Immigrant Rights News -- Thurs, July 13, 2006

Immigrant Rights News -- Thurs, July 13, 2006

NOTE: If this is the first time you have received IRN or if you are
receiving IRN sporadically, please reply with your contact info if you would
like to continue receiving this info-blasts sent out 1-5 times/week. peace
c/s: Thank you.

1. Tucson Citizen, "Who polices the Border Patrol? Complaints go unanswered,
U.S. study finds"

2. Denver Post, "Survey: immigration debate increasing discrimination"

3. San Francisco Chronicle, "Supes push mayor to fight for sanctuary. House
immigration bill would reduce federal terror funds"

4. San Diego Union-Tribune, "Ordinance would bar renting to illegals.
Escondido official targets landlords"

5. Reuters, "Senate Votes to Strengthen Borders, FEMA"

6. The Tribune, "Senate moves to bolster border security"

7. Journal of Politics, "Latino Immigrants Come to the U.S. with Negative
Stereotypes of Black Americans, New Study Shows"



<><><> 1

Tucson Citizen
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/border/18791.php

Who polices the Border Patrol?
Complaints go unanswered, U.S. study finds

CLAUDINE LoMONACO lomonaco@tucsoncitizen.com
Tucson Citizen

It is the largest law enforcement agency in southern Arizona, and some
critics say that, unlike police departments, the U.S. Border Patrol is
accountable to no one in the community.

The Arizona Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Human Rights in
2005 found that complaints against the federal agency go unanswered so
often, many border residents largely give up on the process.

Pima County residents Mark Meszaros and Rick and Carol Morgan said they have
been waiting for two months for a promised investigation into why a Border
Patrol agent threw down tire spikes on a dangerous mountain highway, causing
them to lose control of their motorcycles.

Michael Nicley, chief of the Border Patrol's Tucson sector, declined to be
interviewed for this article, but a spokesman said the agency takes
complaints seriously.

"We're very committed to the people we protect," said Senior Patrol Agent
Gustavo Soto. "We'll go through a process where phone calls will be made and
the situation will be dealt with."

Meszaros and the Morgans said they want to know when.

"(We) could have died out there that night," said Meszaros, 54, a Vietnam
War veteran and retired postal worker from Green Valley. "I support the
mission of the Border Patrol, but what that agent did was reckless and
negligent, and he should be punished. I don't want this happening to anyone
else."

The Tucson sector, with more than 2,400 agents, may double in the next two
years.

President Bush has called for the hiring of 6,000 more agents by 2008, with
2,500 slated for Arizona.

The Border Patrol's growing presence has some residents demanding greater
accountability from the agency, which has become an increasing part of daily
life.

Meszaros and the Morgans never dreamed they would have a problem with the
Border Patrol.

On the night of May 13, the trio were traveling north on State Route 83 near
a dangerous curve. Morgan, 55, of Tucson, remembers seeing a Border Patrol
truck parked in the southbound lane.

As Morgan passed the agent, his Harley-Davidson ran over something that
sounded like a piece of metal.

Suddenly, the bike, with his wife, Carol, 54, on the back, started to wobble
as he struggled to maintain control.

Meszaros, close behind, ran over the same thing. The back of his bike
started to fishtail.

"The next second, my front tire went crazy," Meszaros said.

He had two major blowouts.

"It was a nightmare," he said.

A pickup behind him hit the metal and spun out of control.

Meszaros' bike veered off the highway toward a 15-foot drop and came to a
stop less than a foot from the edge, he said.

Morgan, a Vietnam War-era veteran and retired truck driver, managed to stop
his bike about a quarter of a mile down the road.

An Arizona Department of Public Safety officer appeared soon after and
searched the road for what they'd run over. By that time, whatever it was
had disappeared. So had the Border Patrol agent.

They thought it was a freak accident until the next morning, when Rick
Morgan inspected his bike and found a spike in the flat tire. Meszaros found
three spikes. The pickup driver, another.

