Only In America: Son Of Undocumented Immigrant Brings Home The Gold
Only In America: Son Of Undocumented Immigrant Brings Home The Gold
Our guest blogger is Henry Fernandez, a Senior Fellow at the Center For American Progress Action Fund working on state and municipal issues.
Henry Cejudo’s uniquely American story started with a single mother who taught him what it meant to truly fight. His mother Nelly – an undocumented immigrant — moved him and his siblings several times chasing work and opportunity, scraping by, ensuring her kids got an education. And along the way, the family found a channel for both the tough resilience she modeled and the country they loved through the sport of freestyle wrestling.
With the brothers he shared a bed with growing up cheering from the stands (as well as his sister), Cejudo repeatedly got off the mat to come back and win in a tough match against Tomohiro Matsunaga of Japan. And now America has both an unexpected gold medal and a new hero.
Today in Beijing, our nation proudly called Cejudo one of our own:
“What Henry has accomplished is an American success story,” USOC spokesman Darryl Seibel said. “This is a story of perseverance and determination. We couldn’t be more proud of Henry, not only for what he has accomplished on the mat, but for how he has represented our country.”
It has become commonplace on the right to talk about how recent immigrants, and particularly undocumented immigrants and their children, do not want to assimilate, learn English or identify themselves as truly American.
Yet this family – all of them proud to be the cheering voice of the United States in a city on the other side of the planet – did our country proud:
They all wore or waved American flags, an entire family decked in the stars and stripes. A family that started with illegal immigrants and advanced to right here, this moment, their very own gold medalist resting in their lap.
“Only in America,” Cejudo said.
- Comments
- 43
What It Means To Be Progressive
Our guest blogger is John Podesta, the President and CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
What is progressivism? We all have our own answers to this question. But it’s hard to beat Maury Maverick’s famous — and concise — description of democracy as “liberty plus groceries.” That’s as good an explanation of progressivism as anything I’ve heard.
As I travel the country speaking with students and activists, I’m often asked to offer my own definition of progressive. This is what I frequently suggest:
Progressives believe that America should be a country of boundless opportunity, where all people can better themselves through education, hard work, fair pay, and the freedom to pursue their dreams. We believe that this will be achieved only with an open and effective government that champions the common good over narrow self-interest while securing the rights and safety of its people.
In my new book, The Power of Progress: How America’s Progressives Can (Once Again) Save Our Economy, Our Climate, and Our Country, I outline my own interpretation of progressivism based on history, my personal background, and my years in government and running the Center for American Progress.
Progressivism is rooted in the notion of “progress” — moving from one state of affairs to a better state; from the conservative status quo to new ways of thinking and acting. This was the spirit that allowed progressives to help our country win two World Wars, conquer Gilded Age inequality, make the American Dream a reality for millions of middle class families, and expand civil rights for all our citizens. This is the spirit America needs to apply to today’s challenges.
I’ve posted an excerpt of the book and have also set up a Facebook page with more information and links to buy the book and share with friends. What does progressivism mean to you? I look forward to hearing your thoughts and ideas.
Note To DHS: Searching A Laptop Is Not The Same As Searching A Backpack
Note To DHS: Searching A Laptop Is Not The Same As Searching A Backpack
Our guest blogger, Peter Swire, is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund and served as the Clinton administration’s Chief Counselor for Privacy, working on encryption policy and other issues.
The Department of Homeland Security has offered a new, unconvincing argument for why they can conduct border searches, and take travelers’ laptops and other electronic devices without needing any reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The public needs to help Homeland Security understand why they’re wrong.
The background: Senator Russ Feingold held the first Congressional hearing on border laptop searches on June 25, and I testified about the many reasons such searches should only be done when the government has reasonable suspicion about a traveler. Homeland Security did not provide a witness, but issued guidelines for border laptop searches on July 16. These guidelines hit the front page of the Washington Post last week, with new focus on the issue in the traditional media and leading online sources such as DailyKos and Salon. Meanwhile, the Center for American Progress Action Fund began its “Hands off My Laptop” campaign, calling for Homeland Security to put privacy safeguards in place for these searches.
