Sen. Alex Padilla's crime? Being Mexican in MAGA America
Gustavo Arellano,
Tribune News Service
When US Senator Alex Padilla was forcibly removed from a news conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, it was almost as if President Donald Trump's most well-worn talking point came to life: A bad hombre tried to go after a white American. All Padilla did was identify himself and try to question Noem about the immigration raids across Southern California that have led to protests and terror.
Instead, federal agents pushed the senator into a hallway, forced him to the ground and handcuffed him before he was released. He and Noem talked privately afterward, yet she claimed to reporters that Padilla "lung(ed)" at her despite them being far apart and video showing no evidence to back up her laughable assertion. (The claim was in keeping with Noem's pronouncements this week. On Tuesday, she accused Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum of encouraging violent protests in L.A. when the president actually called for calm.)
The manhandling of Padilla on Thursday and his subsequent depiction by conservatives as a modern-day Pancho Villa isn't surprising one bit. Trashing people of Mexican heritage has been one of Trump's most successful electoral planks — don't forget that he kicked off his 2016 presidential campaigns by proclaiming Mexican immigrants to be "bad" and smugglers — because he knows it works. You could be a newcomer from Jalisco, you could be someone whose ancestors put down roots before the Mayflower, it doesn't matter: For centuries, the default stance in this country is to look at anyone with family ties to our neighbour to the south with skepticism, if not outright hate.
It was the driving force behind the Mexican-American War and subsequent robbing of land from the Mexicans who decided to stay in the conquered territory. It was the basis for the legal segregation of Mexicans across the American Southwest in the first half of the 20th century and continues to fuel stereotypes of oversexed women and criminal men that still live on mainstream and social media.
These anti-Mexican sentiments are why California voters passed a slew of xenophobic local and state measures in the 1980s and 1990s when the state's demographics began to dramatically change. Conservative politicians and pundits alike claimed Mexico was trying to reclaim the American Southwest and called the conspiracy the "Reconquista," after the centuries-long push by Spaniards to take back the Iberian Peninsula from the Moors during the Middle Ages.
The echoes of that era continue to reverberate in MAGAland. It's why Trump went on social media to describe L.A. as a city besieged by a "Migrant Invasion" when people began to rally against all the immigration raids that kicked off last week and led to his draconian deployment of the National Guard and Marines to L.A. as if we were Fallouja in the Iraq war. It's what led the White House's Instagram account on Wednesday to share the image of a stern-looking Uncle Sam putting up a poster stating "Help your country ... and yourself" above the slogan "Report All Foreign Invaders" and a telephone number for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
It's what led US Atty. Bill Essayli to post a photo on his official social media account of SEIU California President David Huerta roughed up and in handcuffs after he was arrested for allegedly blocking the path of ICE agents trying to serve a search warrant on a factory in the Garment District.
It's why Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called in the National Guard before planned protests in San Antonio, one of the cradles of Latino political power in the United States and the home of the Alamo. It's why there are reports that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wants to rename a naval ship honoring Chicano legend Cesar Chavez and has announced that the only U.S. military base named after a Latino, Ft. Cavazos in Texas, will drop its name.
And it's what's driving all the rabid responses to activists waving the Mexican flag. Vice President JD Vance described protesters as "insurrectionists carrying foreign flags" on social media. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller — Trump's longtime anti-immigrant Iago — described L.A. as "occupied territory." The president slimed protesters as "animals" and "foreign enemies." In an address to Army soldiers prescreened for looks and loyalty at Ft. Bragg in North Carolina this week, he vowed, "The only flag that will wave triumphant over the city of Los Angeles is the American flag."
The undue obsession with a piece of red, green and white cloth betrays this deep-rooted fear by Americans that we Mexicans are fundamentally invaders.
And to some, that idea sure seems to be true. Latinos are now the largest minority group in the U.S., a plurality in California and nearly a majority in L.A. and L.A. County — and Mexicans make up the largest segment of all those populations by far. The truth of this demographic Reconquista, as I've been writing for a quarter of a century, is far more mundane.