The Morgans and Meszaros took the spikes to the Sonoita Border Patrol
station to file a complaint, and an agent acknowledged the spikes belonged
to the agency and promised an investigation.

Jim Oien, a spokesman for DPS, said his agency didn't begin an investigation
because there was no indication at the time that spikes were involved.

He was at a loss as to why any officer would put out spikes that a
motorcycle could hit, something his agency does not allow because it's so
dangerous.

"Unless maybe it was an ax murderer who had just killed five people and was
getting away," Oien said. "I can't think of any officer that would do that
unless he was out of his mind."

According to the Border Patrol, criminal, civil rights or abuse of power
allegations are investigated by the Department of Homeland Security's Joint
Intake Center.

Minor allegations are handled locally, and there is no standard protocol for
responding, Lisa Reed of the Tucson sector's community relations office told
the Human Rights Commission.

The committee has recommended that the Border Patrol reform its policies to
ensure that complaints are "investigated, results released and action
taken."

For now, the complaints from the Morgans and Meszaros are being treated as a
minor allegation.

Soto confirmed last week that a supervisor from the Sonoita station was
internally investigating the incident to see if policy was followed. Because
it is an ongoing investigation, he said, he could not discuss details.

Officials at DPS and the Tucson Police Department said they would have
handled the investigation differently. Both said such an allegation would
merit an independent investigation by their offices of professional
standards. DPS said it would contact the complainants within the next
business day.

Tucson police Chief Richard Miranda said an investigator would likely make
contact even sooner.

"We all make mistakes in our job," Miranda said. "The actions might have
been justified. Let's deal with that mistake, but the issue of them taking
the spikes away and not rendering aid and helping these people is a very
serious allegation of misconduct."

One Border Patrol critic believes the agency's accountability problems begin
with its screening practices, which "fail to meet the accepted standard in
American policing," said Kevin Gilmartin, a retired 20-year TPD veteran who
is now a law enforcement expert and conducts training for policing agencies
around the world and across the county, including the FBI.

Ninety-five percent of large law enforcement agencies subject applicants to
lie detector tests, but the Border Patrol does not, Gilmartin said.

The polygraph is an important tool and can reveal previous drug use and
criminal behavior, Gilmartin said.

The Border Patrol reserves the right to use lie tests, but does not do so on
a regular basis, said Mike Freil, a Border Patrol spokesman in Washington,
D.C.

"It's a very rigorous process to become an agent," he said. "For every 30
applicants, only one becomes an agent."

Gilmartin said the unique nature of Border Patrol work should require the
most rigorous screening.

Agents work in remote locations far from supervision, where human and drug
smuggling is rampant, they have great powers of search and seizure and
apprehend people with scant understanding of their rights, Gilmartin said.

"Can you tell me another agency that is exposed, even remotely, to as much
temptation?"



<><><> 2

Denver Post
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_4047536

Survey: immigration debate increasing discrimination

By Denver Post.com
DenverPost.com

Amid the nationwide firestorm over immigration reform, a new survey says
America's Latinos are feeling more discrimination.

But they also say the debate over illegal immigrants and border security is
leading to greater political unity, according to the "2006 National Survey
of Latinos," released today by the Pew Hispanic Center.

"Latinos are feeling more discriminated against, politically energized and
unified following the immigration policy debate and the pro-immigration
marches this spring," the survey's authors said in a statement.

According to the survey, 54 percent of Latinos see discrimination as a
"major" problem, up from 51 percent when the survey was last conducted in
2004 and 44 percent in 2002.

Pew said 75 percent of Hispanics surveyed say the ongoing debate over
immigration policy will encourage more Latinos to vote in November, and 63
percent think recent pro-immigrant rallies "signal the beginning of a new
and lasting social movement," Pew concluded.

Pew said its survey was conducted by telephone among a nationally
representative sample of 2,000 Hispanic adults from June 5 to July 3, 2006.
The survey has a margin of error of 3.8 percent for the full sample.

