretta 743/744) Valuable work was being done, and millions of formerly unemployed finally had respectable work.

The first New Deal didn’t continue long enough to see any stability in the recovering economy. When a new wave of recession began to rear its ugly head, FDR brought out phase two – the Second New Deal. One of the many programs in Act Two was the Works Progress Administration, another back-to-work program that “became the main federal relief agency.”  (Henretta 747) Unlike the FERA, the WPA put people straight onto the federal payrolls instead of paying the states to employ them.

The WPA was massive. Running from 1935 to 1943, the WPA employed over 8 million people and spent $10.5 billion. Assignments included construction or repair of over 650,000 miles of roads, 124,000 bridges, 125,000 public buildings, 8200 parks and 850 airports. No one was getting rich working on these projects. Pay averaged $55 per month. But for those working, it was a far step above a hand-out. There were jobs for only one-third of the unemployed in the US. (Henretta 747), but for that third, this was heaven-sent.

What was, perhaps, one of the best “products” to come from the New Deal was not as tangible as a paycheck or a pot of soup. Perhaps the greatest benefit was hope. With the inaction of the Herbert Hoover, hope was in short supply. As an Arizona man was quoted in the text saying, “You can’t sleep, you know. You wake up at 2 a.m. and you lie and think.” (Henretta 737) In 1931, Mary Hamilton, a writer from Great Britain, observed, “…long queues of dreary-looking men and women standing in ‘breadlines’ outside the relief offices and the various church and other charitable institutions. Times Square…is packed with shabby, utterly dumb and apathetic-looking men, who stand there, waiting…there is an obscure alarm as to what they may do ‘if this goes on’…” (Henretta 732) Through these programs that hope and optimism returned. Americans could finally believe there would be an end to the hunger and destitution.

Three of the aforementioned programs were effective here in Montana. The Civil Works Administration “put 20,000 Montanans to work within three months.”  Due to mismanagement, it was replaced by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, first giving direct relief and then employment. But the most present was again the Works Progress Administration which employed up to 21,000 people in the state.  “The [dormitory] project allowed rural children to stay in school, eased the financial burden of their families and gave (cook) MacLean pride in her own labor.” (Murphy 52) Other projects included “schools, roads, bridges, dams, stadiums, parks, swimming pools, tennis courts, fairgrounds, golf courses, water and sewage systems, airports, fish hatcheries, fences, sidewalks and curbs.” (Murphy 53) The work was valuable, honest and a worthy trade for the pay. Finally, people who were unable to grow crops on drought stricken land had a chance to feed their families from the fruit of their own labor.

These programs that made up the “New Deal” weren’t panaceas. Some programs didn’t provide much good at all. But these five brought desperately needed relief to millions, kept banks open, and even encouraged investment. It would take the Second World War to finally bring comprehensive relief to the nation, but in the mean time, the New Deal gave millions of people the ability to hold on.

Searching for Eleanor Roosevelt

Again, my favorite class intrigued me with a tidbit to pursue. In American History, Dr. Robert Rydell closed class by bringing the McCarthy era home to us. He told our class about a gentleman who used to be part of the MSU staff, Robert Dunbar, and his invitation to First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt to come speak here at the (then) Montana State College.

Even Eleanor Roosevelt was accused of communism for her support and activity with the UN.

For those who didn’t know, Mrs. Roosevelt had been a signer in the formation of the United Nations. She worked feverishly to alleviate hunger and suffering across the world in the aftermath of World War II. But since, in the eyes of Senator Joseph McCarthy, the UN weakened America, anyone supporting it – and especially those who were instrumental in creating it! – was seeking the destruction of America and must therefore be Communist.

At the time, then MSC President Roland Renne had some political ambitions and was seeking the office of Governor of Montana. He had grave concerns regarding Mrs. Roosevelt’s pending visit and how it would reflect on him. Fearing association with a suspected Communist sympathizer, Mr. Renne actually had the audacity to deny Mrs. Roosevelt a place on campus to speak! She was only able to take her plans into downtown Bozeman and speak at another venue (Dr. Rydell wasn’t sure which. If I’m able to find out, I’ll update this.)  Dr. Dunbar was flabbergasted, of course, but powerless to do anything about it.  Mrs. Roosevelt stepped up to speak on a stage completely draped in red – the carpet, the podium cover, the curtains, all of it. The implication was obvious. Still, she went on to deliver her message to a packed house.