The so-called invading force of my generation assimilated to the point where our kids are named Brandon and Ashley in all sorts of spellings. The young adults and teenagers on the street wrapping themselves in the Mexican flag right now are chanting against ICE in English and blasting Kendrick Lamar's "Not Like Us." More than a few of the National Guard troops, police officers and Homeland Security officers those young Latino activists were heckling have Latino surnames on their uniforms, when they show any identification at all. Hell, enough Mexican Americans voted for Trump that they arguably swung the election to him.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
6 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Heat domes, wildfires and drought: Where's outrage?
As I write this, the temperature is climbing past 100 degrees Fahrenheit in the mid-Atlantic states, and 170 million Americans are under warnings about a dangerous combination of intense heat and humidity. Is this latest weather extreme linked to global warming? Of course it is, as has been the case with record-setting floods, extreme hurricanes, droughts and wildfires that go back decades and afflict every corner of the globe. Amid these extremes, we have the Trump administration seemingly trying to roll back or reverse every environmental initiative of the past 55 years. Yet nobody seems to care. In the early 1990s, I gave a lot of talks about how environmental awareness had become an American value. The early 1970s saw the passage of the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency. Within 20 years, Time magazine was making planet Earth its 'Man of the Year,' and the first Earth Summit met. But now I think I spoke too soon. On June 14, several million people took to the streets in the 'No Kings' protests against Trump's assault on the Constitution, demonstrating that Americans can still be mobilised in support of something they hold dear. By contrast, while there has been ample media coverage of the administration's gutting of the agencies monitoring climate change, pollution, the weather and other environment-related issues, the devastation hasn't produced any major protests. This is all the more striking as many of the looming environmental concerns that provoked action in the 20th century are unfolding faster and causing far worse damage than predicted. To take just one example, climate change is inflicting far higher costs on Americans at a far faster pace than experts predicted back when the public started clamoring for action on global warming. In 1991, for instance, economist William Nordhaus used a model he developed (work for which he became a Nobel laureate in 2018) to predict that 3 degrees Celsius warming would cause a mere 1% drop in global income. As recently as 2018, a refined version of his model predicted that the roughly 1.5-degree Celsius warming already happening would inflict only 0.5% damage to the economy. This number stands in dramatic contrast to a new analysis by Bloomberg Intelligence: In the 12 months ending May 1, 2025, damage from events attributable to climate change amounted to roughly 3% of US GDP, or nearly $1 trillion. Contributing to this number were such catastrophes as Hurricanes Helene and Milton and wildfires in California. While skeptics might question how analysts can precisely measure how much of the damage caused by such events is attributable to climate change, one major tributary to this number is a dramatic increase in insurance costs, and insurers take estimating risk very seriously. Thirty years ago, the president of the Reinsurance Assn. of America told me'global warming can bankrupt the industry.' But the industry, motivated by the competitive pressures to continue to write policies, and protected by its ingenuity at limiting exposure and offloading risk, underpriced these risks well into the 2000s. No longer. As Californians are well aware, many insurers have pulled out of markets vulnerable to fires, floods, sea level rise and storms, and those that remain have been raising prices where they can. The Bloomberg Intelligence analysis found that insurance premiums have doubled since 2017 (and may still underprice risk in many markets), and even those who are insured will find that many of their losses aren't covered, and that government recovery help falls short as well. Climate change is costing Americans real money — $7.7 trillion since 2000, according to the Bloomberg Intelligence analysis. To put this in perspective, it is substantially more than the total costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions taken together. And these costs are certain to rise as climate change intensifies. Given that the administration's actions are going to leave Americans more vulnerable to climate change at a time when weather-related events are already affecting the average voter's budget, it would be natural to expect protests at least as vigorous as those against deportations or cuts to Medicaid. Instead, in the relative absence of public interest, many large corporations have abandoned climate-related policies, something that began even before Trump was elected. Simple issue overload might explain some of the silence. It's understandably hard to process all the ramifications of what we might call the Trump Blitzkrieg — bizarre, unqualified Cabinet appointments, attacks on due process, attempts at mass deportations, sending troops into Los Angeles to quell garden-variety unrest, bombing Iran without congressional authorisation. He has indeed flooded the zone.
