Latina Lista: News from the Latinx perspective > Life Issues > Human Rights > China Reports on US Human Rights Violations on Day Condoleeza Rice Signs Agreement to Fight Racial Discrimination

China Reports on US Human Rights Violations on Day Condoleeza Rice Signs Agreement to Fight Racial Discrimination

LatinaLista — When news first hit the wires today that China had released their assessment of the U.S.’ record on human rights, the reflex action within the United States was to dismiss it.

(Source: CNN)
After all, it’s China — the biggest country dedicated to communist ideals and for many in the world, the worst violators of human rights themselves. It is the land of the one- child family policy, the Tiananmen Square massacre and the place where human rights activists are jailed with increasing frequency.
It is also the host of the August Olympic Games.
Since China always seems to make the list in U.S. reports on global violators of human rights, China’s stab at creating a government sanctioned document turning the tables on the US is seen by everyone as nothing more than getting even with the US.
Yet, China’s report, the Human Rights Record of the United States in 2007, is more than just a retaliatory document. It chronicles some very real issues that underscore the point that we don’t have to look any farther than our own communities to find the kind of violations against human rights that we see so easily in other countries.

China’s report looked at several issues to compile their list of human rights violations. They were: life and personal security, on human rights violations by law enforcement and judicial departments, on civil and political rights, on economic, social and cultural rights, on racial discrimination, on rights of women and children and on the United States” violation of human rights in other countries.
The report draws from FBI and census data and news sources in compiling a report built on facts to show the world that the U.S. has its own problems.
The report goes as far as to bluntly say: “Racial discrimination is a deep-rooted social illness in the United States.”
To bolster that claim, the report cites poverty, unemployment and incarceration statistics to show where blacks and Latinos are when it comes to these issues.
Unfortunately, a quick look at some headlines would have also sufficed:
Hispanic man attacked, spit on because of race
Robbers Play Cops, Target Illegal Immigrants: Pair Impersonating Police Linked to 13 Robberies — and That’s Just the Reported Crimes
Hate crime allegation added in Yucaipa slaying of Hispanic
Indicted officer may have preyed on undocumented women
Ferraro: Obama got where he is because he’s black
Though it can be seen how discrimination is alive and well, a rather odd memo was signed today by US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.

AFP Photo: US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice(R) and Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim.
Being an African American woman, Rice has most probably suffered her own fair share of discrimination. One has to wonder why she hasn’t been as vocal about racial discrimination as she seems to be in Brazil. The AFP reports:

BRASILIA: US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Brazilian Racial Equality Minister Edson Santos signed a joint action plan here Thursday promising cooperation in fighting racial discrimination.
The text of the memorandum stressed the shared “democratic, multi-ethnic and multi-racial” characteristics of their two countries and opened the way for information-sharing to eliminate discrimination.
A joint working group is to be set up that will meet alternately twice a year in Brazil and the United States to work out specific areas where Washington and Brasilia can work together on the issue, especially in education.
Other aspects call for developing cooperation in employment, lodging, sport and access to the legal system…

Sharing information to eliminate discrimination? Meet alternately twice a year to work on areas that the two countries can work on together? Develop cooperation in employment, lodging, sport and the legal system?
As the China report illustrates: Isn’t it time the US solved its own problems before it tries to solve those of others?

Related posts


  • Frank
    March 13, 2008 at 7:34 pm

    Oh this is hilarious. China accusing the U.S. of being racist and yet they are mostly a homongenous country and they want it to stay that way.
    Tell you what, those of you that think the U.S. is so inhumane and racist why don’t you migrate to another country more to your liking? I am sick of the America bashers who call themselves citizens of this country. “America love it or leave it”!

  • Evelyn
    March 13, 2008 at 8:42 pm

    Any person on this thread claiming there is no problem with racism and bigotry against Hispanics, that the problem is “Illegals” or “illegal aliens” is a sure way to determine that person is a racist, bigot!
    Dicen que, ‘el zorrillo nunca se huele la cola.’ LOL!
    Sign The Petition
    End Immigrant Bashing

  • Frank
    March 13, 2008 at 9:02 pm

    So if there are racists in any given country that makes the whole country is racist? Hmm, that means that every country on this planet is racist by nature then.

  • jose
    March 13, 2008 at 9:34 pm

    And THAT is why I’m subscribed to this blog. Well written, Marisa, and thanks for the info. I’ll link this soon enough.

  • Horace
    March 13, 2008 at 10:20 pm

    Name a country that doesn’t have any racism and I’ll call you a liar. Nevermind China, what about Mexico. You never refer to Mexico’s failures, only the US and now China. The only reason that your illegal immigrants come here is Mexico’s human rights recrord. You use the term “human rights” loosely, even going so far as to use the term in reference to actions that aren’t defined as such under international law. I might use the term “human rights” as loosely and call a government that fails its people so badly that it becomes a gross violator of human rights. I find the forced migratiion of its citizens a gross violation of human rights, one that Mexico should be called to account before the Workd Court.
    I wonder why its so easy to beat on a successful country like the US and neglect Mexico’s culpability as an abject failure with respect to the way it treats its people. I would argue, unlike your buddy Kyle D over at Citizen Orange, that South and Central America scapegoat the US for all their inadequacies. Can’t hold your country together, just point at the US and arrogantly demand that it adopt your population. Reinvent migration as a modern phonomena, rather than a obsolete ritual and call it a respectable way of life. Well, being forced to be uprooted by your own countrymen is no picnic, and something not to take pride in as citizen of Mexico.
    Kyle D compared illegal aliens to the Okies as if their migration to other parts of the US during the Great Depression was something to be proud of. Well, there was nothing romantic about being poor and homeless, and they were greatful to settle down and have a life. But the Okies didn’t more to Mexico or Canada, they, along with their fellow citizens worked for change within their country. Mexico has been in its current state for twenty years now? One has to wonder how Mexicans have the patience to tolerate their subjugation by prostrating themselves before their plutocrat and crooked politicians.
    Korea was completely destroyed during their war, but is now one of the powerhouses of Asia. Why did Korea come up from the ashes of war and Mexico wallow in economic malaise for the past sixty years, when it hasn’t been to war for over a century. Mexico’s plight isn’t the fault of Nord Americano’s alone, and there is only so much Americans will take in the way of abuse from south of the border.
    The US supported a corrupt South Korean government decades after their war, but Korea still managed to become successful. Why not Mexico, which has a democratic government. I’ll tell you why, Mexico lives and die by its culture of self pity, macho bluster and fatalism.

  • Evelyn
    March 14, 2008 at 12:36 am

    No les dije, man they are out in full force, why…???…because the shoe fit!!! HA! HA! HA!