On August 5, Jayson Ahern, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, responded to this growing public concern. His basic argument is there’s nothing new here at all — border searches have been conducted since the birth of the Republic:
Making full use of our search authorities with respect to items like notebooks and backpacks, while failing to do so with respect to laptops and other devices, would ensure that terrorists and criminals receive less scrutiny at our borders just as their use of technology is becoming more sophisticated.
Homeland Security seems to need help in understanding why searching a backpack for drugs is different from taking a laptop and copying everything on it. Here are three reasons why laptop searches are more intrusive:
1. Laptop searches last far longer. The backpack search is complete when the traveler leaves the border. For a typical laptop, the government can make a copy and then search every file at its leisure.
2. It’s like searching your home. Our laptops contain family photos, medical records, finances, personal diaries, and all the other detailed records of our most personal lives. Having the government rummage through all these files is like searching your home, and that requires a probable cause warrant.
3. Confidential and privileged information. Many kinds of confidential information are in laptops, including journalists’ notes about an investigative story, trade secrets and other key business information, and many more. Lawyers’ laptops contain attorney-client privileged information, as reinforced by a recent case that says the privilege is lost once the government sees a file during a search.
The Homeland Security blog lets you post your own reasons why searching a laptop is more intrusive than searching a backpack. Let them know your reasons, and participate in the online campaigns of “Hands Off My Laptop” and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Tell The Bush Administration: Hands Off My Laptop
Tell The Bush Administration: Hands Off My Laptop
Our guest blogger, Peter Swire, is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund and served as the Clinton administration’s Chief Counselor for Privacy, working on encryption policy and other issues.
Today the Washington Post ran a front-page story on a topic previously reported by ThinkProgress. Homeland Security is telling customs agents they can search, and take, travelers’ laptops and other electronic devices without needing any reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
The Post story highlights a new Customs and Border Patrol policy document that states:
In the course of a border search, and absent individualized suspicion, officers can review and analyze the information transported by any individual attempting to enter, reenter, depart, pass through, or reside in the United States.
The new policy says CPB can take away the laptop or analyze copies of its contents:
Officers may detain documents and electronic devices, or copies thereof, for a reasonable period of time to perform a thorough border search. The search may take place on-site or at an off-site location.
CBP says that the officers are supposed to return the laptop and destroy copies of the contents if nothing illegal is found (but be sure not to have any downloaded songs that you haven’t paid for).
That is far from comforting, even once you get your laptop back days or weeks later, because “nothing in this policy limits the authority of an officer to make written notes” about what was in the laptop.
In my Senate testimony in June, I highlighted many reasons for concern about suspicionless searches of laptops. The basic response from Homeland Security has been: “We can search everything in your suitcase at the border, so we can search everything in your laptop.” The new policy, though, highlights one intriguing protection at the border — the policy follows existing law and says “sealed letter class mail” can only be opened with probable cause.
In short, Congress has long recognized that searches of intellectual content at the border are intrusive. The government is forbidden from sniffing through your mail at the border without probable cause, and similar protections are due for laptops.
What to do next? The Post reports that Senator Russ Feingold, who called the recent hearing, intends to introduce legislation to require reasonable suspicion and bar racial profiling for laptop searches. In addition, join the “Hands Off My Laptop” online campaign, which has already sent over 20,000 messages to CBP about the need for privacy protections for laptops.
McCain In 2003: We Can ‘Muddle Through In Afghanistan’
McCain In 2003: We Can ‘Muddle Through In Afghanistan’
Our guest blogger is Jon Soltz, chairman of VoteVets.org and veteran of the Iraq war.
Today, video was unearthed in which Senator John McCain in 2003 says we can just “muddle through in Afghanistan.” Watch it:
The video offers a glimpse into the true thinking of those, like McCain, who backed launching the war in Iraq and committing our forces there indefinitely. Particularly, they believed that Afghanistan wasn’t a concern and we didn’t need to take it seriously. In fact, just a year earlier, on CBS’ Face the Nation, McCain said capturing Osama bin Laden wasn’t “that important.”