Gulf Today
a day ago
- Gulf Today
California residents fearful amid immigration raids
Jackie Ramirez has always been aware of the colour of her skin. There was the school crossing guard who nicknamed her 'morenita,' little brown girl. The uncle who affectionately called her 'paisita,' a country girl. But never has skin colour felt so top of mind than this month, as immigration agents have descended on Southern California, conducting hundreds of arrests. Videos and stories have circulated of people arrested at car washes. Agents picking up street vendors without warrants. A Latino US citizen was asked what hospital he was born in. The heightened fear that kicks in for those 'driving while Black' is widely known. But the recent immigration sweeps have underscored how much of an issue skin colour — and all the circumstances that attach to it — is for Latinos as well. Ramirez was born and raised in East Los Angeles. Her mother was born in Mexico; her father is of Mexican descent. 'You're scared to be brown,' said Ramirez, a Los Angeles radio host for 'The Cruz Show' on Real 92.3. 'You're scared to look a certain way right now.' The Department of Homeland Security has denied that agents are racially profiling. Agency spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin has called claims of people being targeted because of skin colour 'disgusting and categorically FALSE.' But that hasn't quelled concerns that darker-skinned people will be more likely to be stopped by immigration enforcement agents. Latino parents are warning their US citizen children to be careful when they leave the house. Some have taken to carrying their passports in their pockets. Workers at a coffee shop in Santa Ana tell customers, 'Se cuiden' — take care of yourselves — and ask loved ones to text when they get home. Even light-skinned Latinos have expressed concerns. Franchesca Olivas, 24, recently drove two hours from Hemet, in Riverside County, for a protest in downtown LA. She said she drives her dad around 'because he's full Mexican, and I'm half-white,' and he's fearful of getting stopped. 'I'm a white-passing, third-generation Latina and I'm scared,' Taylor Tieman, a lawyer from Los Angeles' South Bay area posted on Instagram Threads. 'To my brothers and sisters — I'm so sorry. This country is failing you.' In another post that has since garnered more than 8,000 likes, Nico Blitz, Ramirez's fiance, who is Filipino American, stressed the impact of the raids across racial and ethnic lines. 'Filipinos — your legal status doesn't mean you're not brown, especially in the eyes of ICE,' Blitz, a DJ host on 'The Cruz Show,' posted. 'This fight isn't exclusive to Latinos and Black people.' Studies show that skin colour has long affected the lives of Latinos — and others — in the US. Among the disadvantages linked to having darker skin are less income, lower socioeconomic status and more health problems. A majority of US Latinos — 62% — surveyed by Pew Research Center in 2021 said they felt having a darker skin colour hurt their ability to get ahead. And 57% said skin colour shapes their daily life experiences a lot or some, with about half saying discrimination based on race or skin colour is a 'very big problem' in the US. But amid President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown, skin colour has added another layer of fear. In January, Native Americans alleged that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were harassing tribal members. A letter sent by nine congressional Democrats to Trump stated they had heard 'several concerning reports' regarding the detention and harassment. 'Native American Tribal members are United States citizens. Stopping people because of what they look like — with dark skin, Asian, Latino or Native American characteristics is never acceptable,' the letter stated. 'ICE's dangerous behavior of harassing American citizens, seemingly only due to the way they look, is unconstitutional and un-American.' This year, ICE agents mistakenly detained a deputy US marshal in Tucson, Arizona, because he 'fit the general description of a subject being sought by ICE,' according to a statement from a US Marshals Service spokesperson. The agency did not identify the deputy US marshal or what description he fit. The deputy US marshal's identity was confirmed by other law enforcement officers 'and he exited the building without incident,' the statement read. As immigration agents increased the pace of arrests across Southern California in early June, LA County Supervisor Hilda Solis released a statement informing constituents that people were being targeted 'based on their skin colour and the type of work they do.' Solis, whose mother immigrated from Nicaragua and her father from Mexico, said she's 'never felt so under siege.' 'It is an attack, not just on our immigrant community, but (on) people of colour,' Solis said in an interview. 'I know there are many people, including folks I'm associated with, friends, colleagues, who have families who are mixed status, and people are petrified to even show up to work, to send their kids to school. And this is harming our economy.' Solis noted that during the height of the COVID pandemic, Asians were being targeted based on how they looked. 