  • Evelyn
    March 14, 2008 at 1:41 am

    Can you please explain to me how the Okies worked for change? Horace,obviously you didnt know about all the American Citizens that were unlawfully deported in the 1930’s. American citizens of Mexican ancestry were run off their property and forced to leave their homes and jobs to make room for the Okies and Arkies suffering from the great depression.
    (a) Beginning in 1929, government authorities and certain private sector entities in California and throughout the United States undertook an aggressive program to forcibly remove persons of Mexican ancestry from the United States.
    (b) In California alone, approximately 400,000 American citizens and legal residents of Mexican ancestry were forced to go to Mexico.
    (c) In total, it is estimated that two million people of Mexican ancestry were forcibly relocated … approximately 1.2 million of whom had been born in the United States …
    (d) Throughout California, massive raids were conducted on Mexican-American communities, resulting in the clandestine removal of thousands of people, many of whom were never able to return to the United States, their country of birth …
    (f) These raids targeted persons of Mexican ancestry, with authorities and others indiscriminately characterizing these persons as “illegal aliens” even when they were United States citizens or permanent legal residents
    Mass Deportations to Mexico in 1930s Spurs Apology
    The Sacramento Bee, December 28, 2005
    By Peter Hecht — Bee Capitol Bureau Published 2:15 am PST Wednesday, December 28, 2005
    Carlos Guerra was only 3 years old when Los Angeles County authorities came to his family’s house in Azusa and ordered his mother, a legal United States resident, and her six American-born children to leave the country. It was 1931. The administration of President Herbert Hoover backed a policy that would repatriate hundreds of thousands of Mexican Americans, more than half of them United States citizens.
    Amid the economic desperation of the Depression, Latino families were viewed as taking jobs and government benefits from “real Americans.” In Los Angeles County, a Citizens Committee for Coordination for Unemployment Relief urgently warned of 400,000 “dep ortable aliens,” declaring: “We need their jobs for needy citizens.”
    Up to 2 million people of Mexican ancestry were relocated to Mexico during the 1930s, even though as many as 1.2 million were born in the United States. In California, some 400,000 Latino United States citizens or legal residents were forced to leave.
    Now California, for its part, wants to say it is sorry.
    On Sunday, Senate Bill 670 – the so-called “Apology Act for the 1930s Mexican Repatriation Program” – becomes official. It acknowledges the suffering of tens of thousands of Latino families unjustly forced out of the Golden State that was their home.
    “The state of California apologizes … for the fundamental violations of their basic civil liberties and constitutional rights during the period of illegal deportation and coerced emigration,” the act reads.
    The words fail Guerra. He is 77 years old now. He is a veteran who served in the U.S. Army in postwar Korea and France. But he can’t forgive, forget, or accept an apology.
    He can’t excuse the forced train ride that delivered his family to
    Guanajuato, Mexico. He can’t excuse the decade-plus estrangement that denied him of a relationship with his father, who stayed behind because
    California needed orange pickers.
    And he can’t excuse being spurned by not just one culture, but two.
    “What is an apology?” asks Guerra, an artisan who makes embroidered furnishings. “I don’t understand it at all.”
    Forced from the United States, Guerra and his American-born siblings had to learn Spanish, adapt to a new culture and endure the poverty of the Mexican countryside for 13 years before his family legally returned to California.
    “The saddest thing of all,” says Guerra, who lives in Carpinteria, “is that I lost my country. This is where I was born. I’m a Californi a native. But it took me years to be able to call myself a so-called ‘Americano.’ ”
    He didn’t fit in either s outh of the border. “In Mexico, they called us Norte�os. They thought we were completely Anglicized, and they disliked people from the north,” he says.
    California’s apology was inspired by the work of California State
    University, Los Angeles, Chicano studies professor Francisco Balderrama and Raymond Rodr�guez, a history professor emeritus at Long Beach City College.
    In their book, “Decade of Betrayal: Mexican Repatriation in the 1930s,” they describe long-term emotional trauma by children, born in the United States, who were forced to grow up in Mexico.
    “For American-born children, trying to adjust to life in Mexico proved to be a very traumatic experience,” the authors wrote. “… Deep-seated scars of rejections by both cultures would remain embedded in their lives forever.”
    The little-acknowle dged history of Mexican Americans repatriated in the 1930s became embedded in the mind of state Sen. Joe Dunn, D-Santa Ana, after he read “Decade of Betr ayal” on a flight to Washington, D.C. Dunn drafted SB 670 with the help of Assembly Speaker Fabian N��ez, D-Los Angeles, and Assembly members Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, Lloyd Levine,
    D-Van Nuys and Lori Salda�a, D-San Diego.
    Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the bill Oct. 7, but vetoed a
    companion measure – Senate Bill 645 – that would have created a
    commission to study paying reparations to survivors of the 1930s
    “I believe reparations are due for the remaining survivors,” said Dunn, who noted they number between 2,000 to 4,000 in California. “There should be some compensation to acknowledge their suffering.”
    For Alfonso Lara, 78, of Davis, an apology – long overdue – will suffice.
    Lara was born in Holtville near the border. He was 7 when his father, a worker in a Los Angeles floral warehouse, died of an apparent heart attack in 1932.
    Soon afterward, he says, some men came knocking on the family’s door, telling his mother, Maria Chavez, Lara and his younger brother, Luis: “There’s nothing for you to do here. Now go back to Mexico.”
    “It wasn’t right. It shouldn’t have happened,” said Lara, who grew up without education on an isolated ranch in central Mexico.
    He later returned to toil in sugar beet and tomato fields near Davis under the bracero program, which allowed seasonal workers from Mexico into the United States.
    On one of his back-and-forth trips between the two countries, he ran into a man who knew his family in Southern California. Lara was stunned when the man told him he was a United States citizen – and had the right to stay.
    Lara, who is now on kidney dialysis and uses a wheelchair, went on to become a farm supervisor and foreman. He once w orked for a rancher, a Japanese American, who used to tell him stories of being rounded up and locked into a California relocation camp during World War II.
    In 1988, the Reagan administration approved compensation of $20,000 each to some 66,000 surviving Japanese Americans who were held in camps during the war.
    Lara isn’t asking for compensation. But Lara, who proudly saw all six of his children go to college, wants his history shared so that “my grandchildren know that this happened.”
    As part of the state’s apology, a monument will be erected at a site to be determined in Los Angeles. It was in Los Angeles where 50,000 Mexican Americans were placed on trains and repatriated in five months in 1931, hundreds were rounded up in San Fernando and Pacoima on Ash Wednesday, a Catholic holy day, and many Latino barrios simply disappeared.
    Dunn said he is working with U.S. Rep. Hilda Solis, D-El Monte, in the hope of enacti ng a federal companion measure to the California apology.
    Jose Lopez Sr., was a factory worker at the Ford assembly plant when his family was ordered to Mexico after nearly two decades in the United States. He wound up cutting sugar cane and died in poverty in the Mexican state of Michoacan.
    “I think an apology is the least they can do,” said his son, Jose
    Lopez, 78, a retired autoworker in Detroit who came to testify on
    behalf of the California bill.
    About the writer:
    a.. The Bee’s Peter Hecht can be reached at (916) 326-5539 or
    Sign The Petition
    End Immigrant Bashing

  • Frank
    March 14, 2008 at 7:28 am

    Hmm, politicians are pandering to Hispanics. I have to be able to speak Spanish to get a job in my own country. We have to tippy toe and be PC about illegal immigration in this country or we will be called racists and Hispanics are discriminated against disappportionately to other ethnic groups in this country? Yeah, right.

  • miguel
    March 14, 2008 at 8:51 am

    Horace wroteThe US supported a corrupt South Korean government decades after their war, but Korea still managed to become successful. Why not Mexico, which has a democratic government. I’ll tell you why, Mexico lives and die by its culture of self pity, macho bluster and fatalism.
    The difference between your comparisons are highlighted. Valid facts to start, your views at the end. Apples and oranges.

  • adriana
    March 14, 2008 at 12:59 pm

    “As the China report illustrates: Isn’t it time the US solved its own problems before it tries to solve those of others?”
    No, the US isn’t going to solve its own problems before trying to solve those of others because there is too much money for us (meaning corporate interests) to make. You could ask the same question of Iraq. Why are we trying to bring “democracy” to Iraq, yet we can’t get it right here.
    As for China, we could put some pressure if we stopped buying so much from them. Wal-Mart is one of the big reasons China has grown so much, but you don’t see any of the major presidential candidates criticizing big, bad corporate Wal-Mart, except for Barack Obama in referencing Hillary Clinton’s relationship with the company. Actually, Wal-Mart should just change its name to Wal-MIC (Made in China). As long as we support China with our commerce and buying power, we are tacitly approving of what’s going on in their country.