Dr. Dunbar, in the meantime, was accused of communism by the Bozeman community. He received numerous death threats, kidnapping threats aimed at his children and other persecution. Like Mrs. Roosevelt, Dunbar wasn’t deterred. He went on to form the school’s first Peace Corps chapter – a group that in 2008 received recognition from the parent organization for high volunteerism and service.

What I found most perplexing was the near complete lack of information available about this episode with Mrs. Roosevelt. There is a very brief mention on the University’s website (historical page) and, so far as I have found, nothing else. Why? Perhaps it wasn’t (isn’t?) considered noteworthy. That may be, but looking at the utter nonesense that otherwise finds its way into historical documents, this seems at least as memorable or significant. Perhaps it’s a splotch of mud on our shining coat. No one today likes to be remembered as reactionary or worse, duped.

Most likely, I’m just not looking in the right place. That’s what I’m hoping. If true, then once more, I’ll update this when more facts are known. In the mean time, here’s looking forward to more of Dr. Robert Rydell’s classes. May they all be as thought provoking as this series have been!

History of the Pledge of Allegiance

We had a rather interesting class in American History this week. My professor, Dr. Robert Rydell, gave us a brief history of the Pledge of Allegiance. I’ve always known it had been changed a time or two over the years, like adding the words “under God” in the 1950s. But I had no idea the evolution the Pledge has gone through!

First, a little background. The pledge was the effort of Francis Bellamy in August, 1892. According to Dr. Rydell, the Pledge was written for children in celebration of the 400th anniversary of Columbus’ landing in the New World. It would be published in the Boston magazine, “The Youth’s Companion”. The words to the Pledge were sent to school children all over the country. The original Pledge holds only limited resemblance to the words we recite today:

From 1892: I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Dr. Rydell showed us the differences in how people saluted the flag in that day. First, the salute – known as Bellamy’s Salute – began the same as a military salute, at the eyebrow. That would be held as people said the words, “I pledge allegiance to”. As they then said, “my flag…” the right hand was extended from the salute to a reach toward the flag, hand still open with fingers together. It was held there until the pledge was finished.

Changes were not long in coming. First of all, the word “to” was added before “the republic” almost immediately. Larger changes took a bit longer.

This was a time in the US when immigration was becoming vastly unpopular, the economy was in turmoil due to over-production, a series of labor strikes and subsequent economic “panics” and an influx of European and Asian immigrants. Concern grew among some groups, including some national leaders, that those immigrants would be pointing to the US flag, while privately intending their “pledge of allegiance” to their own flag back home. Thus, in 1923 at a National Flag Conference in Washington, DC, “my flag” was changed to “the flag of the United States of America”.

In the 1940s when the US was at war with Nazi Germany, the dreaded “Heil, Hitler” salute was all too close to the part of our salute raised to the flag. The American salute to the flag was changed to the “hand over heart” that we do today.

In 1942, the Pledge was made an official part of displaying the American flag, as part of an effort “to codify and emphasize the existing rules and customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the United States of America,” Congress enacted a Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.” [H.R. Rep. No. 2047, 77th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1942)]

The final big change came in 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved adding the words, “under God”. He said, “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.”

In 2002, Michael Newdow, an atheist and attorney, filed suit in the 9th District Court seeking to ban the Pledge because it purported to teach monotheism to his daughter. With various decisions, overturnings, and refilings for different plaintiffs, the Eastern District Court of California declared mandatory teacher-led recitation of the Pledge to be unconstitutional. Since then, other states have taken their own paths, some allowing voluntary recitation, others dropping it all together. Some, including New York, require it to be read each day. The United States Congress, Supreme Court and other organizations recite the Pledge at session openings.

Resources:

“Francis Bellamy”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bellamy
Lectures: Dr. Robert Rydell, American History 102, Montana State University, Bozeman
Newdow v The Congress of the United States, et al (NO. CIV. S-05-17 LKK/DAD)
“The Pledge of Allegiance”, John W. Baer, http://oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm

Lessons from El Mozote

note:  This was a “short paper” I wrote for a class, Latin American History, at Montana State University. It was a commentary on Mark Danner’s book, The Massacre at El Mozote, which proved to be a rude awakening to a devout American. I still believe in this great nation. I just can’t be as naive as I once was.