"The survey shows that Latinos to some extent are holding the Republican
Party responsible for what they perceive to be the negative consequences of
the immigration debate, but the political impact of that perception is
uncertain," Pew said. "Party affiliation among Latino registered voters has
not changed significantly since the spring of 2004. However, the share of
Latinos who believe the Republican Party has the best position on
immigration has dropped from 25 percent to 16 percent in that time, with
virtually the entire loss coming among foreign-born Hispanics."

As for illegal immigrants, 72 percent of Latinos say they help more than
hurt the U.S. economy because they provide low-cost labor. Forty-eight
percent say more Latin Americans should be allowed to work legally in this
country.

Latinos split on the issue of whether employers should be required to verify
a worker's legal status. Foreign-born Latinos overwhelmingly favor such a
rule, but foreign-born Hispanics are more divided, with 50 percent opposing
the verification requirement.


<><><> 3

San Francisco Chronicle

Supes push mayor to fight for sanctuary
House immigration bill would reduce federal terror funds

- Becky Bowman, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 12, 2006

San Francisco supervisors want Mayor Gavin Newsom and the state's
congressional delegation to speak out against a measure that could force the
city to choose between receiving counterterrorism funds or maintaining its
status as a sanctuary for illegal immigrants.

A resolution introduced Tuesday by Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval and
co-sponsored by at least four others on the board is in reaction to a House
of Representatives-passed appropriations bill provision that would deny
Homeland Security funding to municipalities with sanctuary policies. San
Francisco's city of refuge policy, adopted in 1985, forbids city employees
from enforcing U.S. immigration law.

Under the House measure passed last month, that policy could cost San
Francisco $27 million a year in counterterrorism funds, Sandoval said.

At Tuesday's board meeting, Sandoval introduced his resolution calling for
Newsom to speak up on the policy, for sanctuaries to fight using the federal
money as a "pawn in the debate over immigration," and for the city to urge
California's members of Congress to oppose efforts to eliminate local
sanctuary policies.

"There is absolutely no evidence at all to suggest that immigrants,
particularly those from Latin America, in any way contributed to acts of
terrorism" before or after 9/11, Sandoval said. "And yet that's the
suggestion at every turn, I think, in the political discourse in Washington,
D.C."

Newsom carries political weight, Sandoval said, and should provide
leadership on the issue. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, he pointed out,
was quick to speak out against the policy last week.

The House provision is not included in the Senate version of the same
appropriations bill being debated this week, said Howard Gantman, spokesman
for Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

That means the provision's fate depends on the conference committee formed
to reconcile the two bills before it heads to President Bush for signature.

E-mail Becky Bowman at bbowman@sfchronicle.com.

Page B - 7
URL:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/07/12/BAG
T1JTN7I1.DTL



<><><> 4

San Diego Union-Tribune

Ordinance would bar renting to illegals

Escondido official targets landlords

By Booyeon Lee
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

July 12, 2006

ESCONDIDO – Councilwoman Marie Waldron wants a municipal code that could
enable the city to fine or arrest landlords who house illegal immigrants.

“It's an added weapon in the arsenal,” Waldron said. “Because the federal
government has failed us, we can say to landlords who are aiding and
(sheltering) illegal immigrants in our city: 'We now have the power to fine
you, and if it continues, to arrest you.' ”

She proposes fining landlords $1,000 for every undocumented immigrant to
whom they lease apartments. If a fine isn't paid, the landlord could be
arrested. Two other council members welcomed the idea, which has been
characterized as un-American by a board member of the Chicano Federation of
San Diego County.

The idea comes from the small city of Hazleton, Pa. Its City Council has
tentatively approved the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, which would revoke
the business licenses of companies that hire illegal immigrants, levy $1,000
fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants, and make English the
city's official language.

