PODER Blog

We missed you, Mr. Gore, but we did just fine anyway

2007-05-03T23:34:00.001-04:00

By Cathleen Farrell *

World renowned scientists, business leaders, politicians and academics gathered at the Miami Museum of Science and Planetarium recently to discuss the environment but despite the level of expertise of the group and the topicality of the theme, the biggest news was a non-event: the last minute cancellation of Al Gore, the celebrated lay environmentalist.

The PODER Green Forum was a year in the planning and we had booked the former Vice President as our keynote speaker, to wrap-up the day-long event. However, at almost the 11th hour, Gore let forum organizers know he would not share a stage with President Alvaro Uribe—who was to introduce the former VP—citing allegations made by Uribe’s political opponents that the Colombian president had ties to paramilitary groups.

Despite Gore’s absence, the Green Forum became exactly what it was billed: an unprecedented gathering of Latino and Latin American leaders to discuss ways to achieve sustainable development. Our roster of experts—scientists, oceanographers, policy makers, industry leaders—and dedicated partners, such as the National Geographic Society, Georgetown and Columbia universities, Miami Dade College, Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), participated in presentations and panel discussions on climate change, access to natural resources, the state of our oceans, and energy and power alternatives.

The Natural Resources Defense Council measured emissions so that our event would be “carbon neutral”. NRDC worked diligently with our vendors and suppliers, tracking such sundry details as the type of toilet paper the venue was using to more complex calculations of emissions from flights of forum participants who came from Europe and throughout the Americas. In turn, PODER had agreed to pay a carbon offset fee for the emissions generated by our event. “We’re impressed by PODER’s commitment,” the NRDC’s Adrianna Quintero told me.

Our co-host, Miami Mayor Manuel Diaz— who last year was cited by Vanity Fair as one of our nation’s “green mayors”—led a lively discussion of his peers: Bill White, mayor of Houston; Juan Carlos Navarro, mayor of Panama City; Nancy Sutley, Deputy Mayor of Los Angeles; Jose Fogaca of Porto Alegre, and crowd-pleaser Jaime Lerner, the former mayor of Curitiba. As mayor of that Brazilian city in the 1990s, Lerner revamped Curitiba’s public transportation, increased green space and parks, and introduced a “trash for cash” recycling program.

Mexico’s Environment Minister, Juan Elvira Quesada and Colombia’s Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos each gave presentations, with the latter speaking on “ecocide”, the damage to the environment perpetrated by outlaw forces, namely the FARC and ELN.

Deputy Secretary of the Interior Lynne Scarlett ably, but controversially, defended the administration’s record on the environment, and oceanographer Sylvia Earle got a standing ovation from the crowd when she made an impassioned plea to clean up our oceans and protect marine life.

Late in the afternoon, President Alvaro Uribe entered the planetarium, led by ex-Chilean President Ricardo Lagos and Mayor Diaz. Introduced by Colombian starlet Sofia Vergara – who playfully pecked him on the cheek – Uribe took the stage and spoke, in English, acknowledging the elephant NOT in the room, saying, “ I deplore the cancellation of Al Gore”, and then went on to unveil an ambitious plan to develop alternative energy with crops that might replace coca in many areas of the country.

While the organizers of the PODER Green Forum were disappointed by the no-show, it would be incorrect – and insulting to our speakers and participants – to say that this ruined the event. Ultimately, Gore’s absence only generated news and distracted from what really took place during our Forum.

* The author is editor of the U.S. edition of PODER and is editorial director of the PODER Forum.

Sr Gore, lo extranamos pero nos fue muy bien

2007-05-03T23:24:00.000-04:00

Sr. Gore lo extrañamos pero nos fue muy bien
OPINIÓN - 05/03/2007
Cathleen Farrell

Científicos de renombre mundial, líderes industriales, políticos y académicos se reunieron recientemente en el Miami Museum of Science and Planetarium, para discutir acerca del medio ambiente, pero a pesar del nivel de experticia del grupo y de la relevancia del tema, la noticia más importante no estaba relacionada con el: la cancelación a último minuto de la participación de Al Gore, el célebre ambientalista aficionado.
El PODER Green Forum tardó un año en su planeación. Sin embargo,Gore le hizo saber a los organizadores que no compartiría el escenario con el Presidente Álvaro Uribe —quien presentaría al ex Vicepresidente— citando alegatos realizados por los opositores políticos de Uribe, donde acusan al presidente Colombiano de tener vínculos con los grupos paramilitares.

