Where have you gone, Asa Hutchinson?

Asa Hutchinson, former under secretary at DHS—he was the director of the Border and Transportation Security Directorate—came to visit PODER's editorial board two years ago at our Miami Beach offices. Hutchinson was relaxed and very good natured. During the almost two hour session, we fed Hutchinson Argentine empanadas and we talked about the challenges the newly formed agency faced: the politics of security and of course, the border itself. Hutchison outlined the administration's position against militarizing the border. Let's hope he's on the right side of history on this one. Below, an excerpt from that May 2004 interview.


PODER: Is it feasible to militarize the border, or is it even desirable?

Asa Hutchinson: It would be problematic from a resource standpoint because our military is stretched thin. Right now with their commitments in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Indonesia, the present commitments out there would make it very challenging to say “we want you now to protect the vast expanses of our southern or northern border.” And, from that standpoint, that’s not a traditional
military role.

"Economic migrants

should be dealt with

from a law enforcement

standpoint."

Secondly, this administration supports not militarizing the border but using traditional law enforcement for that purpose. And the reason is these are not criminals, they are not by and large terrorists. They are economic migrants, and they should be dealt with from a law enforcement standpoint. It’s what law enforcement is trained to do versus the military.
They don’t need to be shot.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes - Comprehensive Immigration Reform of 2006

As compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate.

Measure: S.2611 (Comprehensive Immigration Reform of 2006) A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and other purposes.


Vote Result: Bill Passed

Votes:
YEA’s: 62
NAY's: 36
Not Voting: 2

Votes Grouped by Home State

Alabama:
Sessions (R-AL): Nay
Shelby (R-AL): Nay

Alaska:
Murkowski (R-AK): Yea
Stevens (R-AK): Yea

Arizona:
Kyl (R-AZ): Nay
McCain (R-AZ): Yea

Arkansas:
Lincoln (D-AR): Yea
Pryor (D-AR): Yea

California:
Boxer (D-CA): Yea
Feinstein (D-CA): Yea

Colorado:
Allard (R-CO): Nay
Salazar (D-CO): Not Voting

Connecticut:
Dodd (D-CT): Yea
Lieberman (D-CT): Yea

Delaware:
Biden (D-DE): Yea
Carper (D-DE): Yea

Florida:
Martinez (R-FL): Yea
Nelson (D-FL): Yea

Georgia:
Chambliss (R-GA): Nay
Isakson (R-GA): Nay

Hawaii:
Akaka (D-HI): Yea
Inouye (D-HI): Yea

Idaho:
Craig (R-ID): Yea
Crapo (R-ID): Nay

Illinois:
Durbin (D-IL): Yea
Obama (D-IL): Yea

Indiana:
Bayh (D-IN): Yea
Lugar (R-IN): Yea

Iowa:
Grassley (R-IA): Nay
Harkin (D-IA): Yea

Kansas:
Brownback (R-KS): Yea
Roberts (R-KS): Nay

Kentucky:
Bunning (R-KY): Nay
McConnell (R-KY): Yea

Louisiana:
Landrieu (D-LA): Yea
Vitter (R-LA): Nay

Maine:
Collins (R-ME): Yea
Snowe (R-ME): Yea

Maryland:
Mikulski (D-MD): Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD): Yea

