Bakotopia

All > Discussions
No welcome mat
Topics: David Couch, immigration, illegal, Proposal, Resolution, July, 2007, Bakersfield, Bakotopia, City Council, Paola Fernandez, Huerta, opinion
Posted by Bakontributor Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:07:31 PDT
Viewed 431 times
0 responses 11 comments Location: 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301

No welcome mat
Local student weighs in on controversial immigration proposal by city councilman

By Paola Fernandez, Bakotopia.com Contributor

Editor’s note: Bakersfield City Councilman David Couch recently proposed a controversial list of resolutions regarding undocumented immigrants at Bakersfield City Hall on July 18.
Local citizens and political activists, including members of the UFW and the Dolores Huerta Foundation, packed the meeting hall seats to give public statements for and against Couch’s proposal.

In his list of resolutions, Couch proposes that Bakersfield:
• Declare English the official language of the Bakersfield.
• Declare that the city is not a “sanctuary city” for undocumented immigrants.
• Staff would determine whether any city services can be withheld from undocumented immigrants.

I am disappointed that Councilman David Couch has joined the many politicians who fail to see that undocumented immigrants are an important part of our society.

Instead of politicizing the immigration issue, Councilman Couch should remember that everyone living in Bakersfield is part of the community and pays taxes, regardless of their immigration status.

Bringing our undocumented population out of the shadows is what would really help this community, because once workers and students are legalized, they will have the potential to further contribute to society.

Couch’s resolutions would not lead Bakersfield in a positive direction because they are divisive and tactless.

For example, one of Couch’s resolutions wants to explore which city services can be denied to undocumented people, but he knows that it is in the best interest of the city to continue to provide at least garbage pick-up and emergency services from the police and fire department.

I’m really skeptical because if access to pools and parks were denied, this would lead to racial profiling in order to figure out who is documented and who isn’t.
This is why Couch knows that his resolutions are only symbolic. Of course, if he wanted to do something symbolic and actually meaningful, he should pass a resolution urging congress to pass humane comprehensive immigration reform that includes students and workers.

Another resolution that Couch lists is to not make Bakersfield a “sanctuary city,” but why not? It should be our moral duty to protect family-oriented, hard-working, honest people from deportation.
 
Why is it that every time the immigration issue is discussed, some of our elected leaders are set on making English the official language of this country?
Couch is no exception; he wants English to be the official language of Bakersfield, even if English is already the official language of California.
Why are people so afraid of un poquito de español?

— Councilman David Couch, was not present to hear public statements after leaving to catch a business flight at the meeting’s commencement, but did address the audience prior to exiting. At the meeting’s end, Bakersfield city council was split on the proposal's relevancy as a city issue, but do plan to re-visit the proposal again at next month's council meetings — Aug. 15 and 29, 2007.
 
— Paola Fernandez, 21, is a 2007 BC graduate, and will be transferring to UCSB in the fall to pursue a dual major in theater and psychology. She has also been active as a member of the Dolores Huerta Foundation since 2005, and has been seen performing in many local plays, including 2006’s “Rowing to America” at The Empty Space.

What’s your opinion on this resolution? Log-in and share your voice! Post a comment below!

*Story originally printed in Bakotopia Magazine, issue 7, 7/27/07

Send to a Friend

Report a Violation

Comment From: twinkie

My mom is a taxpaying CITIZEN of the United States but doesn't speak English. Should she be denied benefits because of that? That's the part that doesn't make sense to me. Comment From: tashkajones

well written... i think the whole thing is sad... as i have spoken to mrs twinkie about, i am not against immigration itself, but i am against illegal immigration for various reasons (none of them racial though i can see what many might think having that statement come from a white woman)... much of my family were immigratns as well, didn't speak english, and had hell to pay for it... however, i believe the problem lies in the immigration system... it needs reform... perhaps a "grandfathering" of the people already here... if it didn't take so long to be granted citizenship, maybe they would be citizens... the whole language thing, and puclic services is rediculous and hatefull... Comment From: Grampsdon

The only thing I can think of that might be involved is if a person is "Required" to be bilingual to get a city job. I don't know if this occurs or not. Comment From: likhy2

Motha F***ks! Now you’re just going to piss me off all over again!Spanish and the surviving Indigenous Native American languages are NOT foreign to this country. These two languages have been here way before the United States of America was even uttered by these ignorant Conservative morons. There is the case of Puerto Rico. After the U.S. occupied this island during the Spanish-American War of the late 19th century (that’s 1898 for some of you inbreds), “they” attempted to institute an English-Only policy that almost caused a complete breakdown of the educational system. How the hell do you expect to invade a country, and then even begin to fathom the idea that the conquered people must now begin learning their conqueror’s language. They attempted this in the early 1900’s in Puerto Rico, and it failed! Let me see…the U.S. has invaded Iraq. Hmmm…well, they are conquered people, right? Maybe Dumbass (Bush) should pass a law that makes English the official national language of Iraq. Does anybody hear how stupid this sounds!!!This is nothing more than Cultural Imperialism!   A La Mierda…Traicioneros!   IT’S ON MR. COUCH!   You set the cultural revolution in motion!   Paola, comunikate con migo para ayudar kon este pinche desmadre. Te konoci en varias okaciones kon The Dolores Huerta Foundation.  We are going to have to start a "correspondance campaign" (Emails, phone calls, and letters to the councilmembers). Voy a atender la siguiente junta kon estos idiotas para ponerlos en su lugar!   ARM THE POOR! La Voz Tambien Es Un Arma!   This message has been brought to you by Salvador "El Patrio" Plascencia Comment From: mthallenterprises