A pesar de la ausencia de Gore, el Green Forum cumplió su cometido: una reunión sin precedentes históricos de la congregación de líderes latinos y Latinoamericanos, para discutir diferentes maneras para lograr un desarrollo sostenido. Científicos, oceanógrafos, legisladores, líderes industriales y patrocinadores participaron en paneles de discusión acerca del cambio climático, acceso a los recursos naturales, el estado de nuestros océanos y alternativas energéticas.

El Natural Resources Defense Council (Consejo para la Defensa de los Recursos Naturales) midió el nivel de emisiones para garantizar que nuestro evento obtuviera una calificación de “neutral en términos de carbono”. Por su lado, PODER accedió a pagar por su cuota de emisiones de carbono generadas por nuestro evento.

Nuestro co-anfitrión, Manuel Díaz, el alcalde de Miami, moderó una emocionante discusión con sus colegas, incluyendo Jaime Lerner, el exalcalde de Curitiba. Como alcalde de esa ciudad de Brasil en los ‘90as, Lerner mejoró el transporte público de Curitiba y aumentó el número de parques y espacio verde.

La secretaria adjunto del interior, Lynn Scarlett, defendió los resultados obtenidos por la administración en cuanto se refiere al medio ambiente y la oceanógrafa Sylvia Earle recibió de parte del público presente un fuerte aplauso cuando efectuó un llamado para que limpiemos nuestros océanos.

Al finalizar la tarde, el Presidente Álvaro Uribe entró al planetario. Uribe se hizo cargo del escenario y habló, en inglés, haciendo referencia al elefante que NO estaba en el recinto, diciendo: “Deploro la cancelación por parte de Al Gore”, y procedió a presentar un ambicioso plan para el desarrollo de energía alternativa a base de cultivos que podrían llegar a reemplazar la coca en muchas regiones del país.

Aun cuando los organizadores del PODER Green Forum estaban desilusionados por la cancelación, sería incorrecto decir—y un insulto para con nuestros conferencistas y participantes—que esto acabó con el evento. En últimas, la ausencia de Gore tan solo generó noticias y distracción de lo que en realidad sucedió en nuestro foro.

Cathleen Farrell es editora de la edición de los Estados Unidos de Poder y editorialista del foro de PODER.

In defense of Alberto Gonzales

2007-04-03T19:49:00.000-04:00

When the attorney general testifies before a Senate committee, he'll have precedent and the Constitution on his side.

THE DISPUTE OVER the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys poses a fundamental question: To what degree may the president exercise authority over the direction of law enforcement?

In the aftermath of Watergate, President Carter directed Atty. Gen. Griffin Bell to prepare legislation that would make the attorney general an appointed post for a definite term, subject to removal only for cause. Carter's idea was to keep the attorney general independent of presidential direction to ensure that the Justice Department's authority would never again be abused for political purposes, as it had been during the ethically troubled Nixon presidency.

Despite Carter's noble intent, Bell refused. In a little-known memorandum to the president dated April 11, 1977, he explained why. Any law that restricted the president's power to remove the attorney general — and, by inference, to fire any U.S. attorney — would likely be found unconstitutional. The president, Bell reasoned, is held accountable for the actions of the executive branch in its entirety, including the Justice Department; he must be free to establish policy and define priorities, even in the legal arena. "Because laws are not self-executing, their enforcement obviously cannot be separated from policy considerations," Bell wrote.

Carter argued that the attorney general is different from other Cabinet officers. The job entails dual responsibilities: carrying forward White House policies like any other Cabinet official, and representing the law of the United States, whether it coincides with the president's policies or not. Bell agreed, but he found that insufficient to justify separating the attorney general and subordinate U.S. attorneys from presidential direction.

Bell anchored his reasoning on Supreme Court precedent, especially Chief Justice William Howard Taft's opinion in Myers vs. United States (1926).

Congress enacts different types of laws, the chief justice opined. Some laws require close supervision by the president, while others draw upon the expertise found within the specific agencies of government. Much law, however, generally empowers the executive, and when subordinates perform these functions, "they are exercising not their own but [the president's] discretion," the court said. "Each head of a department is and must be the president's alter ego in the matters of that department where the president is required by law to exercise authority."

The court's analysis did not deny the unique nature of the Justice Department. Indeed, Taft acknowledged that there may be duties that require evenhandedness from executive officers, "the discharge of which the president cannot in a particular case properly influence or control."

Improper influence is, of course, exactly the concern of Sens. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) now, when they seek to ascertain if specific prosecutions were obstructed for partisan reasons. Yet, to illustrate the subtlety of the Senate Judiciary Committee's inquiry, the court also held that a president can remove any appointee from office for a particular prosecution "on the ground that the discretion regularly entrusted to that officer by statute has not been on the whole intelligently or wisely exercised."