Massachusetts:
Kennedy (D-MA): Yea
Kerry (D-MA): Yea

Michigan:
Levin (D-MI): Yea
Stabenow (D-MI): Nay

Minnesota:
Coleman (R-MN): Yea
Dayton (D-MN): Yea

Mississippi:
Cochran (R-MS): Nay
Lott (R-MS): Nay

Missouri:
Bond (R-MO): Nay
Talent (R-MO): Nay

Montana:
Baucus (D-MT): Yea
Burns (R-MT): Nay

Nebraska:
Hagel (R-NE): Yea
Nelson (D-NE): Nay

Nevada:
Ensign (R-NV): Nay
Reid (D-NV): Yea

New Hampshire:
Gregg (R-NH): Yea
Sununu (R-NH): Nay

New Jersey:
Lautenberg (D-NJ): Yea
Menendez (D-NJ): Yea

New Mexico:
Bingaman (D-NM): Yea
Domenici (R-NM): Yea

New York:
Clinton (D-NY): Yea
Schumer (D-NY): Yea

North Carolina:
Burr (R-NC): Nay
Dole (R-NC): Nay

North Dakota:
Conrad (D-ND): Yea
Dorgan (D-ND): Nay

Ohio:
DeWine (R-OH): Yea
Voinovich (R-OH): Yea

Oklahoma:
Coburn (R-OK): Nay
Inhofe (R-OK): Nay

Oregon:
Smith (R-OR): Yea
Wyden (D-OR): Yea

Pennsylvania:
Santorum (R-PA): Nay
Specter (R-PA): Yea

Rhode Island:
Chafee (R-RI): Yea
Reed (D-RI): Yea

South Carolina:
DeMint (R-SC): Nay
Graham (R-SC): Yea

South Dakota:
Johnson (D-SD): Yea
Thune (R-SD): Nay

Tennessee:
Alexander (R-TN): Nay
Frist (R-TN): Yea

Texas:
Cornyn (R-TX): Nay
Hutchison (R-TX): Nay

Utah:
Bennett (R-UT): Yea
Hatch (R-UT): Nay

Vermont:
Jeffords (I-VT): Yea
Leahy (D-VT): Yea

Virginia:
Allen (R-VA): Nay
Warner (R-VA): Yea

Washington:
Cantwell (D-WA): Yea
Murray (D-WA): Yea

West Virginia:
Byrd (D-WV): Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV): Not Voting

Wisconsin:
Feingold (D-WI): Yea
Kohl (D-WI): Yea

Wyoming:
Enzi (R-WY): Nay
Thomas (R-WY): Nay

Foreign Movies and the Pursuit of Happiness...

My wife and I watched an Italian movie over the weekend called "L' Eclisse" (The Eclipse), a black and silver cinematic gem. It is a classic tale about a sophisticated couple living in Rome who seek each other out after finding no contentment in their former loves or fulfillment in their professions. Sadly, in the end, neither of them find what they are looking for in each other and soon revert to their lonely and banal existence trapped in a material and monotonous world. I rate it "two thumbs, way up" as they say in the business.

The movie had everything you would expect from a 1960's Italian motion
Picture: impossibly attractive actors, striking landscapes and backgrounds, eye-catching automobiles, intelligent dialogue and of course, subtitles.

Funny thing about subtitles, they're annoying at first, but then you slowly forget you've been reading along through the movie as you get swept away in its emotional rollercoaster. I prefer subtitles because dubbed voices in English just don't seem to capture the subtle and the sublime expressions being emoted by the actors in their original language. Furthermore, I would contend that the juxtaposition of American English and the cityscapes of Rome would detract from the artistic and cultural experience one derives from watching this particular foreign movie for instance. Ideally, I would love to learn Italian and not need subtitles to enjoy the movie.

In many ways, the Spanish language serves as sub-titles writ large for many U.S. Hispanics. For instance, there is well-documented evidence that the vast majority of foreign language speakers and their kids are as aware as anyone of the importance of learning English. In fact, studies find that nearly one hundred percent of third generation Hispanics speak English. But first and second generation immigrants need those elemental "sub-titles" to better understand and navigate the English world we live in only because many have just begun their American experience.

It is undisputed that English is the dominant language in the United States and despite what you hear from paranoid alarmists, its status as our nation's choice language is not threatened with change anytime soon.
Actually, the opposite is true. The Center for Economic Policy reports that English is well on its way to becoming the dominant global language.

Nonetheless, many non-Hispanics feel unsettled because the impression for many is that Spanish is ever-present, ever expanding and ever encroaching unto sacred areas such as the Star Spangled Banner. Spanish is on billboards, on cable and satellite TV, in the back pages of church bulletins, and on government websites.

English, it is argued, is the unifying language that brings us all together.
Guess what folks? You won't find any old, or new immigrant for that matter dispute that assertion. If you think of Spanish as America's subtitle language (not to be confused as a subordinate language) during the immigrant's transition to English, you will find what I found out after watching that Italian movie. After a while you don't even realize you've been reading or hearing it. You might even want to learn Spanish in order to enjoy the culture and traditions associated with it.

