Before the first hole is dug for the new 700-mile fence along our border with Mexico, maybe someone should read the latest report from The Border Network for Human Rights.

It's titled 2006 Report on Migrant Deaths at the U.S.-Mexico Border

Basically, it says while migrant deaths resulting from crossing the deserts of Arizona have decreased from "only" 205 deaths in Fiscal Year 2005-2006 compared to 2004-2005 and overall there has been a slight decrease in total migrant deaths along the border, there has actually been an increase in deaths in the El Paso sector of the border — a 100 percent increase.


President George W. Bush's motorcade tours the El Paso Sector of the US-Mexico border region Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2005.
(Source: White House: photo by Eric Draper)


The reports says that for the fiscal year 2006, 432 deaths were reported in the entire border region. In addition to Arizona's 205 deaths, California reported 52; New Mexico and Texas combined report totaled 175.

Thirty-four deaths were reported in the El Paso sector. It may not sound a lot numberwise, but it's a big jump from the 18 deaths reported last year.

Authorities credit this shift to the El Paso sector because of the increased security at other sites along the border, notably Arizona.

The El Paso Mexican Consulate says that of those who have died since January 2006, 24 were Mexican Nationals, 7 remain unidentified, 10 were women ranging in age from 16 to 50-years-old and 10 were men from 15-years to 54-years-old.

The majority of the El Paso sector deaths are attributed to either drowning, accidents from train hopping, dehydration and heat stroke.

This report illustrates one undeniable fact that no fence or militarization of the border will succeed in diverting — desperate people with nothing to lose will continue to risk their lives for a better life, even if it means dying trying.

It was a Page One story in the print edition and could be found front-and-center on the homepage.

The headline reads: In McKinney, illegals are no cause for panic.

The story was basically about how a group of undocumented immigrants living in a trailer park in a Dallas suburb live quietly, more interested in working than thinking about politics — and the local town, McKinney, recognizing their desire just to work, leaves them alone.


Immigrant on his way to do laundry from his home in TX trailer park.
(Source: The Dallas Morning News)

That is, probably until Monday when it won't be a big surprise if Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents show up amid the old trailers to round these people up as they get ready for another day of hard labor.

This time, ICE doesn't have to subpoena the notes of the newspaper's reporter to find out where these people lived - the name of the trailer park was in the lead sentence. It's location was in the second paragraph.

They identify by full name those who responded to the question if they arrived legally or illegally. Reading the story, one gets the impression that maybe these people didn't realize that what they were saying was going to appear in print, distributed to thousands of people, or maybe they didn't know that where they lived was now going to be on ICE's radar, as well as, every fanatic who feels it's their patriotic duty to rid the country of undocumented immigrants.

As a story, it was well-written and balanced.

But the question needs to be asked: Was the trust of those interviewed violated?

During these times when journalists must wage a daily battle for the trust of our readers and the community-at-large, and serve jail time just to preserve our need to keep sources confidential so we can get to the heart of stories that need to be exposed and shared, it seems to be a gross insensitivity, if not a violation, to release such exact information as to bring harm or sanctions to a group, who in good faith, shared their stories with the media.

By providing the name and location of the trailer park and the full identity of these people, the reporter and his editors are, in addition to telling their stories (no matter how sympathetically), are acting as immigration agents themselves.

Was the name of the trailer park essential to the story? Was its location, beyond what city it was located in, an integral element to the newsworthiness of the story? By divulging all this information, does this reporter, or this newspaper, feel they'll be welcomed into other immigrant communities to tell their stories?

The argument can always be made that it probably wouldn't be hard to find that trailer park if someone really wanted to. And that's true, but they would have had to work for it. It's a lot easier to act on information when it's handed to you, rather than go to the trouble and hours of researching and looking it up.

Today, newspapers, in trying to bring back readers, are redirecting their manpower and content to do what is called local or "hyperlocal" news. That means focusing on the stories in their own backyard - stories from the people who live in that community, regardless of citizenship status.

Yet, when one media violates the trust of one group, the job just got harder for everyone.

How can we tell the sensitive, news-breaking stories of people in our communities if we don't honor the trust they have in us?

It's one thing to tell someone's story; it's another to set them up for easy retaliation.

In an earlier posting, Latina Lista wrote about the shock that erupted around Texas when GOP Wise County Chairman, D.A. Sharpe, who is an amateur geneologist, decided to include the listing of AE (American European) next to the candidates listed on the web site who are running in local and state elections.