  • Horace
    March 15, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    No, I am not comparing apples and oranges. The point is that Korea came from a destroyed state to a modern economic power, all since 1945, while Mexico, having never suffered war for over a century has languished because of its inability to effect socioeconomic change or social injustice. The difference is that Mexico has a culture of corruption and plutarchy that its people lack the courage to overhthrow. Mexico’s failings are mostly of its own making.

  • Horace
    March 15, 2008 at 1:05 pm

    On top of it all, unlike Mexico with its oil and mineral wealth, South Korea has no natural resources but its people. It has a far greater literacy rate than Mexicans, and its people do far better in assimilating as immigrants. I’d rather have 12 million Korean immigrants than 12 million unskilled and semi-literate Mexicans. By the way, English is the most popular second language in Korea.

  • Horace
    March 15, 2008 at 4:31 pm

    “For American-born children, trying to adjust to life in Mexico proved to be a very traumatic experience,”
    Must be as much so for those Mexicans who deliberately drag their kids to the US, but they manage to adjust, don’t they? What of the saintly people of Mexico we hear about, who are so welcoming and kind to strangers. What of the welcoming and open armed families that these deported people go back to? Do they mistreat their English speaking cousins by making fun of their inability to speak Spanish? I guess that much of what we are hearing of the good qualities of Mexico is just legend or lies. Seems to me that these illegal alien Mexicans are making a big mistake by overestimating the results of their demand for acceptance in this country. Demanding residency or citizenship over the objections of any country’s citizens has always resulted in fierce resistance, and in Mexico is would be no different.

  • laura
    March 15, 2008 at 5:37 pm

    We are in a sad state when the government of China, who at this moment are killing Tibetans for wanting their own culture and religion (and whom they call their citizens), can self-righteously point the finger at human rights violations here in the US. And the sad truth is that they can.
    Regarding Condoleezza Rice and Brazil: maybe Dr. Rice should work on safeguarding the human rights of Brazilians here in the US first. Last year, in Massachusetts alone, two Brazilians died in custody of the immigration police. ICE are among the worst violators of brown people’s human rights in this country.
    As the Republicans’ recession goes from bad to horrific in the next weeks and months, they will intensify scapegoating of immigrants. Their corporate media friends will help them with the scapegoating. We need to be ready.
    Have you called your representative about the Shuler-Tancredo “SAVE” (“Deport ’em All”) bill? Republicans are pushing this bill hard, so far without success. Representatives are listening to us, but they need to hear from us.

  • Evelyn
    March 16, 2008 at 1:56 am

    Yes Horace Mexico does have a culture of corruption. That is why it’s citizens are so poor and are forced to immigrate to feed their families. Look who they are in collusion with in their corruption.
    Mexicans Say: Integrate This!
    Katie Kohlstedt | February 11, 2008
    Americas Program, Center for International Policy (CIP)
    As part of a broadened alliance of Mexican civil society groups demanding the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Mexicans from all parts of the country occupied Mexico City’s Zocalo and surroundings on Jan. 31. In a display of unity, in solidarity with their country’s agricultural producers, and the spirit that “without corn, there is no Mexico,” Mexican farmers and others seem to be coming together. Mexico’s movements appear to be united in a sort of “buy Mexican” campaign. This is not necessarily so.
    Some of the 300,000-plus protestors marched against the increasing price of corn, pesticides, and fertilizer. Some marched against the secretary of agriculture. There were marchers against genetically modified organisms (GMO). But at the other end of the march was a contingent of tractors, which had traversed the country to make a dramatic procession down the Avenida Reforma, that sported pro-GMO stickers sponsored by Monsanto.
    Despite these various and sometimes divergent interests, the Mexican campaign against NAFTA is finding a focus. One of the best attended sessions of the recent Mexico Social Forum was on the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), a so-called ” NAFTA-plus” closed-doors agreement stirring concern throughout Canada, the United States, and Mexico that the most undemocratic corporate domination is yet to come. The SPP needs to be on the radar of citizens of all three countries because it ties the issues together into a particularly sinister package. Security, natural resource control, militarization as a response to the drug war, the abandonment of small farmers, and links between NAFTA and immigration are all now brought together within the SPP—and within the social movements that oppose it.
    So Far From God, So Close to the United States
    On several levels the recent march in Mexico City was a national affair. Familiar concerns, such as the illegitimacy of the government and the lack of attention to the needs of farmers, were expressed in the many placards that demonstrators waved. With such a diversity of concerns, however, it seemed as though everyone was marching for their own reasons.
    But certain key issues unify the dissent. For instance, resentment runs high toward the United States and the role it plays in sensitive questions such as the privatization of Mexico’s PEMEX (Mexico’s National Petroleum Company). Halliburton’s signing of a $683-million dollar contract with PEMEX late in January has led to more speculation about the privatization of one of Mexico’s citizens’ most treasured resources. An unequal playing field on trade among the NAFTA countries and the transnational takeover of additional Mexican industries are not going to go unnoticed.
    These inequities are particularly acute in the countryside. A U.S. farmer, for instance, would receive direct or indirect subsidies equivalent to $150 a hectare (2.5 acres). Cross the river to Mexico and the farmer would only get around $45. According to a report by Mexico’s Center for Studies on Public Finance, despite the World Trade Organization’s aim to reduce subsidies, the United States gave out more than $611.3 billion in subsidies between 2000 and 2005, while in the same years Mexico gave $46.3 billion and Canada $51.4 billion. Total U.S. subsidies in 2005 were nearly 20 times that of Mexico.
    One small corn and beans farmer from the Southern state of Campeche at the march asked, “What is this ‘free trade?’ Supposedly it’s for everyone, right? But ‘they’ control it and use it for whatever they want.” A Mexico City native observing the march said, “Free Trade Agreements don’t benefit producers, the people that really work. Obviously, the subsidies that the United States has on grains and agriculture can’t compare with the state of abandonment of the Mexican countryside. Clearly we are at a disadvantage.”
    Sectors such as the sweetener industry have become so desperate, says Dennis Olson of the Institute on Agriculture and Trade Policy, that “the mutual threat of lost markets and livelihoods has compelled Mexican and U.S. sugar farmers to work out an agreement that will give both sides a fighting chance to survive … it could help us avoid another displacement of Mexican agricultural workers who will be forced to migrate north if we allow NAFTA to be implemented unencumbered.” Around three million jobs in Mexico are associated with the sugar industry.
    According to President Bush in his final State of the Union address, the next SPP summit will take place in New Orleans this April 21 and 22. If we care enough about the decisions being made on our behalf, we need to represent our peoples there—Canadian, American, and Mexican, and all the cross-national variations. Our leaders continue to collude with the leaders of Wal-Mart, Lockheed Martin, Chevron, and Procter & Gamble (to name just a few) to lump the issues together to provide a smokescreen behind which we cannot allow them to make overriding decisions without consulting us.
    These hot subjects of immigration, subsidies, and corporate manipulation with disregard for the public are making people angry in all parts of North America. As divergent as the march was, at least Mexicans were motivated to hit the streets. If only the injustices of NAFTA made enough people angry enough to push their governments to do something.
    Katie Kohlstedt (kkohlstedt(a) is Program Associate at the Americas Policy Program ( in Mexico City.

  • Frank
    March 16, 2008 at 10:46 am

    Just because Mexico is corrupt doesn’t give Mexicans the right to migrate here illegally for any reason. They aren’t starving there, they are just poor.