In Escondido, the proposal is nothing more than one council member's idea,
said City Manager Clay Phillips, who met with Waldron for the first time
yesterday to discuss her proposal. Phillips said he would need a directive
from the City Council to begin drafting such a law.

“We're treading new ground here,” Phillips said. “I know of no other
California cities that have adopted such an ordinance, and we're looking
into it.”

City Attorney Jeffrey Epp, who was at the yesterday's meeting, said the city
will begin monitoring Hazleton's proposed ordinance and start discussing the
“great many legal issues that would have to be looked at when a city gets
into the immigration business.”

Waldron denies she is targeting the swelling population of Latino immigrants
living mostly in central Escondido.

“They could be Russian or Irish. I'm talking about illegal immigrants.
They're breaking the law and we don't want them here,” Waldron said in a
telephone interview yesterday.

In the interview, Waldron repeatedly referred to the problem of overcrowding
where three to five families live in apartments designed for single
families. A city-commissioned report concluded that Mission Park, a
neighborhood that includes City Hall, comprises mostly newly arrived Latino
immigrants squeezed into small apartments.

Latinos, who make up 42 percent of the city's population of 142,000, are by
far the predominant ethnic group in the city.

Bill Flores, an Escondido resident and a board member of the Chicano
Federation of San Diego County, called Waldron's proposal “un-American.”

An ordinance that imposes a fine for renting to undocumented immigrants
would make landlords suspicious of any Latinos, whether they are in the
country legally or not, said Flores, a retired assistant sheriff.
Considering the city's large Latino population, Flores said, such a proposal
“demonstrates that this elected person is willing to drive a wedge and
divide the community for temporary political expediency.”

The San Diego County Apartment Association is worried that such a law might
expose landlords to lawsuits.

“No one in our industry wants to see this happen,” said Alan Pentico, the
association's director of public affairs. “It's really going to put
landlords in a bad situation where we're breaking one law to uphold
another.”

Pentico said landlords cannot ask questions of nationality. Fair-housing law
prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation and
national origin.

Although Waldron's proposal is just an idea and no date has been set for a
public hearing, she already has the support of at least two other council
members. Councilman Sam Abed supports the proposal, and Councilman Ed Gallo
said he would vote for it as long as it “passes the legal muster and doesn't
infringe on private property rights.”

Mayor Lori Holt Pfeiler said it's a sad day when a local elected official
has to propose a law that deals with federal and state matters.

“Illegal immigration is a federal issue. Housing is a state issue,” Pfeiler
said. “This shows that there's been a complete breakdown of our system.”

Pfeiler said she has not been briefed by any city official, including
Waldron, about the proposal.

“I don't know what she's proposing. But from what I can tell, it raises all
kinds of issues,” she said. “What do we do? Start knocking on every door and
say, 'Show us all your papers?' How do you go about doing this?”

Booyeon Lee: (760) 737-7566; booyeon.lee@uniontrib.com


<><><> 5

Reuters
July 11, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-security-congress.html

Senate Votes to Strengthen Borders, FEMA

Washington (Reuters) -- The U.S. Senate on Tuesday approved nearly $1
billion in additional funds to help secure America's borders and ports
and voted to strengthen the troubled Federal Emergency Management Agency
that was blamed for a poor response to Hurricane Katrina. Domestic
security funding bill to overhaul FEMA and rename it the U.S. Emergency
Management Authority with a director who would have direct access to the
president.

``The new name signals a fresh start for FEMA,'' said Susan Collins, a
Maine Republican who chairs the Senate panel that oversees FEMA.

A second amendment, which failed, would have returned FEMA to its
original status as an independent agency by removing it from the
Department of Homeland Security, as some agency critics have
recommended.

The restructured FEMA, which would have to be approved by the U.S. House
of Representatives, would be protected from future attempts to meddle in
its essential functions, Collins said. She added that the agency's focus
on regional services would be strengthened too.

