May I ask you something, what if one day when you woke up your community, no wait for it; your country is now the murder capital of the world? I'm assuming that as Americans we would think of this as an atrocious, and unacceptable situation, right? I know, I know, I'm totally right on this one! I apologize for feeding my ego here. Now, onto the most serious issue here. In case you aren't fully informed, or aware of what's currently going on in the Central American country of El Salvador; don't worry that's perfectly fine. That's why I am here for. To inform you. Lately, immigration, as we all know has caused a passionate, emotional, and heated debate within our political spectrum. Specifically, among Hispanics like myself. What a coincidence that I of all people would be writing about this. Sarcasm at it's best! The issue of immigration might not necessarily be of a great importance, but it sure does seem like a popular topic in our current presidential election, but then you ask yourself what does this have to do with Texas? And I will say this. Texas has a lot to do with immigration. Why? because it is believed that up to 90 percent of immigrants that have been apprehended on our southern Texas border are from Central America. That's why. A quick note before I begin writing even more. I tend to be very biased, and I do apologize for that, I also seem to be somewhat of an activist. But someone has to speak the truth. Go democracy!
I find it quite bizarre though (Ironically speaking) that El Salvador seems to be what I call a "U.S. Puppet" by that I mean since the level of violence that the gangs MS-13 and 18th street pose to society can be traced back to El Salvador's Merciless, 12-year civil war, which till this day still cuts deep wounds in the country. Now, back to the U.S. involvement in the Salvadoran civil war. The United States just so happen to have"U.S.-backed, right-wing soldiers" in El Salvador, but the left-wing (Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front) opposed their political philosophy and declared a full-scale war. It was official! The Salvadoran Civil war had begun, which sought out to see more than "75,000" deaths, beginning in 1980, and ending in 1992. It was truly horrendous times for El Salvador. But while the war was in full action many Salvadorans decided to flee their country and head North to the U.S. in order to not be killed by the guerrillas. Gustavo Villatoro, a former assistant attorney general states, “Those of us who lived in areas dominated by guerillas had to migrate,” he said. “Because I didn’t want to be a guerilla by choice, I was going to be made to be one. And if not, they’d kill me. And they’d kill my family, too.” When immigrants set foot on American soil they arrived with literally no money, leading them to start from scratch, forcing many families to live in poverty-stricken areas. A most famous area East Los Angeles where the MS-13 and 18th street gangs were formed. But these gang members who were mostly young and wild teenagers were soon deported back to their countries, bringing with them a new level of war. Gang war. I am not necessarily pointing the finger at the U.S. for this current uprising gang problem in El Salvador, and various Central American countries; but what I am questioning is why not deal with the problem that we as a country began; rather than just leaving it to a vulnerable country in which I call a proletariat of the United States.
If you're wondering why so many Salvadorians are now suddenly migrating to Texas, It is because unfortunately, El Salvador is now home to two of the most brutal gangs in the world: The Mara Salvatrucha, and (La 18) or eighteenth street gang. In the 1990s when "former president Bill Clinton"-- was in the white house he, and his administration "aggressively," decided to deport as many illegal gang members as they could. Although what the Clinton administration didn't realize was that the new gang problem originally formed in the U.S. was going to be a real burden on the Central American govt. It was a fact; the Central American govt wasn't prepared to deal with the "level of organization" that the MS-13 and their counterparts brought to Central American countries.
It really doesn't surprise me why so many Salvadorans, Hondurans, and Guatemalan's have decided to flee their countries. They're fleeing the violence and drastic poverty levels that they face. The ruthless violence that the MS-13 and 18th street gangs have brought with them has influenced them to recruit as many members as possible, including children as young as 10 years old. Then people wonder why so many Latin Americans decide to flee their countries, they're not leaving because they want too, it is due to the very limited economic opportunities that their countries offer them. What I am trying to convey here is that most of the people fleeing, El Salvador, are families, single parents, and even lonesome children. Better yet Salvadorans along with Central Americans are now considered refugees as well. The main priority of many immigrants like the Salvadorans, Hondurans etc... is to be able to give their children a better life. So that they won't have to endure the penurious situations that their countries face. Ultimately, Texas happens to be a clandestine route for immigrants, and I frankly do not blame them. Nor do I recommend them to come to Texas, but they're in search of the fallacy known as the AMERICAN DREAM. Is that something that we should deny humanitarianism, the ability to dream. What do you think?
Dianna Muldrow, a policy analyst for the Center for Effective Justice of The Texas Public Policy Foundation, is emphasizing the unfortunate fact that many children in Texas are being denied their rights to a good quality education. A recent investigative report from the Houston Chronicle alleges that the Texas Education Agency (TEA) has systematically lowered the number of students granted special education status in the state since 2004. Muldrow's, main intended audience are the parents of children with either diagnosed or non-diagnosed learning disabilities, as well as administrators, teachers, and especially the (TEA) for not taking into full consideration the resources that children with learning disabilities deserve.