  • Alessdandra
    March 16, 2008 at 12:59 pm

    NAFTA has not only hurt farmers in Mexico. It has also been a disaster for working class people in the U.S. I can tell you personally that half of my town was put out of work by NAFTA when all the factories shut down and moved to Mexico.
    Now if you tell these folks that they have to accept illegal immigrants because of NAFTA, you’d better duck and run.
    When thinking about these issues, it’s better to separate into these groups: the governments and the people. I know in the case of the U.S., the government is supposed to represent the will of the people, but that seems to be less and less the case.
    We are now in the era of globalization and are living through a transition time. The U.S. is leading global capitalism, but countries like China and India are signing on too. So, all of the old paradigms have changed.
    China is actually taking advantage of developing countries even more than the U.S. is. That’s why I keep saying that you can’t look at this immigration crisis in a vacuum. It is merely the symptom of globallism. We are now competing in a global economy with countries like China who have no environmental laws, no labor laws, little transparency. Those who thought of the U.S. as the capitalist boogie man are really going to love China as the world’s preeminent military and economic superpower with their predatory economic policies coupled with political Communism.
    NAFTA and the SPP is all part of this. The end results will be to reduce most of us to worker units, what is now our countries into “trading zones” and the beneficiaries will be a small percentage of global elites. Neither political party in the U.S. seems really willing to put a stop to any of this.
    Those who want open borders for political gain or ethnocentric reasons are only playing into the hands of the globalist elites and helping them to achieve their goals. The “American Dream” will be lost to everyone.

  • Frank
    March 16, 2008 at 8:26 pm

    laura, “scapegoating immigrants”? Did you mean illegal aliens? Two different groups of people.

  • Evelyn
    March 17, 2008 at 11:50 am

    I believe there exists only 1 fringe group that wants open borders, like the reconquistas which is a group of about 30 people who want all Euroamericans to leave. Neither of these groups represent the majority of Americans who are advocating justice and equality for the immigrants already here.
    The immigrants who have homes here had American wives, and children. Justice and equality given to the immigrants that came before them, which is the right to adjust their status to that of legal immigrant.
    The majority of Americans dont want the borders wide open, and neither do I.

  • Frank
    March 17, 2008 at 1:20 pm

    Reconquista has a membership of a lot more than 30 radicals. That is the reconquista that is openly spoken about. It is the underground reconquista movement that Americans should worry about. Illegal aliens (not immigrants) are being used as pawns to achieve that agenda on a much larger scale.

  • Marisa Treviño
    March 17, 2008 at 4:50 pm

    Uh, Frank. I hate to burst the bubble but I consider myself somewhat well connected to the “underground” and haven’t heard a thing about a reconquista. I think somebody is trying to scare you and you are much smarter than that. Come on!

  • Horace
    March 17, 2008 at 5:07 pm

    Evelyn’s comment: “I believe there exists only 1 fringe group that wants open borders, like the reconquistas which is a group of about 30 people who want all Euroamericans to leave.”
    From the UC Davis Law School web site. It would seem that Evelyn’s wishful thinking doesn’t make it so. Kevin Johnson is a law professor who advocates for open borders. It would seem that people with radical ideas are cloacked in the vestments of acadamia. Scary, isn’t it?:
    Kevin Johnson Presents his new Book, Opening the Floodgates
    Tuesday, January 29
    UC Davis Bookstore
    12:00 PM – 1:00 PM
    Kevin Johnson presents his new book – Opening the Floodgates: Why America Needs to Rethink its Borders and Immigration Laws.
    Seeking to re-imagine the meaning and significance of the international border, Opening the Floodgates makes a case for eliminating the border as a legal construct that impedes the movement of people into this country.
    Open migration policies deserve fuller analysis, particularly on the eve of a presidential election. Johnson offers an alternative vision of how U.S. borders might be reconfigured, grounded in moral, economic, and policy arguments for open borders. Importantly, liberalizing migration through an open borders policy would recognize that the enforcement of closed borders cannot stifle the strong, perhaps irresistible, economic, socila, and political pressures that fuel international migration.
    Controversially, Johnson suggests that open borders are entirely consistent with efforts to prevent terrorism that have dominated immigration enforcement since the events of September 11, 2001. More liberal migration, he suggests, would allow for full attention to be paid to the true dangers to public safety and national security.
    Kevin R. Johnson is Mabie-Apallas Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicano/a Studies at the University of California Davis. His books include Mixed Race American and the Law: A Reader and The Huddled Masses Myth: Immigration and Civil Rights.
    UC Davis News & Information/December 27, 2007

  • Horace
    March 17, 2008 at 5:44 pm

    I just checked out your boycott Dobbs site and considering that it’s been around since last October, there are pityful few signatories. You might get four hundred by the time the elections are over, not enough to impress anyone. And I translated some of your buddies comments in Spanish and found such HATE, whew! All in keeping of your can’t we all just getalong sop no doubt.

  • Frank
    March 17, 2008 at 9:25 pm

    Marisa, what I am referring to isn’t about the radicals that openly admit that they are reconquista advocates, covering their faces and carrying signs that say “whitey go back to Europe”. I mean, Hispanic political leaders stand up there and talk about how white people are dying off and they are taking over! There are hundreds of MEChA chapters on college campuses which preach this radical Chicano garbage! It is even seeping down into the high schools. All you have to do is go on any forum or blog and they are all over the place posting!
    Hispanics know that if the flow of illegals from Mexico and other Latin countries continues that reconquista will occur just naturally by numbers without even speaking about it and that is what I mean by “underground”. It is a mindset with a wink and a nod. That is the reason that they are pro-illegal. The illegals are the pawns to fulfill the agenda.

  • Evelyn
    March 17, 2008 at 10:41 pm

    Horace I thought we were talking about Mexicans, isn’t Johnson a white last name?

  • Horace
    March 18, 2008 at 6:04 pm

    Well, Evelyn, it seems that I have to do your homework for you. See this URL for a biography and picture:
    Does he look like a white guy to you? You can always read his book: How Did You Get to Be Mexican? A White/Brown Man’s Search for Identity
    You’re stereotyping Mexicans by assuming that they have to have Hispanic names. Wipe that egg off your face.

  • Horace
    March 18, 2008 at 9:42 pm

    Evelyn, check out this You-tube video entitled:
    Mexican Consul “It’s ours and will be again.”
    One of the Mexican consular officials makes an off-the-cuff remark that insults Americans. If you think that Mexicans don’t have designs on the American southwest, you’re wrong. The Mexican government is providing more and more ammunition for the anti-illegal alien crowd every day.

  • Horace
    March 18, 2008 at 9:48 pm

    “Horace I thought we were talking about Mexicans, isn’t Johnson a white last name?”
    Does the guy at this web site look like a white guy? He’s half Mexican and half Anglo, but his politics are Mexican.

  • Evelyn
    March 20, 2008 at 1:48 am

    All you showed me was the geriatric minuteKLAN bastardizing patriotism and showing their ignorance like they always do. What in the world were you trying to prove by showing me bottom of the trash barrel scum like that? That all Americans are dumb, ignorant, and stupid like these one cell, one neuron, beings insulting diplomats on the video are?