Since that initial post, D.A. Sharpe, has been called names and roundly scolded for doing that. Throughout this furor, he has maintained there was no malicious intent, and though he didn't have to, he took it upon himself to respond to and keep Latina Lista informed.

The following is the same letter Wise County Republican County Chairman, D.A. Sharpe, sent to all the candidates who were identified by their ethnicity.

D.A. Sharpe shares this letter in good faith with Latina Lista and her readers and we are grateful for that, but what this letter also illustrates is that in this 21st Century too many of us can count on two hands the number of people we know from different ethnicities.

The letter illustrates that there are still too few people of color running for public office and it shows how people of different ethnicities who want to help one another are still hindered by not quite knowing how to approach each other.

Hopefully, blogs like Latina Lista can help in this first step.


D.A. Sharpe and his wife at the Black Tie & Boots Ball in 2005
(Source: D.A. Sharpe homepage)


As you know, quite a bit has been made of the ethnicity identifications on our Wise County Republican Party web site, which now have been deleted. First, let me say that this is a molehill unnecessarily made into a mountain when no inappropriate intention was made at all. Perhaps I can explain and also say that I am the person solely responsible for that. I am the web master and am responsible for all of whatever is reflected on our web site. I apologize to you for any embarrassment this may have been to you.

Certainly both the Democratic and the Republican Parties desire to encourage leadsrship people of African American, Hispanic and Asian backgrounds to qualify for candidacy and to develop into the leadership landscape of our land and of our government structures. Noble intentions are those.

In order for the state party headquarters to know how well these goals are developing, one convenient way to learn is to gather that information when the 254 county chairmen from the local parties submit the applications of candidates in January who've filed for the primary election. The Republican Party candidate form simply had a block that said "Ethnicity."

I am confident that it was intended for only the African American, Hispanic and Asian background candidates (and any other ethnicities which may be unusual among American candidates). In the past, I simply have recorded “white” for our candidates, as unfortunately we have had none recently identified with minority status. Enclosed is a blank of that form.

However my hobby interests clouded the issue at this point. I spend a lot of time researching my heritage and genealogy. Much data has been gathered and several informal books written about those subjects. In my mind, everybody has ethnicity and should be proud of it. So, I simply added what was the ethnicity of our candidates, which happened all to be American European. There is nothing sinister at all in that. Actually, had I been able to know more about all of our candidates, I would have enlivened it with more specificity, such as American English, or American Irish, etc. It’s really difficult to pin point that with so many people. For examply, my ancestroal roots go back to Germany, Norway, Denmark, Belgum, France and England.

In producing a Directory for people on the web to know how to contact you as candidates, I simply followed the idea of full disclosure of what was reported on the Republican State Party’s form, then I even added a few things, such as spouses names voting precinct numbers, etc.

Regarding ethnics who are perceived as being at any disadvantage, I have stood for their betterment and advancement since my days in college in the 1960's. I have today quite a number of personal friendships with people from various racial origins and do socialize with them, in the community, in my home and at my church. My brother-in-law was a desk mate during World War II in the United States Coast Guard with Alex Haley of "Roots" fame. We have always been around people who should be respected and encouraged. Twice in our family’s life, we’ve had African Americans reside in our home as guests for several months at a time. In my late 20’s, for five years, Suzanne and I purchased a home in the slums of New Orleans from which to pursue a ministry to the mixed races found in the inner city of that crime riden section. With regularity, we entertain guests in our home today of various races.

In retrospect, I should have been wise enough to know that most people could not see an ethnic listing of someone perceived as being a part of any political majority as being a good thing. I was naive. I had thought people will rejoice in their ethnicity. However, apparently some folks took it the unintended way and quickly seemed to have labeled me as a racist of Nazi proportions. I certainly will avoid that in the future.

I did feel some vindication from the Wise County Messenger's editorial last week about the whole issue. The alledged inaccuracies my letter to the Fort Worth Star Telegram are the facts that Bud Kennedy’s October 14 article seemed to imply that I posted the ethnic identifications because I am a bigoted racist and assumed most other folks in Wise County would gee and haw to that spirit. Hardly anything could be further from the truth. It may be that I foster good relations among races much more than the averace citizen.

We all are proud of our candidates and wish you the very best. Election Watch Night event November 7 at the Lions Club Hall at 207 North State Street in Decatur! Please plan to be a part of it. We will be there to celebrate with you.

Thank you for your work.
Your political friend,
D. A. Sharpe, Republican County Chairman For Wise County, Texas

There's news of more towns jumping on the illegal immigration bandwagon: the mayor of Rogers, Arkansas wants to declare undocumented immigrants as public nuisances, and the city council in Bridgeport, Pennsylvania unanimously passed a resolution to ban undocumented immigrants from working or renting residences in the area.