Of course, Spanish is much more than a language that should be relegated to the role of serving as a mere sub-title. Regrettably, some of us are much too hasty to see the death of Spanish without taking into regard the enormous advantage it gives us in a global economy, the value we derive from it in our appreciation for the arts, and the wealth of culture it provides.

As E.J.Dionne writes, "raging against them shows little understanding of how new immigrants struggle to become loyal Americans who love their country -- and come to love the English language."

As humans we must begin to value each other's hopes and aspirations, but also value our differences and most importantly our commonality. As Americans, we must look to fulfill the truths echoed in the U.S.
Constitution - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But unlike that Italian couple in L' Eclisse, I hope you find what you're looking for.


Daniel Garza, President of PODER-HISPANIC Group

NYT Editorial:Border Illusions

New York Times editorial this week:

"President Bush's speech from the Oval Office last night was not a blueprint for comprehensive immigration reform. It was a victory for the fear-stricken fringe of the debate.

These are the people who say illegal border crossings must be stopped immediately, with military boots in the desert sand. Never mind the overwhelming burdens of Iraq and Afghanistan, the absence of a coherent and balanced immigration policy, and the broad public support for a comprehensive solution. America must send its overtaxed troops to the border right now, they say, so a swarm of ruthless, visa-less workers cannot bury our way of life under a relentless onslaught of hard work.

Rather than standing up for truth, Mr. Bush swiveled last night in the direction of those who see immigration, with delusional clarity, as entirely a problem of barricades and bad guys. His plan to deploy "up to 6,000" National Guard troops to free the Border Patrol to hunt illegal immigrants is a model of stark simplicity, one sure to hearten the Minuteman vigilantes, frightened conspiracy theorists, English-only Latinophobes, right-wing radio and TV personalities, and members of Congress who have no patience for sorting out the various and mixed blessings that surging immigration has given this country.

Those on the other side of the argument have spent frustrating months making a quieter, more complicated case. Supporters of a compromise immigration bill in the Senate want a balanced approach that is both tough and smart. They, too, would add people and technology to enhance security on the Mexican border, which is now about as solid as a screen door. But unlike the House bill, which is fixated on enforcement, the Senate bill seeks to restore law and order in a variety of ways. It would, for example, shorten an immigration backlog by adjusting work and family visa quotas, tighten the enforcement of immigration laws in the workplace and put illegal workers on a path to assimilation and citizenship.

Mr. Bush gave lip service to aspects of comprehensive reform, but that part of his message was, as usual, delivered with a mumbling lack of conviction. He denounced "amnesty" again, but did not speak up forcefully enough for a citizenship path for the 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants who, in huge national marches in recent weeks, have made their hunger to assimilate powerfully clear.

Some say Mr. Bush's proposal is simply a tough act to distract the mob so he can get to the real business of comprehensive reform. But endorsing the Minuteman argument only emboldens hard-liners. Representative Charlie Norwood of Georgia, a state that is leading the nation in trying to remove all the offending noncitizen parts from its economic engine, wrote just before Mr. Bush's speech that he could envision using 36,000 to 50,000 troops to seal the border. The job could be done "by Memorial Day at the latest," he contended.

Mr. Bush's speech could be dismissed as a mere distraction. But it is worse than that because the best hope of reform, the Senate bill being debated this week, is under fire from the very forces Mr. Bush is trying to appease.

That legislation is built around a solid core — a bill from Senators John McCain and Edward Kennedy — but in recent months it has morphed into something that is far more complicated and problematic. It's encrusted with new provisions intended to placate the enforcement-only hard-liners by ensuring that an immigrant's path to legality would be anything but quick and easy. Some hurdles are innocuous time-wasters, but others are so onerous and cumbersome that they might put the whole business at risk.

The Senate bill is also cruelly inadequate in giving due process to those accused of violating immigration laws. Its reliance on guest workers should be met with wariness. The United States is not an Arab emirate. It does not ennoble our democratic experiment by importing a second-class society of worker bees who are vulnerable to exploitation and have little incentive to adopt our values. If there must be guest workers, there must also be a path so they, too, can seek citizenship if they choose. Mr. Bush last night specifically — and shamefully — urged that such a path be denied to temporary workers.