  • Evelyn
    March 20, 2008 at 3:09 am

    Gee Horace no wonder you envy Prof. Johnson. With credentials like his I bet he makes you feel just about as big as a flea. Although I think a flea is probably smarter then you. Here are the profesors accomplishments. Maby one of these days you can beg for enough money to take a bus trip further then the edge of your town, so you can learn something other than racism.
    Kevin R. Johnson is Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Mabie-Apallas Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies at the University of California at Davis. He has published extensively on immigration law and policy, racial identity, and civil rights in national and international journals. Professor Johnson’s book How Did You Get to Be Mexican? A White/Brown Man’s Search for Identity was published in 1999 and was nominated for the 2000 Robert F. Kennedy Book Award. He also has published Race, Civil Rights, and American Law A Multiracial Approach and Mixed Race America and the Law: A Reader. Professor Johnson’s latest book The “Huddled Masses” Myth Immigration and Civil Rights was published in 2004.
    A magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School, where he served as an editor of the Harvard Law Review, Johnson earned his undergraduate degree in economics from UC Berkeley. After law school, he clerked for the Honorable Stephen Reinhardt of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Los Angeles and worked as an attorney at the international law firm Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe in San Francisco. Professor Johnson has served on the Legal Services of Northern California board of directors since 1996, was Vice President of the board, and is the current President of the board. In 2006, he was elected to the board of directors of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
    Professor Johnson joined the UC Davis law faculty in 1989 and was named Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in 1998. He has taught a wide array of classes at King Hall, including immigration law, Latinos and Latinas and the law, refugee law, civil procedure, public interest law, and Critical Race Theory. In 1993, he was the recipient of the law school’s Distinguished Teaching Award. A regular participant in national and international conferences, Professor Johnson has also held leadership positions in the Association of American Law Schools. He has been honored for his service by the Minority Groups Section of the Association of American Law Schools with the Clyde Ferguson Award in 2004 and previously by the UC Davis campus. In 2006, the Hispanic National Bar Association named him the Law Professor of the Year. In 2003, Professor Johnson was elected to the American Law Institute.
    Career HighlightsEditor of the Harvard Law Review, volumes 95-96
    Named Mabie-Apallas Professor of Public Interest Law 2004
    Appointed Associate Dean of the School of Law, July, 1998.
    Published How Did You Get to Be Mexican, A White/Brown Man’s Search for Identity, 1999 (nominated for 2000 Robert F. Kennedy Book Award).
    Recipient of the 1993 Distinguished Teaching Award.
    Law clerk to Judge Stephen Reinhardt, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
    Co-author of two amicus curiae briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in immigration cases.
    Director, Chicana/o Studies Program 2000-01; joint appointment Chicana/o Studies, 2000
    EducationB.A. Economics, University of California, Berkeley
    J.D., Harvard University
    Special Interests
    Immigration Law and Policy, Refugee Law, Civil Rights, Critical Race Theory, Critical Latina/o Theory, Complex Litigation
    Opening the Floodgates: Why America Needs to Rethink Its Borders and Immegration Laws, NYU Press, 2007 (Critical America Series)
    The “Huddled Masses” Myth: Immigration and Civil Rights, Temple University Press, 2004
    Mixed Race America and the Law: A Reader, New York University Press, 2002
    A Reader on Race, Civil Rights, and America Law: A Multiracial Approach, Carolina Academic Press, 2001 (co-authored with Timothy Davis & George A. Martínez)
    Complex Litigation, Carolina Academic Press, forthcoming (co-authored with Catherine A. Rogers and John Valery White)
    How Did You Get to Be Mexican?: A White/Brown Man’s Search For Identity, Temple University Press, 1999 (nominated for 2000 Robert F. Kennedy Book Award)
    Articles and Book Chapters
    Protecting National Security Through More Liberal Admission of Immegrants, 2007 University of Chicago Legal Forum 157 (symposium)
    The Immigrant Rights Marches of 2006 and the Prospects for a New Civil Rights Movement, 42 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 99 (2007) (co-authored with Bill Ong Hing)
    Taking the “Garbage” Out in Tulia: Racial Profiling and teh Taboo on Black/White Romance in the “War on Drugs”, 2007 Wisconsin Law Review 239 (forthcoming) (symposium)
    Immigration Reform, National Security After September 11, and the Future of North American Integration, 91 Minnesota Law Review 1369 (2007) (co-authored with Bernard Trujillo) (symposium)
    Hurricane Katrina: Lessons About Immigrants in the Modern Administrative State, 45 Houston Law Review (forthcoming 2007) (endowed lecture)
    The Story of Whren v. United States: The Song Remains the Same, in Race and Law Stories (Devon Carbado and Rachel F. Morgan eds., Foundation Press, forthcoming, 2007)
    The Legacy of Jim Crow: The Enduring Taboo of Black-White Romance, 84 Texas Law Review 739 (2006)
    The Forgotten “Repatriation” of Persons of Mexican Ancestry and lessons for the “War on Terror”, 26 Pace Law Review 1 (2005)(endowed lecture)
    Hernandez v. Texas: Legacies of Justice and Injustice, 25 UCLA Chicano-Latino Law Review 153 (2005) (symposium issue)(reprinted in “Colored Men” and “Hombres Aqui”: Hernandez v. Texas and the Emergence of Mexican American Lawering 53 (Michael A. Olivas ed., Arte Publico Press, 2006)
    National Identity in a Multicultural Nation: The Challenge of Immigration Law and Immigrants, 103 Michigan Law Review 1347 (2005) (2005 Survey of Books related to the Law) (with Bill Ong Hing)
    Maria and Joseph Plasencia’s Lost Weekend: The Case of Landon v. Plasencia, in Immigration Stories (David A. Martin & Peter H. Schuck eds., Foundation Press, forthcoming 2005)
    Cry Me a River: The Limits of A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools, 7 African-American Law & Policy Report (UC Berkeley-Boalt Hall) 1 (2005)
    Immigration and Civil Rights After September 11: The Impact on California – An Introduction, 38 U.C. Davis. Law Review 599 (2005)
    African American and Latino Cooperation in Challenging Racial Profiling, in Neither Enemies Nor Friends: Latinos, Blacks, Afro-Latinos (Anani Dzidzienyo & Suzanne Oboler editors, 2005, Palgrave MacMillan)
    Roll Over Beethoven: “A Critical Examination of Recent Writing about Race”, 82 Texas Law Review 717 (2004)
    The Last Twenty Five Years of Affirmative Action?, 23 Constitutional Commentary 171 (2004) (symposium) (reprinted as adapted in 29 Aztlán: A Journal of Chicano Studies 171 (2004))
    A Principle Approach to the Quest for Racial Diversity on the Judiciary, 5 Michigan Journal of Race & Law 5 (2004).
    International Human Rights Class Actions: New Frontiers for Group Litigation, 2004 Mich. St. L. Rev. 643
    Driver’s Licenses and Undocumented Immigrants: The Future of Civil Rights Law?, 5 Nevada Law Journal 213 (2004) (symposium issue).
    Foreword: LatCrit Goes International, 16 Fla. J. Int’l L. x (2004)
    Law and Politics in Post-Modern California: Coalition or Conflict Between African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latina/os?, 4 Ethnicities 381 (2004) (special issue) (Linda Trinh Vo & Rodolfo D. Torres eds)
    The Continuing Latino Quest for Full Membership and Equal Citizenship: Legal Progress, Social Setbacks, and Political Promise, in The Columbia History of Latinos in the United States Since 1960 391 (David Gutiérrez editor, 2004, Columbia University Press)