Five years later, we now see where that poor judgment and lack of insight has gotten us. The Taliban has regained large swaths of Afghanistan, al Qaeda has reconstituted itself, Osama bin Laden still is free, and Afghanistan is in crisis. All of that lends itself to our nation being that much less secure, and in much greater danger of another terrorist attack from extremists from the Pakistan/Afghanistan region.
This is not the way to win the war on terror and keep America safe. That’s why it is so important that we get this strategy right now.
Think about it. Had we not gone into Iraq, as Senator McCain thought we should, our forces would have been concentrated in Afghanistan, we would have crushed al Qaeda, probably captured or killed Osama bin Laden, and secured the country all the way to the Pakistani border.
Had we sent the Iraq surge brigades to Afghanistan, instead of to Iraq, and shown a real commitment there, perhaps our NATO allies wouldn’t have pulled their troops from Afghanistan. And, again, we could have decimated al Qaeda, secured the border region, and maybe captured or killed Osama bin Laden.
And now, we’ve got a third chance to get this right. Unfortunately, while it’s laudable that Senator McCain has suddenly discovered there’s a war in Afghanistan, his hands are tied. A couple of days ago, he called for more combat brigades to be sent there. A few minutes later, the Washington Post reported he pulled back on that and said NATO would have to supply the troops, because we would have to keep our forces in Iraq. Well, the Administration’s commitment to endless war in Iraq and its political unpopularity throughout Europe is what caused our NATO allies to pull troops from Afghanistan in the first place. That’s unlikely to change if McCain continues the Bush policy.
That brings us back to the video. John McCain got it horribly wrong in 2002 and 2003 and showed poor judgment in the real war on terror that led us to where we are today. And now, he’s having a problem figuring out how to get it right. The knowledge of “how to win wars?” I just don’t see it.
Desire For Change — Not Anti-Immigrant Sentiment — Does In Congressman Cannon
Desire For Change — Not Anti-Immigrant Sentiment — Does In Congressman Cannon
Our guest blogger is Henry Fernandez, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund focusing on state and municipal policy.
When Utah Congressman Chris Cannon lost the Republican primary last week to Jason Chaffetz, anti-immigrant groups were quick to define it as an example of a candidate winning because of his restrictionist stance. They were desperate because all of the recent election news has been bad for the anti-immigrant crowd, including recent losses in once über-red House districts in Illinois and Mississippi.
Roy Beck, the head honcho of NumbersUSA — a leading organization opposed to legal immigration — told the Orange County Register:
Cannon’s loss was an outburst of Republican frustration with the minority of Republican office-holders who stand in the Bush-McCain amnesty camp.
And this from Michelle Malkin:
…the simple fact is that voters finally got fed up with Cannon’s constant water-carrying for La Raza and MALDEF…
Unfortunately, the AP parroted the anti-immigrants’ talking points, but gave no facts to back up this assertion. Facts lead to a very different conclusion in a race where voters were so dissatisfied that only ten percent of Republicans even bothered to show up. Read the rest of this entry »
John McCain Trying To Have It Both Ways With Gay Community
John McCain Trying To Have It Both Ways With Gay Community
Our guest bloggers are Winnie Stachelberg and Josh Rosenthal.
Last month on Ellen DeGeneres’ TV show, John McCain attempted to soften his stance on the California Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of same-sex marriage:
I think that people should be able to enter into legal agreements and I think that is something that we should encourage, particularly in the case of insurance and other areas.
But on Wednesday, in his official declaration of support for California’s anti-marriage Constitutional amendment, McCain changed his tune:
I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions.
The key word here is Arizona. Last year, McCain campaigned for Arizona’s Proposition 107, an expansive amendment against marriage. Same-sex couples have already begun losing domestic partner benefits (McCain’s “legal agreements”) thanks to similar amendments, and Arizona’s amendment was so broad that it would have covered all domestic partner registrations, including opposite-sex working couples and retired couples who don’t want to get married.