The term “dirty war” was originally used to describe the government sponsored combat in Argentina against leftist guerrillas in the 1970s, killing subversives by the tens of thousands. The same term was used in Mark Danner’s Book, The Massacre at El Mozote, to describe a similar operation in El Salvador in the early 1980s. (Danner, 25) In this book, Danner gives a glimpse into the efforts used by Salvadoran government and by extension its army, to contain revolutionary changes during the Cold War period.  Those measures, made acceptable to them in consideration of the history of civilian support of the rebels, were military tactics such as their so-called “Hammer and Anvil”, a scorched earth policy, and wholesale brutality (including the subsequent lies to cover it up).  Although there is no evidence that US forces directly took part in the atrocities, Atlacatl (Salvadoran army) leaders were largely taught and their army funded by the United States government with full knowledge of the actions they supported.

The Salvadoran army had faced guerrillas in the past.  Rebel forces frequently lived among, did business with and even recruited from small towns in the mountains.  In the late 1970s, radical priests had brought their congregations to believe in the leftist causes.  Many of the youth would, at the guerrillas’ bidding, join the national army “in order to receive military training and gain firsthand knowledge of the enemy…” (Danner 30)  They provided intelligence to the guerillas and later left the army and joined them (leftist forces). “By 1980, small groups of young guerrillas were operating throughout northern Morazán, drawing food and support from sympathetic peasants, and launching raids from time to time against the National Guard posts in the towns.” (Danner 31)   Of course, the fact that the people of El Mozote had stepped out of that mold, refusing to actively support either the military or the rebels didn’t seem to matter to the government. The ERP (guerrilla forces) understood that the people of El Mozote only cooperated “at the lowest level” so as not to bring any harm on their town. A rebel called Licho said, “Sometimes they sold us things, yes, but they didn’t want anything to do with us.” (Danner 18/19)

Hammer and Anvil was a general term for any method of counter-guerrilla fighting that would “expel the guerrillas from the zone”.  The intended effect was to get rid of the rebel-imposed Marxist-Leninist system, hoping to break “the support of the people they [the guerrillas] had indoctrinated.” (Danner 41) This method was largely ineffective for several reasons.  First, it required a large military force to maintain the territory taken, and the army didn’t have enough troops or equipment. Second, there were disagreements among the army personnel as to what to do with the town or people. Civilians were often accused of being subversives and were killed. (Danner 41). After a short time, the army would move out. The guerrillas would move back in and any progress would be lost.    The end result was only a few rebels killed and the civilian support was not broken. (Danner 42)

Those whom the army had captured didn’t rate the word “rebel” or “guerrilla”.  Instead the army called them “delinquent terrorists” and all civilians in that zone “masas” or guerrilla supporters.  That turned the civilians into legitimate targets for the army. (Danner 42)  The Salvadoran government adopted the stand, “If you’re not with me you’re against me. And if you’re against me, I have to destroy you.” (ibid)

Although El Mozote was known to not support the rebels, they didn’t much more support the army.  The minimal courtesy they gave to each force was by and large uniform, not showing favoritism to one or the other.

The “Hammer and Anvil” had already been tried out at El Rosario in 1980.  Assuming that most of the townspeople were guerrilla supporters, the army pushed them down into the city center where the plan was to annihilate them with artillery.  The push (Hammer) came by way of armed combat lasting two weeks.  The Anvil portion was never fulfilled as intended. While about 40 civilians were killed directly by the soldiers, a far greater slaughter was averted because the officers couldn’t agree on who was enemy and who wasn’t. (Danner 43/44)  When the killing was over and survivors escaped, the “scorched earth” part began.  With only a few people remaining in El Rosario, “the soldiers burned all the corps they could find.” (Danner 44) With nothing to sustain them, peasants from Morazán headed north to Honduras.

A year later, El Mozote would not be so fortunate.