Imagine, your child has the very same potential than that of a scholar; but he/she is being denied the resources to help them succeed? wouldn't that make you as a parent angry, questionable, and even untrustworthy towards our educational system? That's exactly what the public education system has/is doing too many children who deserve the benefits of special education. As Muldrow, argues on behalf of the parents who have children with learning disabilities, "what is certain is that many parents do not feel that the needs of their [children] are being met by the schools district." what this results in, is more parents turning to alternative educational methods, making parents turn to private, charter, or online schooling.
Certainly, there isn't anything wrong with educational alternative methods; if you can afford them? but for the single parent or families who unfortunately do not have the financial necessities for this kind of education; it can be an indefinite burden on their part. Actually, it impacts the children even more, because they're the ones not receiving the adequate education that they drastically deserve. As you might have been able to tell with my diction, I most definitely agree with Dianna Muldrow stance. Mainly, because every child should have the right to fully reach their academic potential, but if you have a system that's not fully letting children strive for their academic excellence; because they have a slower cognitive process. It just isn't ethical! Think in terms of how the children are going to psychologically feel when it comes time for them to actually step out into the real world. What do you think? is it going to be all sunshine, or is that child who is now an adult going to fully strive to succeed? No matter the circumstance every child should have the right to a prosperous education, and that to me is final.
The editorial, columnist writer, Alberta Phillips of the Austin American-Statesman makes a very clear, and engaging argument; in regards to More evictions pushing low-income scale families out of schools, and communities. She argues the fact that local residents are being kicked out of their homes, considering the increase in the construction of condos, and upscale housing in the East Austin area of Mueller development. In my perspective, she is trying to convey, and catch the attention of many "slumlord" owners as well as city leaders, by taking into consideration the burden that many low-income scale families are facing, due to their decision-making.
Phillips is also arguing the fact that many landlords who are evicting lower income scale families are residents who have been living in these long-term affordable residences for years, and who have children who attend the local schools. Blanton Elementary School is located near these complexes and has a strong reputation for educating children who come from predominantly Hispanic families. The school is known for being a helping hand for many of these children who at times come to the school, not knowing English, and sadly even starving. Mainly, since their parents are having to choose "between paying rent or buying enough food to last the month." To sum up, Phillips is trying to point out the reality that nowadays it's a true hassle to find affordable housing. Yet, what landlords and various investors are doing to many low-income complexes is negatively affecting many long-term residents, who have work hard day to day to just meet ends meet.
I personally agree with what Phillips is arguing here, why you might ask? well, I understand that Austin is without a doubt one of the nation's fastest growing city, and along with that growth comes the booming real estate business, and investors etc. But I don't necessarily agree with the evictions of many residences, who are just simply trying to make a living for themselves, and their families. I don't agree with the fact that many landlord owners, who have been repeatedly violating city codes, have all of a sudden decided to become "real estate speculators." As "Tovo," stated in the opinion based commentary written by Phillips "the city should examine ways to help landlords who are financially strapped" I fully agree with his suggestion as well, because I am sure that being a landlord isn't necessarily an easy task, and whenever you have financial burdens on your property your only option could possibly mean selling the property to wealthy real estate investors. In either case, It just isn't right, and ultimately the people who are affected by these decisions are, unfortunately, of lower income, and frankly DO NOT have enough resources to find affordable housing, which is just not humane. Certainly, It would be nice if landlords and city leaders did a bit more in helping these families stay in their communities, but sadly our economy doesn't function that way.
x
Texas still has the highest percentage of people without health insurance in the country Now, Let me ask you something. What do you think is the number of people uninsured in Texas? In case you're curious the numbers are extravagant. 5 Million Texans were reported uninsured. What's also a bit harsh to hear/read about is considering the fact that many of the folk's uninsured most likely fall under the lower Income scale. As well as people whose income doesn't quite fall under the low-income scale, but at the same time still wouldn't be enough for coverage, which makes it harder for them to find affordable Health insurance. Mainly since our State of Texas is one of, or in other words the most strict and stingy state when it comes down to ensuring certain people. Specifically, since Texas is a state who unfortunately decided not to expand Medicaid coverage.
Here comes another question for you. Why do you think Our Texas Government doesn't ensure residents?I don't want to sound like a Liberal now, but as you might already know Texas is predominantly a republican state. The ironic thing is that Texas can actually grant insurance to "about 800,000 adults living in poverty if the state expanded Medicaid." The Republican Party considering their conservative point of views strongly oppose the Idea of Medicaid "They've criticized Medicaid, as an inefficient and broken system." Now, The Republicans might have a point there, but what they should consider first is the insuring of their residents. Instead of putting political favoritism first. I know what I just wrote might sound as if I am speaking about a dream world, but with this kind of decision making does is ultimately affect the people of Texas.
In my perspective, I believe this article is worthy of reading mainly since we as Texans can possibly be affected by this or even currently experiencing being uninsured. We as citizens need to have the right information, In regards to issues that frankly can touch home for some of us, not all of us, but a significant proportion. So go ahead and read this article to expand your knowledge on what the "POLITICIANS" are abiding by. Trust me it will surprise you. Actually it might not even surprise you, but still, you should read it!