Like the lynch mobs of the old West, people are conforming to a mindset based on hysteria, and in this case, misleading information.


A U.S. lynch mob in the 1930s
(source: digitaljournalist)

For example, according to a prominent Dallas immigration attorney, crossing the border illegally is not a crime and never has been. It's a violation of a civil statute.

And as far as the undocumented being a drain on public services.

Well, with each monthly rent or mortgage payment they make and every burger or taco they buy and every television, sofa or stereo they purchase, they're paying sales tax and property taxes which, in turn, go to the county coffers to pay for a good part of public education and health services — just like us all.

So, the question that suddenly occurred to me was: When did this hysteria targeting undocumented immigrants really begin?

It didn't start last spring in retaliation to the immigration marches.

Something so vile has to worm its way through the public conscience before it gets that strong a foothold.

And it really didn't start with Bush's election either. Days before September 11, Bush was making plans to meet with Mexican President Vicente Fox to start working on a viable plan dealing with the situation.

And it didn't start with House Republicans, though they would probably like to take the credit. Their rhetoric resembles nothing more than the parroting of a persuasive script.

So, when and with what did it start?

Historians and people more schooled in tracing the historical beginnings of such hysterical hatred could probably pinpoint several specific events in our history, but for me, negative heightened awareness of undocumented immigrants, especially Mexicans, began with one man and his book.



Samuel Huntington wrote Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity, in 2004.

From the time it was published, debates on how Latino culture was incompatible with our Anglo-Saxon-founded nation dominated the air waves from radio and television to op-ed columns.

And during that time, Huntington's observations evolved into fact to be championed by a people who didn't have enough faith to believe this country could retain its values or its identity.

How ironic that these same people who feared that the undocumented would change the country, are in reality creating a much greater and long-lasting change with their own intolerance and paranoia.

There's news of more towns jumping on the illegal immigration bandwagon: the mayor of Rogers, Arkansas wants to declare undocumented immigrants as public nuisances, and the city council in Bridgeport, Pennsylvania unanimously passed a resolution to ban undocumented immigrants from working or renting residences in the area.

Like the lynch mobs of the old West, people are conforming to a mindset based on hysteria, and in this case, misleading information.


A U.S. lynch mob in the 1930s
(source: digitaljournalist)

For example, according to a prominent Dallas immigration attorney, crossing the border illegally is not a crime and never has been. It's a violation of a civil statute.

And as far as the undocumented being a drain on public services.

Well, with each monthly rent or mortgage payment they make and every burger or taco they buy and every television, sofa or stereo they purchase, they're paying sales tax and property taxes which, in turn, go to the county coffers to pay for a good part of public education and health services — just like us all.

So, the question that suddenly occurred to me was: When did this hysteria targeting undocumented immigrants really begin?

It didn't start last spring in retaliation to the immigration marches.

Something so vile has to worm its way through the public conscience before it gets that strong a foothold.

And it really didn't start with Bush's election either. Days before September 11, Bush was making plans to meet with Mexican President Vicente Fox to start working on a viable plan dealing with the situation.

And it didn't start with House Republicans, though they would probably like to take the credit. Their rhetoric resembles nothing more than the parroting of a persuasive script.

So, when and with what did it start?

Historians and people more schooled in tracing the historical beginnings of such hysterical hatred could probably pinpoint several specific events in our history, but for me, negative heightened awareness of undocumented immigrants, especially Mexicans, began with one man and his book.



Samuel Huntington wrote Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity, in 2004.

From the time it was published, debates on how Latino culture was incompatible with our Anglo-Saxon-founded nation dominated the air waves from radio and television to op-ed columns.

And during that time, Huntington's observations evolved into fact to be championed by a people who didn't have enough faith to believe this country could retain its values or its identity.

How ironic that these same people who feared that the undocumented would change the country, are in reality creating a much greater and long-lasting change with their own intolerance and paranoia.

There's news of more towns jumping on the illegal immigration bandwagon: the mayor of Rogers, Arkansas wants to declare undocumented immigrants as public nuisances, and the city council in Bridgeport, Pennsylvania unanimously passed a resolution to ban undocumented immigrants from working or renting residences in the area.

Like the lynch mobs of the old West, people are conforming to a mindset based on hysteria, and in this case, misleading information.


A U.S. lynch mob in the 1930s
(source: digitaljournalist)

For example, according to a prominent Dallas immigration attorney, crossing the border illegally is not a crime and never has been. It's a violation of a civil statute.