The people of El Mozote trusted the army.  In the past there had been no reason not to.  Everyone knew they weren’t rebel supporters, so the Atlacatl (LTC Monterrosa’s elite American trained army) would have no argument with them.  So, when army personnel told a well-respected member of the community, Marco Díaz, that people would be safer in their homes than fleeing into the mountains, he believed it. So did the rest of the small town. (Danner 17)  After all, why would they lie?

El Mozote

The hammer worked perfectly. People from surrounding areas all gathered in the homes of family or friends in El Mozote, resting on the reassurances of the army and of Marco Díaz. The wholesale slaughter and depraved degradation that followed defies comprehension. (Danner 68-84)  If the rapes, beheadings, hangings, impalings, and other atrocities were policy, the only evidence in Danner’s book were the words of one captain who told his men, “What we did yesterday, what we’ve been doing on this operation, this is what war is, gentlemen.” (Danner 82)

Some may call it rogue, some may call it policy. This was the “dirty war”. The rest of El Salvador was not exempt. As shown towards the beginning of this book, many cities shared the “mutilated corpses” and “headless or faceless” bodies showing evidence of many of the same atrocities and some even worse. (Danner 25) The use of “death squads” was “organized by the Salvadoran Army officers…and the American Embassy was well aware of it.” (Danner 27)

Monterrosa’s claim that the guerrillas needed their masses (wives, children, community support that followed the camp) and in the fighting some of these women and children would be killed smacked of excuse and alibi more than policy. (Danner 170) El Mozote was not a town of masas but of civilians without rebel connections. Once discovered, these ruthless actions were followed by a steady flow of lies from Salvadoran ambassador to the United States, Ernesto Gallont, who rejected “emphatically that the Army of El Salvador [killed] women and children.”  He claimed, “It is not within the armed institution’s philosophy to act like that.” (Danner 183) Later, when faced with having to answer questions regarding the massacre, Defense Minister Garcia said, “I’ll deny it and prove it fabricated.” (Danner 202)

The US involvement began long before El Mozote was an issue.  Located in Panama, The School of the Americas was started by the US back in the 1940s, training Latin American military officers “in psychological warfare, counterinsurgency, interrogation techniques, and infantry and commando tactics.” (Bourgeois, thirdworldtraveler.com)  According to a website sponsored by an organization that believes the SOA to be more of a “School of Assassins”, out of the 12 Salvadoran officers indicated in the El Mozote incident, 10 were graduates of the SOA. (ibid)

The United States was in a difficult position at this time.  With one strongly communist nation sitting 80 miles off Miami beach, President Reagan was loathe to allow another any sort of foothold in Central or South America if he could at all stop it.  Funding from the US assured a democratic influence in El Salvador, so Reagan thought.  But with a poor track record on human rights abuses, that funding would stop if El Salvador could not show “a concerted and significant effort to comply with internationally recognized human rights.” Reagan had just signed off on the certification of that effort, but the reports published in four newspapers could have derailed all of it.

Pressure from Amnesty International, the ACLU, the National Council of Churches and other civil and human rights groups pushed Congress into opening an investigation into the events in Morazán. Despite the best efforts of Ambassador Hinton (Danner 201 – 203), LTC Monterrosa (Danner 203 – 206), and Assistant Secretary of State Enders (Danner 208 – 224) the horrific events were disclosed and participants exposed. Enders protected the decision to continue funding for all he was worth, twisting the words of the panel, quoting “this Foreign Affairs Committee” without addressing in the least the question posed by Mr. Solarz and otherwise avoiding divulging incriminating information that could overturn certification. (Danner 219-221)

The strong arm tactics used in El Salvador and the continued funding and training by the United States showed a tendency to place the value of human life far below political ambition and perceived political/ideological threats. The use of death squads and “scorched earth” tactics, then deception, denial and fraud to cover it up don’t speak well of either nation.

Work Cited:

Danner, Mark. The Massacre at El Mozote. New York: Vintage – Random. 1994. Print.

Bourgeois, Roy. “The School of the Americas”. Third World Traveler. SOA Watch, 08 May 2002. Web. 28 Nov. 2009.

What is a History Lizard?

This article has been moved. I can’t figure how to move the whole thing, comments and all, so they just get to keep this seat warm.