The core principle energizing and legitimizing immigration reform must be that of citizenship. Ultimately, only those who are full stakeholders in America will put down roots here. Only those whose right to stay cannot be challenged or revoked will be bold enough to insist upon their rights.

It is still possible that a good bill will emerge this year, but only if Democrats and moderate Republicans hold firm to protect the fragile flame of good sense against the deter-and-deport crowd. This means sticking together to defeat destructive amendments on the Senate floor. It means overcoming this latest contribution from the ever-unhelpful president, who could have pointed the nation toward serious immigration reform last night, but instead struck a pose as Minuteman in chief."

Words are the Assault of thoughts!

As many of my former colleagues from the Bush Administration can attest, I am not a squeamish liberal, I don't appeal to soft sentimentalism, nor do I kneel at the pedestal of political correctness. I have always proudly espoused a deep conservative ideology, unabashedly embraced my protestant faith, and have counted giants like William F. Buckley, Judge Antonin Scalia and Ronald Reagan as a large influence in my political thought. I am also a free-trade, free market capitalists, pro-life, pro war on terror, pro-family values guy who stands by President Bush and his decision to rid Iraq of WMD's, terrororist and Sadam Hussein. I also happen to be a U.S. born Hispanic of Mexican decent.

Having said that, I would like to add my voice to a growing number of Americans who are taking a stand against the use of the word illegals to label individuals who have entered our borders illegaly. The use of the word as a noun by those involved in the immigration debate to label fellow human beings less fortunate than ourselves is an affront to our constitutional principles and our evolution as a modern and sophisticated society.

Simply stated, I loathe the word “illegals” because it perversely criminalizes the person, not the illicit action he or she committed. L.A. Chung from the Mercury News of San Jose, CA, put it best "Listen to me carefully here, and take note: People are not illegal. Actions may well be, but human beings are never illegal."

The appalling name is now regrettably ubiquitous - it's in newspapers and magazines, it's used by pundits on political talk shows, it's used in rants by hosts and callers on talk radio, it spews from the mouths of babes, and many Americans are using the word at the office water cooler.
Honestly, the ease and comfort by some of us to easily render another human being as less legitimate than ourselves has always amazed me. How quick we are to lower the rank of another fellow human being as less worthy.

My guess is that some of us use the term out of ignorance and intellectual laziness. We hear the label so often that it becomes part of our lexicon when the issue of immigration reform comes up in casual conversation or at the dinner table.

Or, some of us subconsciously opt for the moniker because it strips the humanity away from the individual, and renders them anonymous and alienable. It sets them apart as children of a lesser god and spares us from having to consider their dreams and aspirations as equal to ours. I further submit that some of us choose not to regard their talents and contributions as a product of their human virtue, but would rather believe these benefits are a mere product of “cheap labor” because it allows us to live at peace with ourselves. Maybe at our core we want to believe that the hopes for a better life held in a stubborn clutch by “those people” do not merit legitimacy because they are not really human beings after all, and that they should only exist to serve the privileged class (taken as a whole, this line of reasoning is, of course, racism in it's pure form; and it is sickening).

I would like to think the vast majority of us have used the word out of ignorance rather than the latter reason I just stated.

My Christian brothers and sisters like to say “hate the sin, not the sinner.” I guess it's that simple. As the Good Book tells us, none of us are perfect; all of us have sinned and come short of the Glory of God. If we have been redeemed in the sight of a merciful God, it is only because grace was gifted to us by His Son, not because we deserved forgiveness.

No matter where you stand on the issue of immigration reform, let us always keep in mind that the lives of fellow human beings hang in the balance.

Hot off the newswire: Senators reach deal on reviving immigration bill

From ASSOCAITED PRESS
By SUZANNE GAMBOA

WASHINGTON (AP) Senate leaders reached a deal Thursday on reviving a broad immigration bill that could provide millions of illegal immigrants a chance to become American citizens and said they'll try to pass it before Memorial Day.

The agreement brokered by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Minority Harry Reid, D-Nev., breaks a political stalemate that has lingered for weeks while immigrants and their supporters held rallies, boycotts and protests to push for action.