In an attempt to reinforce U.S. borders against smuggling of weapons of
mass destruction and other illegal activities, the Senate approved an
additional $648 million for port security. The money would pay for more
inspectors and more advanced equipment to scan shipping containers.

Sen. Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, won the added port security
money as part of a $32.8 billion domestic security spending bill for
next year after describing ''paper-thin security'' at American ports
now.

Earlier this year, the Senate approved a similar measure as part of an
emergency funding bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it was
dropped during negotiations with the House of Representatives and White
House.

The Senate also approved another Byrd amendment adding $350 million for
border security. The money would buy aircraft, buses and other vehicles
to help border patrol agents and to improve fences and other border
infrastructure.

The additional border spending would be paid for by increasing fees for
non-Americans who use the services of U.S. immigration and customs
agencies.

The House has already passed its version of a fiscal 2007 domestic
security spending bill and it is not clear whether it will accept the
border protection and port changes approved by the Senate.


<><><> 6

The Tribune (San Luis Obispo, CA)
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/politics/15031849.htm

Thu, Jul. 13, 2006

Senate moves to bolster border security

LARA JAKES JORDAN
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Senate voted unanimously Thursday to bolster security at
U.S. borders by pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into more patrols,
surveillance flights and sensors to catch illegal immigrants sneaking into
the country.

Senators approved the $32.7 billion budget for Homeland Security Department
next year by a vote of 100-0. But they rejected proposals to boost funds for
cities and states at high risk of terrorism attacks, a sore subject amid a
recent spate of terrorism-related arrests and threats targeting metropolitan
areas.

With border security and immigration reform a top election-year priority,
the Senate also agreed to make digging tunnels under the border a felony but
rejected adding another 370 miles of fencing along the 2,000-mile
U.S.-Mexico border. About 75 miles of the border is now fenced. The House
has voted to add 700 miles of fencing.

"The fact of the matter is that South America and Mexico itself have become
a land bridge for people from around the world seeking to come through our
southern border into the United States," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

Security gaps at U.S. borders "allow gang members, allow common criminals,
allow narco traffickers, and yes, even terrorists to enter our country
without our knowing it," Cornyn said.

Senators from states that border Canada also demanded additional
surveillance flights and patrol officers along that 4,000-mile stretch.

Noting efforts on the southern border to combat immigration, Sen. Max
Baucus, D-Mont., said security programs "on the northern border are more to
combat terrorism."

The spending plan included a $1 billion increase for security staff and
equipment at borders and ports. A third of the cost would be covered through
higher immigration fees.

The Senate bill is about $1.7 billion more than President Bush requested and
$700 million larger than a bill passed by the House last month. For the
second straight year, the Senate joined the House in rejecting Bush's call
for $1.3 billion in new taxes on airline tickets to pay for homeland
security spending increases.

Democrats were largely unsuccessful in trying to provide more money to first
responders and counterterror and disaster relief programs in states and
cities. Republicans cited budget restraints. But senators from both parties
argued against a plan by Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., to shift the bulk of
funds to the 14 largest and most vulnerable states.

"Let's put the money where the risk is," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
"That's what this ought to be about - nothing more."

Critics, including Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said some states would only
be assured of about $2 million annually under Menendez's plan. That "is
simply too low," she said.

Congress would like to finish and send to Bush both the homeland security
and military spending bills before the November election.

The Senate's homeland security spending bill also:

_Prohibits law enforcement officials from seizing firearms from law-abiding
citizens during a declared state of emergency. Sen. David Vitter, R-La.,
said that guns were taken from thousands of people trying to protect
themselves during the chaos of Hurricane Katrina, but Democrats protested
the plan as a threat to police trying to maintain order.

_Scraps the Federal Emergency Management Agency and rebuilds it under
another name in the wake of widespread criticism to its response to last
year's hurricanes. The new agency would remain part of Homeland Security. It
would combine emergency preparedness and response missions and could report
directly to the president during catastrophes.

