#36 ¿Que pasó? with Señor B - week of 12/1

A persistent tactic used to defend systems like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is pointing to the diversity of their workforce, arguing that an agency cannot possibly be racist if it employs a significant number of people from the very racial or ethnic groups it is accused of targeting. This argument often relies on wildly inaccurate claims, such as the statement that 86% of ICE agents are Latino. Data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees ICE, indicates that the overall percentage of Hispanic or Latino employees is far lower, closer to 20-30%,and certainly nowhere near the figure claimed. But more importantly than debunking this specific, misleading statistic is confronting the core belief it tries to protect: the idea that diversity within a corrupt system is a shield against systemic racism.

Diversity within a system does not erase the racism and harm the system perpetuates. The racism of an institution is determined not by the race of its individual employees, but by the impact and intent of its policies and practices. ICE was created under the Department of Homeland Security in 2003 in response to 9/11 in attempts to counter terrorism, but its mandate soon expanded, framing the presence of certain foreign groups, particularly those from Latin America, as a national security issue. This shift led to decades of abuse and violations, intensifying during the Obama administration with the “Secure Communities” program launched in 2008, all built upon continuous engagement in racial profiling. These policies are programmatic, and they target non-White communities regardless of the ethnicity of the agent carrying them out.

Representation within a system is only meaningful if it can fundamentally change the structure and practice of that system. When the fundamental goal of the institution is to enforce policies that disproportionately target and inflict harm on a specific racial group, the demographics of its staff become irrelevant to the outcome of racism. The U.S. has a long and explicit history of discrimination, from the Chinese Exclusion Act to the Japanese internment, showing how systems can leverage nationalism and fear to enact racially biased policies. In the current context, it does not make the situation better or less racist if it is a Brown ICE agent engaging in separating families and kidnapping people to deport them back to their home country. If they are still acting in accordance with the system's violent and racist practices, their presence does nothing to change the overall structure of harm.

The contrast between loving a culture’s food and hating its people is often a painful symptom of systemic racism, but rarely is it displayed with the grotesque openness seen recently in Eagle, Idaho. A local bar, Old State Saloon, made national news for a promotional event that was truly beyond the pale: offering free drinks for tips leading to the deportation of local undocumented workers.

This move is one of the most bizarre, but also unsurprising, ways to court attention from what is clearly a "red-pilled" clientele, and it is fundamentally inhumane and gross. The bar's website and rhetoric consistently align with far-right, anti-immigrant narratives, openly supporting the "red hat" administration. Their entire business model appears built on weaponizing xenophobia for profit and notoriety.

What makes this situation particularly stomach-turning is the irony: this establishment has Mexican food on its menu. This exposes a deep, corrosive hypocrisy: a desire to consume, profit from, and enjoy the culinary and cultural exports of the very people they wish to deport and oppress. They love the culture's flavor, but they despise the people who created it. This is not just a cheap stunt; it is the ultimate expression of the privileged, entitled mindset that wants the benefits of immigrant labor and culture without the people themselves.

This kind of casual cruelty shows how easily human rights can be discarded for attention and a cheap political point. This behavior is unacceptable. If you live in Idaho, the message is clear: find another place to eat. Our dollars are powerful, and they should never support businesses that profit by dehumanizing and attempting to destroy our community.

If you’ve noticed your grocery bill is significantly higher, or if rising rent and utility costs are straining your budget, you’re not alone. The affordability crisis is a painfully real part of life for nearly every working family in the country. Yet, in one of the most incredible dismissals of public reality, the current administration has recently claimed that these economic concerns are merely a "hoax" or a "Democrat scam."

This denial is not just a political disagreement; it is an effort to gaslight the public. For the President to dismiss the rising cost of groceries, health care, and electricity as a political invention is not just crazy; it’s a direct insult to the millions of people who have to choose between buying enough food and paying their bills.

We’ve seen this strategy before. Whenever reality conflicts with the narrative of success, whether it’s the facts of January 6th, the handling of international scandals, or in this case, a painful economic pinch, the President’s playbook is always the same: deny, label it a lie, and blame the opposition. The goal is to delegitimize the source of the bad news rather than address the problem itself.

But there is no "fake news" when it comes to your wallet. You don't need a government report to tell you that the cost of milk and eggs has gone up. When grocery prices remain a major pain point and surveys show a vast majority of Americans are anxious about their household budgets, the affordability crisis is not a hoax; it’s a crisis of conscience from leaders who refuse to acknowledge the hardship they are overseeing. It’s a strategy designed to make you doubt your own experience. We must reject it and demand real solutions for the economic pressures we face every day.