'Now it's Latinos,' she said. On a recent weekday, Martin Chairez, a minister at a church in Santa Ana, was walking with his sons when he stopped to take photos of the National Guard troops posted outside the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and Courthouse in Orange County. He had taken his sons there to pray for the community. Chairez was born in the Mexican state of Nayarit and came to the US when he was 9. He was a so-called Dreamer, one of millions of immigrants brought to this country before they turned 16. And he benefited from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which allowed such young people, who were undocumented, to work, travel and get higher education legally. Chairez has been married for 20 years, but he said his wife couldn't petition for him to obtain legal status until their 11th wedding anniversary. He's now a lawful permanent resident. While working as a director at a border programme in Tijuana, Chairez said, he saw asylum-seekers and refugees coming from Haiti, Ukraine, South America and Central America. 'It's quite revealing that no one from Ukraine, no one from Russia is being detained and deported — and they shouldn't be. They also came here fleeing war and seeking opportunity,' Chairez said, his hands on his hips. 'I think it's revealing that people from Central and South America are being targeted but people from Europe are not,' he said. 'And again, they shouldn't be, but neither should the people from South and Central America.' Chairez's wife is Black and his 14- and 12-year-old sons are biracial. When they get older and learn how to drive, he said, he'll have to have those conversations with them 'of what it means to drive while being a Black man.' 'Now that has extended, not just to those situations, but it's applying to almost every aspect of our lives,' he said. 'When we go to the grocery store, when we go shopping, when we're out here taking a walk, are we going to be targeted? It seems like we're now in a permanent posture of vulnerability, and that shouldn't be. That's not just.'
Dubai Eye
a day ago
- Dubai Eye
Trump victorious again as US Supreme Court wraps up its term
The US Supreme Court on the last day of rulings for its current term gave Donald Trump his latest in a series of victories at the nation's top judicial body, one that may make it easier for him to implement contentious elements of his sweeping agenda as he tests the limits of presidential power. With its six conservative members in the majority and its three liberals dissenting, the court on Friday curbed the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, resetting the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents. The ruling came after the Republican president's administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of so-called "universal" injunctions issued by three federal judges that halted nationally the enforcement of his January executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The court's decision has "systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion," said Paul Rosenzweig, an attorney who served in Republican President George W. Bush's administration. Friday's ruling said that judges generally can grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit. The decision did not, however, permit immediate implementation of Trump's directive, instead instructing lower courts to reconsider the scope of the injunctions. The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of three conservative justices who Trump appointed during his first term in office from 2017-2021. Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. These have included clearing the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and ending temporary legal status held by hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. The court also permitted to let Trump's administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labour boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes. "President Trump secured the relief he sought in most of his administration's cases," George Mason University law school professor Robert Luther III said. "Justice Barrett's opinion is a win for the presidency," Luther said of the decision on nationwide injunctions. Once again, as with many of the term's major decisions, the three liberal justices found themselves in dissent, a familiar position as the court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Roberts continues to shift American law rightward. The rulings in favour of Trump illustrate that "the court's three most liberal justices are proving less relevant now than at any earlier point in the Roberts Court with respect to their impact on its jurisprudence," Luther said. The cases involving Trump administration policies this year came to the court as emergency filings rather than through the normal process, with oral arguments held only in the birthright litigation. And those arguments did not focus on the legality of Trump's action but rather on the actions of the judges who found that it was likely unconstitutional. "One theme is the court's struggle to keep pace with a faster-moving legal world, especially as the Trump administration tests the outer boundaries of its powers," Boston College Law School professor Daniel Lyons said.