    Integrating Racial Justice into the Civil Procedure Survey Course, 54 Journal of Legal Education 242 (2004)
    Racial Profiling After September 11: The Department of Justice’s 2003 Guidelines, 50 Loyola Law Review 67 (2004) (symposium)
    Open Borders?, 51 UCLA Law Review 193 (2003) (reprinted, as adapted, in 9 Bender’s Immigration Bulletin 256 (March 1, 2004))
    Civil Liberties Post-September 11: A Time of Danger, A Time of Opportunity, 2 Seattle Journal for Social Justice 3 (2003) (symposium)
    The Case for African American and Latina/o Cooperation in Challenging Race Profiling
    in Law Enforcement, 55 Florida Law Review 341 (2003) (symposium)\
    The Struggle for Civil Rights: The Need for, and Impediments to, Political Coalitions Among and Within Minority Groups, 63 Louisiana Law Review 759 (2003) (symposium)
    Immigration, Civil Rights, and Coalitions for Social Justice, 1 Hastings Race & Poverty Law Journal 181 (2003)
    Struck by Lightning? Interracial Intimacy and Racial Justice, 25 Human Rights Quarterly 528 (2003) (with Kristina L. Burrows) (published as adapted in 29 Aztlán: A Journal of Chicano Studies 219 (2004))
    September 11 and Mexican Immigrants: Collateral Damage Comes Home, 52 DePaul Law Review 849 (2003) (symposium contribution)
    The End of “Civil Rights” as We Know It?: Immigration and the New Civil Rights Law, 49 UCLA Law Review 1481 (2002) (reprinted in 23 Immigration & Nationality Review 587 (2003)
    Race, Civil Rights, and Immigration Law After September 11, 2001: The Targeting of Arabs and Muslims, 58 NYU Annual Survey of American Law 295 (2002) (symposium contribution), reprinted, as adapted, in Civil Rights in Peril: The Targeting of Arabs and Muslims 9-25 (Elaine Hagopian ed., 2004) (2004 Myers Outstanding Book Award) and Anti-Terrorist Measures and Human Rights (Wolfgang Benedek & Alice Yotopoulos-Marangopoulos eds., 2004)
    Latina/os and the Political Process: The Need for Critical Inquiry, 81 Oregon Law Review 917 (2002) (symposium contribution)
    U.S. Border Enforcement: Drugs, Migrants, and the Rule of Law, 47 Villanova Law Review 897 (2002) (symposium on “New Voices on the War on Drugs”)
    The Case Against Race Profiling in Immigration Enforcement, 78 Washington University Law Quarterly 675 (2000) (published in adapted form in Human Rights, Winter 2001, at 23) (reprinted in 21 Immigration & Nationality Law Review 531 (2000))
    Race and the Immigration Laws: The Need for Critical Inquiry, in Crossroads, Directions, and a New Critical Race Theory 187 (Francisco Valdes, Jerome McCristal Culp, & Angela P. Harris eds., Temple University Press, 2002)
    On the Appointment of a Latina/o to the Supreme Court, 5 Harvard Latino Law Review 1 (2002) (symposium) (published concurrently in 13 Berkeley La Raza Law Journal 1 (Boalt Hall) (2002))
    Comparative Racialization: Culture and National Origin in the Latina/o Communities, 78 Denver University Law Review 633 (2001) (symposium)
    Regional Integration in North America and Europe: Lessons about Civil Rights and Equal Citizenship, 9 University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review 33 (2000-01) (symposium)
    Puerto Rico, Puerto Ricans, and LatCrit Theory: Commonalities and Differences Between Latina/o Experiences, 6 Michigan Journal of Race & Law 107 (2001) (reprinted in reprinted in 22 Immigration and Nationality Review 459 (2001)
    The Moral High Ground? The Relevance of International Law to Racial Discrimination in the U.S. Immigration Laws, in Moral Imperialism: A Critical Anthology 285 (Berta Esperanza Truyol-Hernández editor, 2002, New York University Press)
    Race Matters: Immigration Law and Policy Scholarship, Law in the Ivory Tower, and the Legal Indifference of the Race Critique, 2000 University of Illinois Law Review 525
    The Rodrigo Chronicles, Latino/as, and Racial Oppression: A Blueprint for the Next Generation, 4 Harvard Latino Law Review 47 (2000) (symposium)
    Race and Immigration Law and Enforcement: A Response To “Is There a Plenary Power Doctrine?”, 14 Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 289 (2000) (symposium)
    Foreword – Celebrating LatCrit Theory: What Do We Do When the Music Stops?, 33 U.C. Davis Law Review 753 (2000) (symposium)
    Discrimination by Proxy: The Case of Proposition 227 and the Ban on Bilingual Education, 33 U.C. Davis Law Review 1227 (2000) (co-authored with George A. Martínez) (symposium)
    Lawyering for Social Change: What’s a Lawyer to Do?, 5 Michigan Journal of Race & Law 201 (1999) (symposium)
    Crossover Dreams: Chicana/o Studies Activism and Scholarship and the Roots of LatCrit Theory, 53 University of Miami Law Review 1143 (1999) (co-authored with George A. Martínez) (symposium)
    Race, The Immigration Laws, and Domestic Race Relations: A “Magic Mirror” Into the Heart of Darkness, 73 Indiana Law Journal 1111 (1998) (reprinted in 19 Immigration and Nationality Review 585 (1999), 2 Immigration Law and the Constitution 217 (Garland Publishing, Gabriel J. Chin, Victor Romero, & Michael Scaperlanda eds., 2000), and Law Through Asian American Eyes: A Critical Inquiry for Multi-Racial America (Eric Yamamoto, Chris Iijima, & Angela Oh eds., forthcoming, 2002))
    Clinical Legal Education and the U.C. Davis Immigration Law Clinic: Putting Theory Into Practice and Practice Into Theory, 51 SMU Law Review 1423 (1998) (co-authored with Amagda Pérez) (symposium on Clinical Legal Education)
    Immigration and Latino Identity, 19 UCLA Chicano-Latino Law Review 197 (1998) (symposium)(reprinted in 19 Immigration and Nationality Review 569 (1999))
    An Essay on Immigration, Citizenship, and U.S./Mexico Relations: The Tale of Two Treaties, 5 Southwestern Journal of Law & Trade in the Americas 121 (1998) (symposium)(reprinted in The Legacy of the Mexican and Spanish-American Wars: Legal, Literary, and Historical Perspectives (Gary D. Keller & Cordelia Candelaria eds., Bilingual Press, 2000))
    Racial Hierarchy, Asian Americans and Latinos as “Foreigners,” and Social Change: Is Law the Way to Go?, 76 Oregon Law Review 347 (1997) (symposium)(to be reprinted in Law Through Asian American Eyes: A Critical Inquiry for Multi-Racial America (Eric Yamamoto, Chris Iijima, & Angela Oh eds., forthcoming, 2002))
    “Melting Pot” or “Ring of Fire”?: Assimilation and the Mexican-American Experience, 85 California Law Review 1259 (1997) (published concurrently in 10 La Raza Law Journal 173 (1998) (symposium)(excerpted in The Latino/a Condition: A Critical Reader 427 (Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic eds., NYU Press, 1998) and Readings in Race and the Law: A Guide to Critical Race Theory (Alex M. Johnson, Jr. ed., West Publishing, forthcoming))
    The New Nativism: Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed, Something Blue, in Immigrants Out! The New Nativism and the Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United States 165 (Juan F. Perea ed., NYU Press, 1997)
    Some Thoughts on the Future of Latino Legal Scholarship, 2 Harvard Latino Law Review 101 (1997) (symposium)(excerpted in The Latino/a Condition: A Critical Reader 198, 488 (Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic eds., 1998))
    The Antiterrorism Act, The Immigration Reform Act, and Ideological Regulation in the Immigration Laws: Important Lessons For Citizens and Noncitizens, 28 St. Mary’s Law Journal 833 (1997) (symposium)
    “Aliens” and the U.S. Immigration Laws: The Social and Legal Construction of Nonpersons, 28 University of Miami Inter-American Law Review 263 (1996-97) (symposium) (reprinted in 18 Immigration and Nationality Review 3 (1999)
    Why Alienage Jurisdiction? Historical Foundations and Modern Justifications for Federal Jurisdiction Over Disputes Involving Noncitizens, 21 Yale Journal of International Law 1 (1996) (reprinted in 17 Immigration and Nationality Review 389 (1995-96))
    Fear of an “Alien Nation”? Race, Immigration, and Immigrants, 7 Stanford Law & Policy Review 111 (1996) (symposium)