_Gives the Homeland Security Department temporary authority to regulate
security at chemicals plants and storage facilities. The chemical industry
is believed to be a top target of terrorist organizations. Both the House
and Senate are considering legislation to make this authority permanent.

_Allows Americans to import prescription drugs from Canada despite a Food
and Drug Administration ban on importing prescription medicine into the
United States. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, an arm of Homeland
Security, began aggressively enforcing the ban last November by seizing
incoming medications at borders.

Prescription drugs - even those manufactured in the United States - are
generally sold at cheaper prices in Canada and other countries because of
government price controls.

ON THE NET

The FY07 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, H.R. 5441, can be found at:
http://thomas.loc.gov/


<><><> 7

Journal of Politics

Latino Immigrants Come to the U.S. with Negative Stereotypes of Black
Americans, New Study Shows

How Latino immigrants relate to blacks and whites -- and how those groups
relate to Latinos -- has implications for the social and political dynamic
of the South, says political scientist Paula McClain

Monday, July 10, 2006

Note to Editors:
A copy of the study is available in the August issue of theJournal of
Politics at http://journalofpolitics.org/art68_3.html#a7. Paula McClain can
be reached for comment at (919) 660-4303 or pmcclain@duke.edu

Durham, N.C. -- Latinos bring negative stereotypes about black Americans to
the U.S. when they immigrate and identify more with whites than blacks,
according to a study of the changing political dynamics in the South.

The research also found that living in the same neighborhoods with black
Americans seems to reinforce, rather than reduce, the negative stereotypes
Latino immigrants have of blacks, said Paula D. McClain, a Duke University
political science professor who is the study's lead author.

McClain said the findings are significant because the South has the largest
population of blacks in the U.S. and has been defined more than other
regions along a black-white divide. How Latino immigrants relate to blacks
and whites -- and how those groups relate to Latinos -- has implications for
the social and political dynamic of the region, she said.

"Given the increasing number of Latino immigrants in the South and the
possibility that over time their numbers might rival or even surpass black
Americans in the region, if large portions of Latino immigrants maintain
negative attitudes of black Americans, where will this leave blacks?" the
researchers wrote. "Will blacks find that they must not only make demands on
whites for continued progress, but also mount a fight on another front
against Latinos?"

In an interview, McClain added: "We're actually pretty depressed about a lot
of our findings."

The findings will be published in the August issue of the Journal of
Politics, which is already available online
(http://journalofpolitics.org/art68_3.html#a7). The study was funded by the
Ford Foundation.

The study's co-authors are Niambi M. Carter, Victoria M. DeFrancesco Soto
and Monique L. Lyle of Duke; Jeffrey D. Grynaviski of the University of
Chicago; Shayla C. Nunnally of the University of Connecticut; Thomas J.
Scotto of West Virginia University; J. Alan Kendrick of St. Augustine's
College; and Gerald F. Lackey and Kendra Davenport Cotton of the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The findings are based on a 2003 survey, conducted in English and Spanish,
of 500 Durham, N.C., residents, including 160 whites, 151 blacks and 167
Latinos. Durham was chosen for the pilot study because North Carolina has
the fastest-growing Latino population in the country, and because Durham's
black population includes residents at all socioeconomic levels.

The goal was to understand how Latino immigration -- a population largely
new to the South in the past decade -- affects group dynamics in the South,
which has historically been defined by the relationship between blacks and
whites. The survey focused on a range of social and political activities and
attitudes, including stereotypes each group holds about the other two.

Researchers found that 58.9 percent of Latino immigrants -- most Latinos in
Durham are from Mexico -- feel that few or almost no blacks are
hard-working. About one-third, or 32.5 percent, of Latino immigrants
reported they feel few or almost no blacks are easy to get along with. More
than half of the Latino immigrants, or 56.9 percent, feel that few or almost
no blacks could be trusted.

Within the Latino immigrant population, researchers found, more-educated
Latinos have significantly fewer negative stereotypes, and men have
significantly more negative stereotypes.