And as far as the undocumented being a drain on public services.

Well, with each monthly rent or mortgage payment they make and every burger or taco they buy and every television, sofa or stereo they purchase, they're paying sales tax and property taxes which, in turn, go to the county coffers to pay for a good part of public education and health services — just like us all.

So, the question that suddenly occurred to me was: When did this hysteria targeting undocumented immigrants really begin?

It didn't start last spring in retaliation to the immigration marches.

Something so vile has to worm its way through the public conscience before it gets that strong a foothold.

And it really didn't start with Bush's election either. Days before September 11, Bush was making plans to meet with Mexican President Vicente Fox to start working on a viable plan dealing with the situation.

And it didn't start with House Republicans, though they would probably like to take the credit. Their rhetoric resembles nothing more than the parroting of a persuasive script.

So, when and with what did it start?

Historians and people more schooled in tracing the historical beginnings of such hysterical hatred could probably pinpoint several specific events in our history, but for me, negative heightened awareness of undocumented immigrants, especially Mexicans, began with one man and his book.



Samuel Huntington wrote Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity, in 2004.

From the time it was published, debates on how Latino culture was incompatible with our Anglo-Saxon-founded nation dominated the air waves from radio and television to op-ed columns.

And during that time, Huntington's observations evolved into fact to be championed by a people who didn't have enough faith to believe this country could retain its values or its identity.

How ironic that these same people who feared that the undocumented would change the country, are in reality creating a much greater and long-lasting change with their own intolerance and paranoia.

When historians look back on the rise of bloggers as a force that either replaced or aided newspapers (viewpoint is up for debate) in making public officials stay accountable for their actions, will bloggers be viewed as dissidents or the public conscience just gone online? As we know, history can be a lot kinder than present reality. There is reason to believe that today's politicians see bloggers as an annoying group with too much time on their hands, and if one lawyer/author is right, our days may be numbered.

Yesterday, President Bush signed what is officially known as the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act.

To the rest of us - it's the Fence Bill.

True there are a host of other things all bundled into this one bill which is now law, but Pres. Bush focused on what it does for immigration enforcement when he signed it yesterday in Arizona.

Pres. Bush signs border fence bill

In Bush's own words:

The bill I sign today includes nearly $1.2 billion in additional funding for strengthening the border, for new infrastructure and technology that will help us do our job. It provides funding for more border fencing, vehicle barriers, and lighting, for cutting-edge technology, including ground base radar, infrared cameras, and advance sensors that will help prevent illegal crossings along our southern border. That's what the people of this country want. They want to know that we're modernizing the border so we can better secure the border.

The folks at the National Republican Senatorial Committee must have either had one too many jello shots or thought they were hired as scriptwriters for the next Jackass movie because those are the only plausible explanations at this point that any of them (and anyone associated with them) would think their website Muchas Gracias Debbie would be the slightest bit funny or tolerated.

Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow

Meant to humiliate Sen. Stabenow because of her support for such things as not making English the national language or endorsing social security benefits for undocumented workers, the web site depicts Sen. Stabenow in the picture above with the Mexican song La Raspa playing in the background.

It's one thing to disagree with someone's opinion; it's another to ridicule them for it, and it's quite another for a national political party who claims to want to be inclusive of all Latinos doesn't even know us well enough or respect us to understand that the only thing that separates legal Latinos from the illegals is a birth certificate or citizenship papers.

Evidently, these Republicans never got the memo when they were younger that all opinions should be respected, even if they differ from their own.

Today, The National Council of La Raza's President and CEO, Janet Murgia, sent a letter to the Republican National Committee Chair Ken Mehlman asking him to remove the offensive web site.

If he doesn't, his inaction should be a wake-up call to all Latino Republicans who think the GOP represents family values at their finest.

And even if he does take it down, it's already showing that this party is so out of touch with the Latino community that they are willing to risk offending a whole community just to humiliate someone for exercising her conscience.

It's a workout that these particular Republicans seem to need very badly.

One of the saddest impacts of illegal immigration has nothing to do with the United States, Mexico, the economies of either country, or even the adults — it has to do with the children.

Among all the hardships the children must share with their parents, as they learn to navigate the U.S. system, there is one thing that most children have to do on their own.

Their parents can't help them. It is something that robs these children of the kind of carefree childhood every child deserves — translating their parents' words, wishes and demands.

There's nothing more heartbreaking than watching a child try to explain to a mother or father what the principal said, or what the doctor needs to know, or what the electric bill says.