Belatedly, D. Kyle Sampson, Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales' former chief of staff, made the same point in his Senate testimony Thursday. The U.S. attorneys who were dismissed had been evaluated not just on their professional skills, Sampson said, but also with respect to their relations with other law enforcement and government leaders and their support for the president's priorities. Rather obviously, Sampson was seeking to anchor the dismissals squarely in the court's precedent that gives the president and the attorney general wide latitude to remove staff.

Bell's analysis is instructive. His refusal to draft Carter's desired legislation does not mean the Senate shouldn't inquire into whether the Bush White House or the Gonzales Justice Department sought to improperly influence a particular case. But it does mean that the Senate has no legitimate basis to object if it turns out the U.S. attorneys were removed because they failed to bring the cases the president or his attorney general sought to give emphasis. The first is corruption and obstruction. The second is political direction.

Bell concluded 30 years ago that blunting that presidential direction would make the attorney general "overly responsive to Congress, and this would clearly affect the separation of powers among the three branches that is established by the Constitution." The same holds true today.

Ultimately, Bell shared Carter's concern that the Justice Department not abuse its authority for political purpose. But, said Bell, the only certain check on that misuse of power "involves trust and integrity — two things no law can provide or guarantee."

When Gonzales appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 17, history, precedent and the Constitution will be on his side. It remains to be seen, however, whether he can convince his Senate inquisitors that he possesses those two things no law can provide or guarantee.

By Douglas W. Kmiec, DOUGLAS W. KMIEC, a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University, was the assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice from 1985 to 1989.
March 31, 2007

Uncle Sam Champions the First Amendment

2007-03-26T00:40:00.002-04:00

Bravo Attorney General Alberto Gonzales! I commend your bold decision to launch the "First Freedom Project”. It is high time Americans were reminded by their own government that "Nothing defines us more as a nation and differentiates us more from the extremists who are our enemies than our respect for religious freedom," as you put it in your recent speech to the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention in Nashville, TN on February 20, 2007.

Religious freedom is listed first in the Bill of Rights and is a fundamental freedom on which so many of our other freedoms rest. "Our great nation was founded on these principles, and many of us today believe it continues to thrive because of, not despite of, them." added Attorney General Gonzales. Bravo again!

The department released a 43-page report touting its record, under President Bush, in defending religious freedom. “This area of law has not always been given sufficient attention by the federal government, but from its earliest days this administration has worked to increase enforcement of religious freedom laws, including those against religious discrimination. I am very proud of the report we're releasing today, because it describes a legacy of protection unequaled since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” said the Attorney General.

The project will include efforts to inform government officials, employers and ordinary Americans about their religious-liberty rights, but predictably, dissenters such as the Americans United for Separation of Church and State were not thrilled by the announcement releasing a statement on February 22 stating that the Attorney General’s announcement "reeks of hypocrisy." Expect more opposition from humanist and secularist across the land.

DOJ stated that the First Freedom Project was launched because many Americans are unaware that religious discrimination permeates all areas of public life. And so, among the main areas of focus where the DOJ will attempt to combat religious discrimination are education, employment, housing and lending, the use of private land for religious purposes, and public accommodations.

"What [we] have found out is that so often religious discrimination results out of ignorance of the law," stated Eric Treene, special counsel for Religious Discrimination. And so, Attorney General Gonzales added “We are initiating a program of public education, to make certain that people know their rights, and to build relationships with religious, civil rights, and community leaders to ensure that religious liberty concerns are brought to our attention. We will hold a series of regional training seminars for these and other leaders interested in religious liberty. The first will be in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 29, followed by events in Tampa in April, Seattle in May, and others to be announced later. We have launched a new website, firstfreedom.gov, with information on the laws we enforce and how to file a complaint. And we will be distributing informational literature to religious organizations, civil rights groups, and community leaders on how to file a complaint. President Bush declared his commitment to this issue last year by saying: "We reject religious discrimination in every form, and we continue our efforts to oppose prejudice and to counter any infringements on religious freedom."

In addition to the public outreach effort, the attorney general said the First Freedom Project will strengthen protection of religious rights by creating an agency wide Religious Freedom Task Force to review policies and cases. A public-education program will also include a dedicated Web site and literature on how to file a religious discrimination complaint.

"This initiative is needed and should make a real difference. When individuals find themselves in a confrontation concerning their free exercise rights, it helps to have the attorney general and the Department of Justice on your side." concluded Attorney General Gonzales.

The freedom from coercion in matters of conscience and religious expression must be recognized by all as a fundamental human right. Free religious expression is an elemental component of the social order and we are all accountable to preserve it, but mostly our government. I for one am grateful for the Administration’s efforts in this endeavor.

