Trends
Biggest missed Super Tuesday story : What kind of Latinos were voting?
Ms Unhinged Malkin is using data of the white supremacist organization NumbersUSA, to prove that Latinos who voted for Hillary Clinton were "corruptly" naturalized under her husband's administration.
Is that really so? How can she be so certain that all of those who voted for Clinton are naturalized immigrants as opposed to old American Latino families with no links to their countries of origin?
This is the untold story of Super Tuesday. For all the talk from Democrats and Republicans about whether immigration is or is not a wedge issue in 2008, the fact of the matter is nobody is exit polling and on the look out for recently naturalized citizen voters.
More to the point for pundits who are scrambling to feign to know all things latino, nobody is going out of their way to define demographically what "Latino voter" means.
- Is a Latino a recent immigrant?
- Is a Latino a native Northern Mexican who never immigrated to the US?
- Is it Nuyoricans only or does it include also Puerto Ricans born in the island?
- When confusing Hispanic and Latino, are we also including people born in Spain and Portugal but naturalized in the United States?
- And how many generations does it take before you loose the identity politics moniker and become a "full American"?
- Too many people are tossing around the "Latinos only vote for white Democrats or the Clintons" without qualifying the term Latino or Hispanic and that's a problem.
Citizenship | Identity Politics | Immigration | Polling | Statistics | Trends | Voting Patterns | 2008 Presidential Elections | Barack Obama | Democratic Party | Hillary Clinton | Primaries | Super Tuesday
The racial politics of Baby Bjorns

That's Thing 1 playing Daddy with my doll Camilla in a Baby Bjorn. Thing 2 looks on from a pram.
Run to the Anti-Racist Parent blog and read Mamita Mala's take on the parenting fad known as 'babywearing'in The Racial and Economic Politics of Babywearing :
Many, if not most indigenous and people of color communities around the globe wear their babies. From the continents of Asia, the Americas and Africa, indigenous women from ancient times wore their babies, mostly so that they could get back to the daily chores of life while taking care of their young. Babywearing was practical. So practical in fact, that on those continents, it is considered an act of the lower, poor classes. After all, wealthy women had people to do their chores for them, including carrying and taking care of their babies.
And it’s that fact that makes the whole babywearing movement in the U.S. so interesting. The babywearing community is mostly white and upper middle class to upper class and they better be. Wearing your baby doesn’t come cheap. Simple pouches can run 70 dollars and up. “Asian†style carriers are in the 80 dollar range and wraps, long pieces of cloth , are 100 dollars plus. On web boards and at meetings, mama’s show off their stashes of different kinds of babywearing gear, which includes special coats, vests, covers and leg-warmers for wearing your baby in the winter.
Baby Carriers | Babywearing | Ethnicity | Marketing | Parenting | Race | Trends | Maegan Ortiz
Immigration Prof Blog
Bill Hing, Jennifer Chacón and Kevin Johnson do a bang up job at keeping us up-to-date with the latest on immigration law here in the United States. Definitely a must read.
Academic Blogs | Immigration Blogs | Law Blogs | Liza's Favorite Blogs | history | Immigration | Law | Trends






















