#latinophobia

Overall, women in the United States are paid 80 cents for every dollar paid to men. This amounts to an annual gender wage gap of $10,169. April 2, 2019, was Equal Pay Day--the day on which women finally caught up to what their male counterparts earned in 2018.

That’s bad enough, but “the disparity is even greater for women of color, who are paid significantly less than their white counterparts.”

“Black Women’s Equal Pay Day is the approximate day a Black woman must work into the new year to make what white non-Hispanic man made at the end of the previous year. Based on ACS Census data, the 2019 wage gap for Black women and men is $.61 (cents).”

Due to this wage gap, over a 40-year career a black woman will lose $946,120 compared to a white non-Hispanic man. And it’s even worse for Latina women, who make only 53 cents for each dollar made by a white man.

“Let that sink in for a minute: it takes more than eight months for Black women’s wages to catch up to their white, male co-workers. And more than four months for their wages to catch up to their white female co-workers. Latina women on average won’t catch up till they’ve worked almost an entire extra year.”

“All the van’s occupants were in the country legally, either by virtue of their U.S. citizenship, legal residency or valid visas. Stephanie Martinez and her three children are U.S. citizens.”

This, of course, made no difference whatsoever:

General John Kelly, Trump’s former chief of staff, calls Trump’s Great Wall a “waste of money.” He also flatly contradicts Trump’s repeated lies claims that immigrants from Mexico and Central America are violent and dangerous:

The UN’s 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees --to which the United States is a party--recognizes the right of persons to seek asylum in another country based on “well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” Such refugees have numerous substantive rights under international law, including:

“free access to the courts of law”;

“documents for the purpose of travel”;

“identity papers”; and

“as far as possible ... assimilation and naturalization.”

Countries such as the United States have numerous substantive obligations under international law, including the obligation to treat such refugees “without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin.” In addition, such countries may not:

“Impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence ... provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”;

“Expel” refugees without “a decision reached in accordance with due process of law”; or

“Expel or return” a refugee to any other country “where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”

United States law (8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)) grants non-citizens the right to seek asylum the moment they set foot on U.S. soil. How they get here, and whether they are here legally or illegally, are entirely irrelevant:

“Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum...”

This law--like so many laws--makes Donald Trump very unhappy. So he told the Department of Homeland Security to ignore it and force all those brown-skinned refugees to go back to Mexico while waiting on their asylum claims. DHS obligingly implemented the so-called “Migration Protection Protocols.” A federal judge has now ruled that the MPPs violate federal law.

The court found “uncontested evidence that they [the refugees seeking asylum] fled their homes in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras to escape extreme violence, including rape and death threats” (which is of course a valid ground for seeking asylum.) The court further found that these refugees would “experience physical and verbal assaults, and live in fear of future violence.” if they were forced to stay in Mexico rather than entering the United States. The Trump administration submitted no contrary evidence, merely arguing that Trump has “broad authority to limit immigration” and courts can’t interfere.

Pro Tip: Telling the guy wearing the black robe that he can’t do something is never a great legal strategy.

Trump’s entirely predictable response to his loss: blaming the judge who ruled against him. “So unfair to the U.S. OUT OF CONTROL!”

Once upon a time, some former Democrats posted legitimate videos explaining why they had decided to #WalkAway from the extreme left.

Then Russia pounced.

“Republicans want to split up the Democratic political opposition and divide black and Latino voters. And Russia looks like it wants to help here, too. ... The most recent example of this strategy is the #WalkAway hashtag, which is presented as a grassroots effort by former Democrats who are critical of the party's alleged intimidation, confrontation and lack of civility and want people to walk away from the party. However, #WalkAway has also now been connected to Kremlin-linked Russian bots, and it is now the seventh most popular Russia-influenced hashtag... The purpose of this now-astroturf campaign is to manipulate public opinion by creating the illusion that this is a popular movement. In reality,  #WalkAway has become pure propaganda, a psychological operation.”

One specific tactic:

“Some of the tweets using the hashtag condemn illegal immigration, claim ‘Blacks were sold a false bill of goods,’ and proclaim ‘the African-American community is leaving the Democrat plantation in droves.’ ...  Attempting to peel off votes by dividing black and Latino voters over the issue of immigration, and suggesting the Democrats favor ‘illegal’ immigrants over African-Americans...”

Jose Arreola (Hispanic) purchased a pack of mints for his wife at a Chevron station one evening. While the cashier was getting his change, he put the mints in his pocket. An off-duty police sergeant (white) standing in line behind him saw it, immediately concluded that Arreola was obviously a dangerous criminal, and pulled a gun on him. For a $1.19 pack of mints.

Arreola put his hands up, while repeatedly protesting, “I paid for that.” The officer ignored his protestations, and ordered him to “leave” without the mints. Then he told the cashier: “He tried stealing that from you.” When he finally asked, the cashier “confirmed three times that Arreola actually paid for the mints” (while the officer continued to ask “Are you sure?”).

The incident was caught on video. Arreola has “filed a formal complaint against the officer alleging misconduct” because he “believes he was racially profiled.”