Most Recent Posts

I watched the season premiere of Law & Order SVU, and I was excited to see that it covered a topic I've reported on for the last year — sex trafficking of women in Mexico — and that a very rich cast of Latino actors were featured on the show. But man, that good feeling stopped almost as soon as I heard them speak.

The Spanish and Spanglish used in the show was embarrassing. When it comes to Latinos on the screen, Hollywood keeps missing the mark on the way we speak.

One of the SVU story lines focused on a young Mexican prostitute who has been trafficked to the U.S. a year or two ago. Somehow, she speaks fantastic English, just with an accent, to the NYPD detective during a long interrogation. After that, she spontaneously starts talking in very dramatic Spanish to a non-Latina detective she just met.

As someone who regularly speaks English, Spanish and Spanglish (that mix of English and Spanish), this made no sense. For American Latinos, there are certain unspoken rules about what language you speak, and to whom. I know if I ever speak to my parents (native Argentines) in Spanglish, I will get immediately corrected with the word I'm looking for — but can't remember — in Spanish. And if I ever speak to my mom in English — well, I don't do that (she pretends she can't hear me over the phone.)

I'm not alone. Other NPR listeners have chimed in on how they navigated the family politics of language. Twitter user Yvonne Hennessy wrote: "Abuelitos [grandparents] = Spanish. Nuclear family & primos [cousins]= Spanglish or English.

Gisela Castanon wrote in to say, "My parents were from Mexico & both were bilingual in Spanish and English... the rule was cuando te hable en espaol me contestas en espaol, y cuando te hable en ingls,e contestas en ingls. When I talk to you in Spanish, you reply in Spanish, and when I talk to you in English, you reply in English."

Listener Marly Perez wrote, "I speak Spanglish with my sister, but not with my relatives. It's Spanish only. They don't get annoyed if I do — they just call me out on it."

If you're a Spanglish speaker, it's not just your family calling you out. Anti-immigration activists in the U.S. are also fervent critics. They point to Spanglish as a symbol of everything that's wrong with Latino immigration. Look! They aren't assimilating! Hispanic invasion! Destruction of the English language! Gah! Interestingly, that distaste is shared by plenty of Latin Americans, who wrinkle their noses at the mere mention of "Spanglish."

As a South American myself, I've heard plenty of snide inside jokes about "those" Latinos in the U.S. who don't fully master the Spanish. In certain circles, Spanglish is seen as a "contamination" of the Spanish language. A few years back, the Spanish Royal Academy created a small controversy when it inducted the word "Spanglish" into its dictionary, but defined it as "deformed elements of vocabulary and grammar from both Spanish and English." Ouch.

But for some Latin cultures, losing Spanglish would also mean losing their identity. Listener Paola Cap-Garca wrote, "it's definitely a part of everyday living in Puerto Rico, not just the US Latino experience....I think we're taught to think Spanglish is a failure, that it's 'imperialist' or that it's 'uneducated' or 'unattractive,' but I've come to accept/appreciate it...I like the hodgepodge."

I like the hodgepodge too, but only when it's done right. Too many U.S. movies and television shows get it wrong, even when they pride themselves in being authentic. Many people singled out the show Breaking Bad, and the character Gustavo "Gus" Fring, for falling flat on language. Tamara Vallejos writes, "Gus' Spanish and accent were so painful to listen to, and it made me super angry that such a pivotal and fantastic character would have such a giant, noticeable, nails-on-a-chalkboard flaw."

I will say there are examples of Hollywood doing it right. The film Chef is a great example. The film stars Sofia Vergara, but with a script that doesn't force her to overdo her accent or screech her way through the boisterous Latina stereotype (which is how many of us see her in her Modern Family). In the film, she isn't playing a Latina stereotype. She's playing a concerned mom who happens to be Latina. The Spanish and Spanglish happens when it's supposed to, and it just flows very naturally.

This is the way it's supposed to be, and it's the way it could be. There are over 50 million Latinos in America, and surely scriptwriters can find one of us to check the script with.

Until then, I have this thought: Here's a word I love in the Spanish language: ningunear. It's a verb that comes from the noun ningun, or "none." It literally means to turn someone into nothing, to condescend. Dear Hollywood: stop with the ninguneo.

spanglish

Breaking Bad

Hollywood

Latinos

In 1997, Cylvia Hayes, now Oregon's first lady, received about $5,000 to marry an Ethiopian man who wanted a green card. At a tearful news conference in Portland, Ore., Hayes said Thursday that she had made a "serious mistake" in what was a "difficult and unstable period" in her life.

"I want to be clear today — I was associating with the wrong people," she said in a statement read at the news conference. "I was struggling to put myself through college and was offered money in exchange for marrying a young person who had a chance to get a college degree himself if he were able to remain in the United States."

The hastily called news conference followed a story in the Willamette Weekly. The newspaper reported:

"In 1997, King County, Wash., marriage records show, Hayes married a teenage Ethiopian immigrant 11 years younger than she. It's not clear why Hayes entered into the marriage and why she has kept it secret. However, public records raise questions about whether the marriage was legitimate or whether it was a way to help the young man with his immigration status."

News stories have identified the man as Abraham B. Abraham. He was 18 at the time. Hayes was 29. The story noted that they filed for divorce in 2001. Hayes said that she and Abraham met only a handful of times and never lived together. She said they have not had any contact since the divorce was finalized.