"One might think that the cause of the Latinos' negative opinions about
blacks is the transmission of prejudice from Southern whites, but our data
do not support this notion," the researchers wrote.

White residents in Durham actually have a more positive view of blacks,
leading researchers to conclude that Latinos' negative views were not
adopted from whites.

In the survey, only 9.3 percent of whites surveyed indicate that few blacks
are hard-working; only 8.4 percent believe few or almost no blacks are easy
to get along with; and only 9.6 percent feel that few or almost no blacks
can be trusted.

The researchers also noted that if whites were the primary influence on
Latinos' stereotypes, Latinos would become more prejudiced the longer they
are in the U.S.; the findings do not support that notion. The researchers
also investigated whether Latinos might be reciprocating the prejudice they
sense from blacks; again, the survey did not support this theory.

The survey showed that blacks view Latinos much more favorably than Latinos
view blacks. About 72 percent of blacks feel most or almost all Latinos are
hard-working, and 42.8 percent say most or almost all Latinos are easy to
get along with. About one-third, or 32.6 percent, of blacks feel few or no
Latinos could be trusted.

WHAT CAUSES THE LATINOS' STEREOTYPES?

The researchers concluded that Latino immigrants may bring their feelings
about the racial hierarchies in their own countries with them to the U.S.
The researchers noted that previous studies on race and Latin America,
especially Mexico, identify blacks as "representing the bottom rungs of
society."

The study also looked at the racial group with whom Latino immigrants most
identify. More than 78 percent feel they have the most in common with
whites, and 52.8 percent said they have the least in common with blacks.

Whites do not feel the same connection to Latino immigrants. Nearly half of
whites -- 47.5 percent -- reported they have the least in common with
Latinos. Just 22.2 percent of whites see themselves as having the most in
common with Latinos, while 45.9 percent say they have the most in common
with blacks.

Among blacks, respondents are split -- 49.6 percent say blacks have the most
in common with Latinos, while 45.5 percent say they have the most in common
with whites.

The study did find that several factors do reduce stereotypes. For instance,
when Latinos have a sense of "linked fate" with other Latinos -- or the
sense that what happens to other Latinos affects them -- they tend to have
fewer stereotypes against blacks.

"The finding that these negative attitudes are modulated by a sense of
linked fate suggests possibilities for the formation of connections to black
Americans in the absence of the presence of an extant American Latino
community," the researchers wrote.

The researchers also noted that education and some types of social
interaction with blacks can reduce negative stereotypes among Latinos.
However, one type of social interaction -- living in the same neighborhood -
"pushes them farther away from blacks and closer to whites," the study said.

"These new Latino immigrants may behave in ways similar to the Chinese in
Mississippi in the mid-19th century, and the Cubans in Miami in the mid-20th
century -- identification with whites, distancing themselves from blacks,
and feeling no responsibility to rectify the continuing inequalities of
black Americans," the researchers wrote.

EXPANDING THE STUDY

McClain noted that more research needs to be done to fully understand these
findings. Her research team plans to expand the study to determine whether
the Durham findings mirror Latino-black relations in other Southern cities.
In addition to re-surveying Durham residents, her group plans to study
Memphis, Tenn.; Greensboro, N.C.; Greenville, S.C.; and Dalton, Ga. She
recently received a grant from the Russell Sage Foundation to survey three
of the cities and will seek funding from other sources to fund the remaining
two cities.

While the topic requires additional research, McClain said the initial
findings indicate that community leaders in cities with burgeoning Latino
immigrant populations must begin thinking through how the different groups
get along.

"Black and Latino leaders need to recognize that there is a tremendous
potential for conflict and that Latino immigrant attitudes toward black
Americans may be a part of that," she said. "There is also a potential for a
backlash against Latino immigrants from black Americans."
For more information, contact: Kelly Gilmer | (919) 681-8065 |
kelly.gilmer@duke.edu


<><><> the end / el fin / tamat <><><>