Where is it that Councilman Couch says, I hate Latinos? You see, he doesn't but the assumption is that he is a racist because of the measures he's proposed. This issue has nothing to do with racism, and everything to do with following the law. Opponents of Couch's proposals would have us throw out the immigration laws this country was founded upon, so that people who didn't bother to follow them wont be punished. I'm sorry, that doesn't work for me, and it shouldn't work for you, either. I don't care whether the overwhelming bulk of these people are "law abiding (although they broke the law by entering the country illegally)," tax paying, family people- unfortunately that's not the issue here. The issue is they chose not to follow the laws regulating the inflow of immigrants into this nation. They ignored the sovereignty of the United States to declare under what circumstances a person can enter this great nation, and they demand the Government look past their crimes, and grant them citizenship. That's not the way it works! Why is it, I ask you, that we should bend the rules for this select group of people? Why is it that we should throw out the laws, because they are decent hardworking folk, who pay taxes, and contribute socially? If this is the way you feel, then I must levee the racist moniker, straight at you! This insinuates that no other group of immigrants to come to this country were as great as the ones now here, "living in the shadows." Why should the rules be bent for this group, and not, say for the displaced Jews of WWII? These immigrants had to flee execution in their homeland, and endure the tough (but fair) immigration procedures once they arrived here. They paid the fees, they waited in line, they took the test, and now we should spit in their faces and declare the 20 million illegals citizens because it would be 'cruel' to send them back? There are a few select things that make a country a country, two of which are border and language. Are the Mexicans racists for not offering their government services in English? Are the Canadians racists for enforcing their borders and deporting illegal immigrants from their country? Somehow the answer to both of these questions is no, but we here in the US are racists for doing these same things. Oh, and just one final note... The US didn't steal the land we call California, Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada and Utah from Mexico. After winning the Mexican-American war, the United States deferring it's right to take the land in question, instead paid $15,000,000 dollars for the area, and benevolently forgave $3,250,000 in debts owed by the Mexicans to the US. BTW, in today's money, that would be roughly $313,000,000 and $68,000,000 respectively. Comment From: likhy2

Young man...you have a lot to learn. The incidents at the Rio Grand WERE used as a pretext to go to war with Mexico. It was promulgated by the belief in Manifest Destiny. The ruses for war under President Polk were very clear when he sent General Zachary Taylor to PICK A FIGHT with a weaker nation in order to control North America from "sea to shining sea". Make no mistake, THIS IS STOLEN LAND! On another note, I am sick and tired of hearing idiots cry that "illegals" are draining the welfare system and abusing of Food Stamps. BECAUSE OF THEIR STATUS, THEY CAN NOT APPLY FOR THESE SERVICES! You need legal identification and a social security number among other documentaion. Answer me this, what ever happened to Prop 187 in 1994 and last year's HR 4437 bill? *** "...this is not a Christian Nation. Did you think about the Native American, before you murdered and then stole his land. Did you think about the Black, black African, before you made him less of a man...?"-unknown reggae song Comment From: mthallenterprises

Let's, just for one moment, explore the circumstances leading up to the Mexican-American war. I find it funny that you insinuate that President Polk was itching for a fight with the weaker nation of Mexico, however, history tells us it was the other way around. Taken from Wikipedia:

In the 1836 Texas Revolution, Texas won its independence after defeating Santa Anna and the Mexican army. General Santa Anna was taken captive by the Texas militia and released after signing the Treaties of Velasco in which he promised to recognize the sovereignty of the Republic of Texas and the Rio Grande as the boundary between Texas and Mexico. The Mexican government, however, refused to acknowledge these concessions, arguing that Santa Anna was not a representative of Mexico, that he had no authority to negotiate on behalf of Mexico, and that he signed away Texas under duress. The Mexican government never ratified the Treaties of Velasco.

Under U.S. President John Tyler, Texas was offered admission to the Union as a territory. The bill was signed into law on March 1, 1845. It was ratified by Texas on July 4. Texas became the 28th state on December 28, a law signed by President James K. Polk.

The Mexican government had long warned that annexation would mean war with the United States. Britain and France, which recognized the independence of Texas, repeatedly tried to dissuade Mexico from declaring war.