Senator McCain has gotten credit in the gay community for his opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment due to federalist concerns. This argument might even have won over other conservative Senators, like John Sununu (NH), Chuck Hagel (NE), John Warner (VA), Richard Lugar (IN) and Ben Campbell (CO), to defeat the amendment. But if McCain would support California’s state marriage amendments even though Governor Schwarzenegger opposes it, the facts are clear. A few secret meetings with the Log Cabin Republicans doesn’t change the fact that John McCain is no friend to gay Americans.
President Beck: I Wouldn’t Detain Terror Suspects, I’d ‘Shoot Them All In The Head’
President Beck: I Wouldn’t Detain Terror Suspects, I’d ‘Shoot Them All In The Head’
Today on his radio show, CNN host Glenn Beck expressed his disdain of the recent Supreme Court ruling granting terror suspects the right to challenge their detention in civilian courts, exclaiming that if he were President, he would do away with detaining and prosecuting terrorism suspects altogether. Instead, a President Beck would “shoot them all in the head [if] we think that they are against us.”
BECK: We’re going to shoot them all in the head. If we think that they are against us, we’re going to shoot them and kill them, period. Because that’s the only thing we’ve got going for us is we can put them away and get information. If we can’t put them away and they’re going to use our court system, kill them.
Listen here:
If Beck were President since 9/11, he would have killed many innocent people. Here are some of those held in Guantanamo who have either been cleared of charges or were mistakenly detained. For example:
– The “Tipton Three” who were forced into false confessions and later released.
– Huzaifa Parhat, an ethnic Uighur Chinese national swept up by the U.S. forces in Afghanistan, who was improperly classified as an “enemy combatant.” Parhat has been recommended for release by U.S. officials, while a military tribunal found no evidence that Parhat was a member of any radical group.
– Over 30 former Guantanamo detainees who have already been released.
Not only would such a policy undoubtedly kill innocents, but as former Navy general counsel Alberto Mora has said, the belligerent treatment of terror suspects increases the recruitment of “insurgent fighters into combat.”
– Lee Fang
Message To The Federal Government: No, You Can’t Search My Laptop!
Message To The Federal Government: No, You Can’t Search My Laptop!
Our guest blogger, Peter Swire, is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund and served as the Clinton administration’s Chief Counselor for Privacy, working on encryption policy and other issues.
In recent months, I have become increasingly aware of what I consider a deeply flawed and disturbing policy. In April, a federal appeals court held that Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) can search laptops, and even copy their entire contents, as a routine part of border searches. The ruling held that the CBP does not need probable cause, or even the lower standard of “reasonable suspicion.”
The government’s legal theory is that it can open a suitcase at the border, so it can force a traveler to open a laptop and reveal passwords and encryption keys as a condition of entering the country. This simplistic legal theory ignores the massive factual difference between a quick glance into a suitcase and the ability to copy a lifetime of files from someone’s laptop, and then examine those files at the government’s leisure. Some of the problems that arise with this policy:
– U.S. policy creates bad precedents that totalitarian and other regimes will follow. If the United States adopts a policy, then it is generally much harder for the United States to object if other countries adopt a similar policy. Even if you trust handing your encryption keys to the United States, would you feel the same way handing the keys for all your communications to a totalitarian regime?
– Severe harm to personal privacy, free speech, and business secrets. Intrusive laptop searches by the United States and other governments would chill free speech. One vivid example is a human rights activist entering or leaving China, perhaps on a religious or other mission that is controversial in that country. The government may say that they would not do such things, but the lack of legal safeguards once again means that we must simply trust the government not to misuse its power.
– Disadvantaging the U.S. economy. Foreign tourists will not like the idea of having their laptop inspected at the border, and may decide to visit elsewhere. International conferences and conventions will choose to locate elsewhere. If laptop searches were vital to the fight against terrorism, then we might craft procedures to do them while minimizing the intrusion. The available cases, however, are not about terrorism-related investigations.
CPB has refused to acknowledge any limits on its discretion to search laptops, Blackberries, and other computing devices whenever someone enters or leaves the country. Today, I will be testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is holding the first hearing about this increasingly common problem. The hearing, called by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), features a coalition of civil liberties and business groups that oppose these searches. I hope that today’s hearing will spell the beginning of the end of this troubling policy.