    Racial Restrictions on Naturalization: The Recurring Intersection of Race and Gender in Immigration and Citizenship Law, 11 Berkeley Women’s Law Journal 142 (1996)
    Public Benefits and Immigration: The Intersection of Immigration Status, Ethnicity, Gender, and Class, 42 UCLA Law Review 1509 (1995) (symposium)(excerpted in The Latino/a Condition: A Critical Reader 376 (Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic eds., 1998) and Critical Race Feminism: A Reader (Adrien Katherine Wing 2d ed., 2002)) (reprinted in 17 Immigration and Nationality Review 457 (1995-96))
    An Essay on Immigration Politics, Popular Democracy, and California’s Proposition 187: The Political Relevance and Legal Irrelevance of Race, 70 Washington Law Review 629 (1995) (symposium)(excerpted in The Latino/a Condition: A Critical Reader 110 (Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic eds., 1998))
    Death of a Salesman?: Forum Shopping and Outcome Determination Under International Shoe, 28 University of California at Davis Law Review 769 (1995) (symposium)(co-authored with Christopher D. Cameron)
    Civil Rights and Immigration: Challenges for the Latino Community in the Twenty-First Century, 8 La Raza Law Journal (Boalt Hall) 42 (1995) (symposium)
    Free Trade and Closed Borders: NAFTA and Mexican Immigration to the United States, 27 U.C. Davis Law Review 937 (1994) (symposium)(reprinted in 16 Immigration and Nationality Review 465 (1994-95))
    Responding to the “Litigation Explosion”: The Plain Meaning of Executive Branch Primacy Over Immigration, 71 North Carolina Law Review 413 (1993)
    Judicial Acquiescence to the Executive Branch’s Pursuit of Foreign Policy and Domestic Agendas in Immigration Matters: The Case of the Haitian Asylum-Seekers, 7 Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 1 (1993) (symposium)
    Los Olvidados: Images of the Immigrant, Political Power of Noncitizens, and Immigration Law and Enforcement, 1993 Brigham Young University Law Review 1139
    Bridging the Gap: Some Thoughts About Interstitial Lawmaking and the Federal Securities Laws, 48 Washington & Lee Law Review 879 (1991) (contribution to Annual Review of Securities and Commodities Law) (reprinted in Securities Law Review (1992) (Donald C. Langevoort, ed.))
    A “Hard Look” at the Executive Branch’s Asylum Decisions, 1991 Utah Law Review 279
    Liability for Reckless Misrepresentations and Omissions Under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 59 University of Cincinnati Law Review 667 (1991)
    Joint Ventures and the Federal Antitrust Laws: Determining Which Combinations Foster Competition, The Computer Lawyer, Vol. 3, No. 7 (July 1986)
    Immigration Law Professors Blog, (since September 2005)
    Open Borders, Integrated Economy, Sacramento Bee, Nov. 18, 2007, at E2
    Protecting National Security Throught More Liberal Admission of Immegrants, NEXUS: Journal of Opinion, at (Oct. 8, 2007)
    Who Cares About How We Treat Immigrants?, LTVN The Legal Television Network,, published Jan. 3, 2007
    Book Review of Immigrant America: A Portrait, by Alejandro Portes and Ruben G. Rumbaut (2006), Law and Politics Book Review, Vol. 16 No. 12 (Dec 2006), available at
    Radical Immigration Reform: Opening Up the Borders?, LTVN The Legal Television Network,, published on Dec. 18, 2006.
    Book Review of John D. Skrenty, The Minority Rights Revolution (2002), in 47 American Journal of Legal History 315 (2005)
    Book Review of Jose Luis Morin, Latina/o Rights and Justice in the United States (2005), in 4 Latino Studies 169 (2006)
    Is a New Civil Rights Movement Emerging?, Diverse Online (May 4, 2006)
    Comments on Raven Lecture on Access to Justice by Georgetown Law Center Dean T. Alexander Aleinikoff’s (Mar. 26, 2006), posted at
    Gest Contributor,, Nov. 2005-Jan. 2006
    We Shouldn’t Make Policies We May Regret: Mexican Repatriation of 1930’s Should Warn Us Against Quick Fixes, Houston Chronicle, Jan. 7, 2006
    Book Review of Mark Dow, American Gulag: Inside U.S. Immigration Prisons (2004), in 6 Journal of International Migration and Integration 154 (2005)
    Entries for Latino Immigration and Intermarriage in 2 Encyclopedia Latina: History, Culture, and Society in the United States, 344, 371 (Ilan Stavans, ed., 2005)
    Get Real About Migrant Workers, Sacramento Bee, May 13, 2005.
    Stick to Fighting Crime, Boston Review, Dec.2004/Jan. 2005, at 17
    Asian Exclusion Legislation, in Encyclopedia of the Great Plains 139 (David J. Wishart ed., 2004).
    Book Review of Gendered and U.S. Immigration: Contemporary Trends (Pierette Hondagneu-Sotelo ed., 2003), in Contemporary Sociology 33(3) (2004): 304.
    Strom Thurmond’s Daughter and the Enduring Taboo on Black/White Marriages, S.F. Chronicle, Jan. 4, 2004, at D5.
    A Defense of the Estrada Filibuster: A Judicial Nominee that the Senate Cannot Judge, FindLaw Legal Commentary,, Feb. 27, 2003
    The First Latino Supreme Court Justice?, FindLaw Legal Commentary,, Oct. 17, 2002
    Immigration Law Practice in Oxford Companion to American Law 411 (Kermit L. Hall, 2002)
    Race Profiling: Back to the Future?, California Bar Journal, July 2002, at 8
    On the 30th Anniversary of the Chicano-Latino Law Review, 23 UCLA Chicano-Latino Law Review 1 (2002)
    In Memoriam: Daniel J. Dykstra, 35 U.C. Davis Law Review 519 (2002)
    Legal Immigration in the 21st Century, in Blueprints for an Ideal Legal Immigration Policy 37 (Richard D. Lamm & Alan Simpson eds., 2001)
    The Case Against Race Profiling in Immigration Enforcement, Human Rights (American Bar Association), Winter, 2001, at 23
    Race, Immigration and International Law, Proceedings of the 93rd Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, March 24-27, 1999, 93 ASIL Proc. 214 (2000)
    Book Review of Ethic Diversity and Public Policy: A Comparative Inquiry (Crawford Young ed., 1998), 1 Journal of International Migration and Integration (Canada) 512 (2000)
    Foreword — Dedication of The Scholar: St. Mary’s Law Review on Minority Issues, 1 The Scholar: St. Mary’s Law Review on Minority Issues 1 (1999)
    Pride and Prejudice, Latina, June 1999, at 114
    Racial Mixture, Identity Choice, and Civil Rights, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Civil Rights Journal 44 (fall 1998) (review essay)
    Book Review of Keith Fitzgerald, The Face of the Nation: Immigration, the State and the National Identity, 31 International Migration Review 189 (1997)
    Proposition 187: The Nativist Campaign, The Impact on the Latino Community, and the Future, Julian Samora Research Institute Working Paper No. 15 (June 1996)
    California’s `Civil Rights Initiative’ Deserves Our Full Attention, Hispanic Business, May 1995, at 8
    INS v. Elias-Zacarias: Its Disturbing, But Limited, Implications, in Mark Silverman et al., Winning Asylum Cases 3app-1 (1992 & 1994 Supplement)
    The Supreme Court’s Decision in INS v. Elias-Zacarias: Is There Any “There” There?, 9 Interpreter Releases 285 (1992) (co-authored with Deborah Anker & Carolyn P. Blum) (reprinted as adapted in 4 International Journal of Refugee Law 267 (1992))
    Court Restricts Ability of Immigrants to Obtain Political Asylum, Update on Law-Related Education, at 37 (Spring/Summer 1992)
    Judging From a Passing Glance, The Recorder (San Francisco), July 15, 1992, at 7, col. 1
    From Refugees to Rubber Stamps, The Recorder (San Francisco), Sept. 18, 1991, at 4, col. 2
    Reconsidering Refugees, The Recorder (San Francisco), Sept. 10, 1991, at 4, col. 2
    The Truth and Consequences of the Common Law as Social Propositions (Book Review), 23 University of California at Davis Law Review 903 (1990)
    Case Comment, The Supreme Court, 1981 Term, 96 Harvard Law Review 106 (1982) (Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613 (1982))
    Case Comment, The Supreme Court, 1981 Term, 96 Harvard Law Review 278 (1982) (American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U.S. 63 (1982) and Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440 (1982))
    Note, In Defense of Tribal Sovereign Immunity, 95 Harvard Law Review 1058 (1982)