After annexing Texas, the US built Fort Brown on the banks of the Rio Grande (the agreed upon boundary), opposite the Mexican town of Matamoros.

Wikipedia:

On April 24, 1846, a 2,000-strong Mexican cavalry detachment attacked a 63-man U.S. patrol that was sent into the contested territory north of the Rio Grande and south of the Nueces River. The Mexican cavalry succeeded in routing the patrol, killing 11 U.S. soldiers in what later became known as the Thornton Affair after the slain U.S. officer who was in command. A few survivors returned to Fort Brown.

On May 3, Mexican artillery at Matamoros opened fire on Fort Brown, which replied with its own guns. The bombardment continued for five days and expanded as Mexican forces gradually surrounded the fort. Two U.S. soldiers were killed during the bombardment, including Jacob Brown, after whom the fort was later named.

James K. Polk sent the Army of Occupation under Taylor's command to the Rio Grande in 1846. After Mexico sent a cavalry unit and attacked Taylor's troops (and additionally killed 16 American soldiers), Polk urged Congress to declare the Mexican-American War.

Let's be clear, the "Army of Occupation" was to reinforce the new territory of Texas. They were sent to occupy the United States Territory of Texas. The Mexican military attacked Zachary Taylor's troops, not the other way around.

Secondly, let's explore the definition of stolen.
Stolen - to commit or practice theft.
Now, the definition of theft.
Theft - a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent.
Mexico accepted payment for this land, therefore giving its consent to the release of these lands from Mexican Government control and passing them to United States government control. Under the definition of law, there was no theft.

The issue here is rule of law, for which illegal immigrants and those who support them have no respect. Under the definition of law, those who willingly subvert it, or provide aide to those that do, are criminals.

I'm not even going to touch the welfare system statement. The simple fact here is that if we had a Government that was at all interested in enforcing the border, there would be no issue because none of them would be here. My complaint is not so much with illegals using these services, but instead with the Government allowing their entry and continued residence.

As far as your Unknown Reggae song quote, am I really going to have to teach you the history of Mexican oppression of Native Americans. Please don't tell me that you are ignorant to the fact that Mexicans were killing and enslaving Native Americans, long before the United States was.

Also, answer me this, how do Mexicans view Africans? Not Mexican-Americans, and not African- Americans, but Mexicans and Africans. The Mexicans are just as racist toward the Africans, as the United States ever was. Please get down off your soap box. Comment From: likhy2

I am going to keep this simple for you. What do you consider to be a Mexican? Are we Spanish? Are we indigenous? Are we both? After you have successfully answered these questions, you will have your answer as to how, if at all possible, Mexicans are "racist" or oppressive to "Native Americans". As to your "historical" source (Wikipedia), you may need to research more viable primary documents or professional historians (Gordon Wood, Gary Nash). I hope I do not come across as a "pompous history buff" simply because I received a B.A. in History from CSUB, but believe me, I have done the research and shared many in-depth discussions regarding these issues during by undergraduate studies. May I suggest a book? "Talons of the Eagle" by Peter H. Smith. You may "google" it if you choose. Find some factual cliff notes on this book. You will begin to discover the true dynamics of the U.S.-Latin American relations. But be warned: You may not like what you might find. Before I leave you with these points to ponder, please define RACISM! Then you will understand who can and can not be a racist. Happy Reading...Eleva tu mente. Comment From: mthallenterprises

For all of your academia, you continue to obfuscate the original point.  It doesn't matter who, or under what circumstances the Mexican-American war was started.  The US won, and Mexico accepted payment for the states listed above, no theft occurred.  The point was, is, and continues to be, that anyone, or group who crossed the border into the United States without following immigration statutes as dictated by the Central Government of the nation in question (in this case the US) is/are illegal!  Scream imperialism, or manifest destiny all you want, but the reality of the situation is that this land is the United States, and it has sovereign authority to declare when, where and under what circumstances a person may enter.

It would be as impossible to separate the Spanish influence upon Mexican culture as it would be to separate European influence upon American culture.  So, to answer your question, satisfactorily or not, the two cannot be separated when it comes to the history of enslaving and the oppression of the natives of this land.  I am not, and never have insinuated that Americans, or Caucasians in general are free from a history of racism and slavery.  I am, however, pointing out that Mexicans have their own sordid history of racism, which continues to this very day.  So, before you pull out all the talking points; i.e. US stole the land from Mexico, US is a bunch of racists; be sure to examine the Mexicans record.  Let he who is without sin... well, I'm sure you know the rest. Comment From: matt

There's another great blog with an opinion on the subject:
Click below:
Comment From: AnnieLWhite

The more i heard Mr Couch the more i liked him. I am down for making english official in bakersfield.  Illegal Immigrants are breaking the law. end of story. they don't have the right to be here. I'd vote for it im not getting in to it because on a daily basis i do and i get rather tired of defending my views to crazy liberals =D