Hayes called the marriage "wrong then and it is wrong now," adding, "I am here today to accept the consequences, some of which will be life changing."

Hayes and Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber, a Democrat, aren't married, but have been together for 10 years. The governor's office refers to Hayes as first lady.

In her statement Thursday, Hayes said she did not tell Kitzhaber about the marriage until the story broke.

"This is the most painful part for me. John Kitzhaber deserved to know the history of the person he was forming a relationship with. The fact that I did not disclose this to him meant that he has learned about this in the most public and unpleasant way," she said. "This is my greatest sorrow in this difficult situation."

So-called green card marriages are illegal under federal law. But the Oregonian quotes local immigration official Philip Hornik as saying an investigation is more likely when there are "fresh tracks." Here's more:

"The statute of limitation for criminal penalties is five years from the marriage date, meaning Hayes' deadline passed in 2002. There's no limitation on civil penalties, however. Hayes is likely safe from legal repercussions, yet immigration officials have the power to revoke a given status from immigrants who benefit from such deals."

That could affect Abraham, who news reports say later earned a degree in math from Greensboro College in North Carolina and now lives in the Washington, D.C., area.

Political pundits interviewed by the Oregonian said they doubted the story would hurt Kitzhaber, who is seeking a fourth term against state Rep. Dennis Richardson, a Republican.

Gov. John Kitzhaber

Cylvia Hayes

Oregon

Anyone concerned about how the two parties would pay for their national conventions after a new law took away their public funding can stop worrying.

The Federal Election Commission approved a joint request Thursday by the Democratic and Republican parties to let them accept as much as $32,400 per donor per year – for conventions alone. That's even in the three years of each presidential election cycle in which there is no actual convention, and on top of the $32,400 per year individuals can already give each party.

From an October 8 letter to the Federal Election Commission from the Democratic and Republican parties. Federal Election Commission hide caption

itoggle caption Federal Election Commission

In a letter to the commissioners Wednesday, the parties blamed "Congress's sudden and unexpected termination of the National Party Committees' entitlement to receive public funds to pay for convention expenses, at a time when planning for the national nominating conventions was well underway."

That "sudden and unexpected termination" came in the form of the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act, which was passed with bipartisan support and signed by President Obama this spring. It ended public financing for the conventions and promised to shift the money saved — $18 million for each convention in 2012 – for children's cancer research.

Advocates of campaign finance limits opposed the change. Public Citizen noted that Congress so far has failed to actually provide any new cancer research funding. "Today, the commission is being asked by the same parties to create another loophole in federal election law," the group wrote in a Tuesday letter.

The commission has been blocked from acting in recent years because of a three-three split between the three Democratic and three Republicans members. It approved the change today on a 4-2 vote when Democratic vice-chairwoman Ann Ravel voted with the three Republicans.

party conventions

Federal Election Commission

Code Switch

As States Vote In Primaries, Voter ID Laws Come Under Scrutiny

It's All Politics

Voting Rights Ruling Could Open Lawsuit Floodgates

Updated at 7:03 a.m. ET Friday:

After an appeals court put Wisconsin's voter ID law back into effect, the Supreme Court voted to put the law on hold while the justices decide whether to take the case.

Erin Toner of Milwaukee's WUWM reports:

"This comes after a federal appeals court on Monday upheld the law as constitutional. But tonight's Supreme Court ruling blocks voter ID while it considers whether to accept the case.

"Gov. Walker and Republicans approved the law in 2011, and it's been held up in the courts ever since. ...

"It's been estimated that as many as 300,000 Wisconsin residents do not have the required IDs for voting. Supporters of the law claim the intent is to prevent voter fraud, but there is no evidence of any fraud in Wisconsin."

It's All Politics

Texas Voter ID Law Goes To Trial

NPR's Pam Fessler notes that while Samuel Alito joined fellow Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in dissenting, he expressed concern about imposing the law so close to the election.

"That was one of the main arguments that opponents of the law had made — that it was too late to put this law into effect this year," Pam tells Morning Edition. "It had been on hold for two years until in September a federal court ruled that it could go into effect. But by that time, the state had already sent out hundreds of absentee ballots that did not include ID instructions. So election officials were going to have to track down each of those voters and have them send in a copy of their ID so their votes would count, which was quite a mess. Now those votes will count."

Meanwhile, a federal judge in Texas overturned that state's new voter ID law, a ruling the state's attorney general says will be appealed immediately, The Associated Press reports. The Justice Department had argued that the law would have left 600,000 Texans, mostly blacks and Hispanics, without sufficient identification to vote in November elections, according to The Associated Press.

Pam Fessler had this to say on the judge's ruling:

"Texas has one of the strictest voter ID laws in the country, and voting rights groups challenged it as discriminatory. Last night, District Court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos agreed. In a strongly worded opinion, she said the law discriminated against the state's Hispanic and African American voters, because they're less likely to have the required government-issued photo ID, and could have a more difficult time getting one. She said that the law effectively imposed a poll tax because some voters would have to pay to get documents — such as a birth certificate — needed to get a photo ID. Perhaps more importantly, she found that the state enacted the law with the intention of discriminating against voters.

"I should say that within minutes of her ruling, the Texas attorney general's office issued a statement that the state would immediately appeal. So this is definitely not the last we're going to hear on this. There's still some question whether or not Texas voters will have to show ID in this year's election."

Voter ID

Texas

Wisconsin

election

Supreme Court