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IMMIGRATION?SITE=MIBAX&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Latin Stars Shine Brightly at ALMA Awards

California - In an unusually cool May evening, many of Hollywood's brightest stars gathered in the fabled Shrine Auditorium in the City of Los Angeles to receive recognition for their portrayals and stellar contributions to the big screen and television. This year's event marked the successful return of the ALMA Awards after a two-year hiatus.

The evening began with a red carpet entry set abuzz by an eye-popping display of today's hottest fashions worn by a heavy billing of today's most sought after leading ladies such as Jennifer Lopez, Jessica Alba, and Sofia Vergara.

Desperate Housewives' Eva Longoria shined brightest as the show's host and co-producer wowing the audience in each one of the stunning designer dresses she wore between each segment. Longoria led an a-list of Latina beauties in a red-hot dance performance that opened the show featuring Rosalyn Sanchez, Carmen Electra, Constance Marie and Mexican singing sensation Paulina Rubio.

Longoria told a star-studded room of fellow Latino and non-Latino personalities in attendance such as Marc Anthony, Michael Douglas, Jessica Alba, Jessica Simpson, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Jimmy Smits that she was "proud to be hosting an event that honors actors and directors who have done much to promote positive portrayals of Hispanics in the media."

Andy Garcia was honored by receiving the Anthony Award for Excellence in Motion Pictures for his prolific and exceptional work in the field of cinema and the arts, and Marc Anthony did not hold back his emotions after being awarded the Celia Cruz Award for Excellence in Music.

During her remarks, Murgia said "We want the ALMA awards to be a springboard for Latino talent".

I say hats off to Janet for bringing back such a noteworthy awards show. In an age where so many award shows litter the television screen, I am impressed by ABC's decision to air the event as well. The award show is scheduled to be aired prime time on ABC network on June 5, 2006 in a joint announcement made by NCLR President Janet Murgia and ABC Television Network's President of Programming, Alex Wallau. If only more networks were as bold.

Daniel Garza, President of PODER-HISPANIC Group

The statement of "A day without immigrants"

For the second time in as many months, hundreds of thousands of mostly Hispanic immigrants marched in peaceful protest in cities across the United States.

"We had close to 400,000 people participate in this march. It was a very peaceful march. We've had no incidents or no arrests at this time," said Dep. Supt. Charles Williams, Chicago police.

With a Mexican flag hanging from his neck and a graphic of an American bald eagle displayed proudly on his T-shirt, an unidentified marcher told a reporter “We need each other! Immigrants need money for their families, and the United States needs workers”.

State Senator Gil Cedillo spoke at a rally in Los Angeles, CA where more than 400,000 gathered in a show of strength and said "We want the opportunity that other immigrants have had in the past. We will work hard, we will study hard, and we will make America proud!"

Indeed, there is little doubt that the extreme majority of immigrants who come to the United States truly love this country. Their reason for immigrating is no different from the millions of immigrants who have preceded them, from the first pilgrims to the most recent immigrants crossing the Rio Grande, all in search of a better life. "I want to come out of the shadows," said Josefina Cordoba, she summed up the sentiments of many: "We Just Want a Taste of the American Dream."

Until the mean-spirited Sensenbrenner immigration bill was passed in the House -- a measure that threatens to jail people not here legally -- most illegal immigrants were willing to remain on the fringes of life in the United States. But not anymore, and I believe this spooks many US citizens who are seeing their television sets in disbelief

Not all are happy with the marches that were manifested across the United States yesterday. John Podhoretz of the New York Post referred to them as “yesterday's despicable rallies” and another shocked observer in Chicago, IL noted "There can't be that many Mexicans who live here!".

There is no doubt, regardless of how you feel politically about immigration reform, Hispanic America made a forceful and powerful statement yesterday. They are exercising freedom of assembly, seizing economic opportunity and cutting their teeth on political involvement; and they’re liking it.

Daniel Garza, President of PODER & HISPANIC Magazine

Janet Murguia to talk about the immigration debate tonight on Larry King Live

Tonight on CNN Larry King wraps up today's protests around the Country about immigration, on a discussion with Janet Murguia, Lou Dobbs, Gov. Bill Richardson, and Sen. Bill Frist.


CNN.com - Larry King Live