  • Evelyn
    March 20, 2008 at 3:22 am

    After you wipe the egg off your face. You might want to read some of Prof. Johnsons works. He dosent advocate open borders like you mistated. He advocates justice and equality for all people in America, just like I do. He also thinks the immigration laws should allow more immigrants to enter legally on guest worker programs, which I also favor.

  • Frank
    March 20, 2008 at 8:47 am

    Justice and equality = not punishing illegal aliens for violating our immigration laws with deportation that our laws demand. Giving equal “civil” rights to illegal aliens as we do to citizens of this country.
    How warped can one’s definiton of justice and equality get?

  • Evelyn
    March 20, 2008 at 9:34 pm

    Exactly, our constitution states ALL PEOPLE WITHIN OUR BORDERS, your bastardization and unpatriotic interpretation of our constitution shows ignorance.

  • Evelyn
    March 20, 2008 at 10:23 pm

    I’ll show you what is WARPED WARPED WARPED!
    European invaders coming from across the ocean to a Continent inhabited by people of color. European invaders killing, raping, and stealing land and anything else they can get their hands on. After committing all these atrocities calling themselves “Immigrants” and giving themselves citizenship because they are white.
    Mexicans invited here to do jobs Americans refuse to do without earning wages that would bankrupt business owners and make Americans pay through their teeth for products. these Mexicans are called “illegal Aliens” even though they are on land that was stolen from them.
    White supremacists wanting to push Mexicans off their lands again even though the U.S. gov. looked the other way when they entered and the American people reap the benefits of services and products they bring us with their work at affordable prices. White supremacists not wanting to let the Mexicans be put on a path to citizenship because they are not white. That is WARPED!
    Immigrants from Mexico should be treated equal and just like the immigrants from Europe.

  • Frank
    March 21, 2008 at 5:16 pm

    Illegal aliens do not have the same rights as citizens. They never have!
    Go dig up those awful white Europeans from 200 plus years ago. They aren’t us and we aren’t them. While you’re at it slap yourself and the members of your white family around if it makes you feel better. If you want to beat yourself up over the past, that is your proagative. I for one am not going to beat myself up for something I personally didn’t do.
    I don’t know of any whites pushing Mexicans off their land. As far as I know Mexico has harsher immigration laws than we do. Does Calderon know what is going on in his country with whites pushing Mexican citizens off their land? Perhaps you should notify him.
    What is really warped is your lies and distortion of everyting about this issue.
    “Immigrants” from Mexico are being treated just like any European “immigrants” of today. In fact there is very little European immigration today. Most are from Asia or Latin America. I know of no mistreatment of “immigrants” of any flavor today.

  • Frank
    March 21, 2008 at 5:24 pm

    Hmm, reminds of “your money or your life”. Gee do I want to exchange the genocide of white and other non-Hispanic Americans for a cheap tomato? I don’t think so!
    Yep, we don’t want history repeating itself. The native indians learned the hard way.

  • Liquidmicro
    March 21, 2008 at 8:44 pm

    Evelyn says:
    “your bastardization and unpatriotic interpretation of our constitution shows ignorance.”
    Actually Evelyn, it is YOUR ignorance and lack of comprehension in citing a court case which grants “Illegal Aliens” Constitutional Rights under our Constitution.
    Here is a couple court rulings for you denying “Illegal Aliens” Constitutional Rights:
    This Court held, in the case of Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, that the right to exclude or to expel aliens, or any class of aliens, absolutely or upon certain conditions, in war or in peace, is an inherent and inalienable right of every sovereign and independent nation; that the power of Congress to expel, like the power to exclude, aliens or any class of aliens from the country may be exercised entirely through executive officers, and that the said sixth section of the Act of May 5, 1892, was constitutional and valid.
    Once determined by the decision of the appropriate immigration or customs officers, if adverse to the admission of such alien, shall be final unless reversed on appeal to the Secretary of the Treasury.
    “The power of Congress to exclude aliens altogether from the United States, or to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may come to this country, and to have its declared policy in that regard enforced exclusively through executive officers, without judicial intervention, is settled by our previous adjudications.”
    Accordingly, the judgment of the court below denying the application for the writ of habeas corpus was affirmed. Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U. S. 538.
    Thus, in the case of Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 730, MR. JUSTICE GRAY used the following significant language:
    “The proceeding before a United States judge, as provided for in section 6 of the act of 1892, is in no proper sense a trial and sentence for a crime or offense. It is simply the ascertainment, by appropriate and lawful means, of the fact whether the conditions exist upon which Congress has enacted that an alien of this class may remain within the country. The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime. It is not a ‘banishment,’ in the sense in which that word is often applied to the expulsion of a citizen from his country by way of punishment. It is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions upon the performance of which the government of the nation, acting within its constitutional authority and through the proper departments, has determined that his continuing to reside here shall depend. He has not, therefore, been deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process or law, and the provisions of the Constitution securing the right of trial by jury and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments have no application.”
    No limits can be put by the courts upon the power of Congress to protect, by summary methods, the country from the advent of aliens whose race or habits render them undesirable as citizens, or to expel such if they have already found their way into our land, and unlawfully remain therein. But to declare unlawful residence within the country to be an infamous crime, punishable by deprivation of liberty and property, would be to pass out of the sphere of constitutional legislation unless provision were made that the fact of guilt should first be established by a judicial trial. It is not consistent with the theory of our government that the legislature should, after having defined an offense as an infamous crime, find the fact of guilt and adjudge the punishment by one of its own agents.
    Now, Evelyn, please show us where “Illegal Aliens” have rights from “OUR” Constitution.
    Oh, and don’t let your lack of comprehension or your ignorance stop you, for I would thoroughly enjoy “dumbing things down” for you to understand them further.

  • Selena
    June 30, 2008 at 5:56 am

    oh that is rich. I’ve read some comments, and I’m going to say one thing: I’m not an American citizen; nor a Chinese one.
    I’m impartial in this right.
    I belong to a country which has not warred with either America OR China; and I seriously think China has a point. If headlines like THOSE are prevalent in American society… makes me convinced that though you Americans can deny it till your dying day; if you think China can’t have a point because hello,its CHINA!! and of course the US must solve everyone else’s problems (i.e. stick their noses into everyone’s business) because you are American and your country can do no wrong and even if it does, let’s all forget it and attack big, bad China, you’re all color based racists.
    That doesn’t mean everyone is a racist. It means so many of them exist everyone has started believing in a racist belief.
    That doesn’t mean China is as pure as the driven snow either. It just means, start recognizing blame lies on everyone’s shoulders here. Pointing fingers at the other guy doesn’t help. It means that you’re blindly passing judgement in a prejudiced situation, i.e. discrimination; and it won’t help if you deny it till you’re blue in the face!!

  • Amy
    December 7, 2008 at 8:06 pm

    I know I’m a bit late in commenting on this, I just now found this blog. I understand the issue is racism, which I fully beleive is a valid point for the Chinese to make. But What I would like to know is this: Did the Chinese government in releasing this statement take into account ethnic density in a given area? If a town or city has a high majority of a particular ethic group, would it not make sense they would be more likely to be the ones in jail?

Comments are closed.