Daniel Garza is President of Council on Faith in Action www.confianow.com

Immigration Lessons from the Past

2007-03-26T00:39:00.000-04:00

As long as there have been immigrants coming to America, there has been an anti-immigrant voice. The same sentiment has pretty much been around since the first non-native set his flag on the coastal seashore and claimed the American continent. Five hundred years later, nothing has changed. What is getting old though is that in today’s modern America, old world restrictions and xenophobic arguments towards new immigrants are still taking primacy over much-need practical reform.

History tells us that from 1820 to 1860, most of the immigrants came from Ireland, and western Germany. During the late 1800’s, the Scandinavian nations provided a substantial minority, and from 1890 to 1910, the majority of the immigrant nationals from Austria, Hungary, Italy, and Russia constituted more than half of the total. Each group faced resistance to their arrivals, and many were beset with hatred, discrimination and prejudicial treatment.

The first group of Jews who arrived in the American colonies in September, 1654 were not wanted, and many were forced to move on to Latin America to make their new home. Many more would come to America as “illegal aliens” until the early 1900’s. Today, it is hard to think of America without the contributions of the Jewish community.

During the 1800s, many Chinese made their decision to leave their homeland for America. But, what they found wasn’t what they expected. They were reviled and discriminated because they were “foreigners” who couldn’t speak English and were seen as taking American jobs with their willingness to work for low wages. Today, it is hard to think of America without the contributions of the Asian community.

Around the 1900’s all major cities had their "Irish Town" or "Shanty Town" where the Irish clung together. Irish immigrant ancestors were not wanted in America. Ads for employment often were followed by "NO IRISH NEED APPLY." Today, it is hard to think of America without the contributions of the Irish community.

Consider the following list of shameful policies of the past that were implemented to keep out prior immigrants from entering the United States based on their race or social class:
§ The first measure restricting immigration enacted by Congress was a law in 1862 forbidding American vessels to transport Chinese immigrants to the US.;
§ In 1882, The Chinese Exclusion Act was approved and prohibited certain laborers from immigrating to the United States.
§ Gentlemans's Agreement - A diplomatic agreement made in 1907 by the U.S. and Japan provided that the Japanese government would not issue passports to Japanese laborers intending to enter the US.; under the terms of this agreement, the U.S. government refrained until 1924 from enacting laws discriminating Japanese immigrants.
§ In 1917 Congress passed an immigration law that imposed a literacy test and created the Asiatic Barred Zone Act to shut out Asians. Aliens unable to meet minimum mental, moral, physical, and economic standards were excluded, as were other undesirables.
§ Emergency Quota Act - After World War I a marked increase in racism and the growth of isolationist sentiment in the U.S. led to demands for further restrictive legislation. In 1921 a congressional enactment provided for a quota system for immigrants, whereby the number of aliens of any nationality admitted to the U.S. in a year could not exceed 3 percent of the number of foreign-born residents of that nationality living in the U.S. in 1910.
§ McCarren Walter Act - In 1924, the basic immigration quotas were changed; the new law provided for annual immigration quotas for all countries from which aliens might be admitted. Quotas were based on the presumed desirability of various nationalities; aliens from northern and Western Europe were considered more desirable than those from southern and Eastern Europe.

In spite of all these discriminatory policies, we cannot help to marvel at the many immigrants who made their way to America. In the face of so much resistance and indignation, each wave of immigrants proved their detractors wrong and gave much, much more than they ever took to the collective American experience. Each wave of immigrant groups contributed a richness of intellectual talent, specialized skill, and low-skilled labor that made America the strongest and freest Nation on earth. And what can be said of the courageous defense and loss of life on behalf of a grateful Nation by many of the sons and daughters from these otherwise unwanted minority communities in countless battles abroad.

Many of today’s immigrant class continue to enter the United States border illegally, and are despised for their perceived indifference to American language, law, values and traditions. But this ignores the fact that the U.S.-born second generation experiences dramatic increases in English proficiency, educational attainment, and economic earnings. By the third generation most Mexican Americans no longer speak Spanish at all (note: attaining English proficiency is laudable, but the loss of a language is not something we should be celebrating).

The biggest flaw in our immigration system continues to be its lack of a sufficient legal channel for immigrants who are needed to meet the demand for low-skilled labor opportunities. The consistent chatter coming from the nativists ignores the wealth, prosperity and the high quality of life Americans enjoy because of immigration past. They ignore the economic and social benefit of legalizing avenues for temporary workers that will return more often to their originating country if we offer freedom of circularity instead of trapping them within our raised border walls.

Tamar Jacoby writes in a recent article for Foreign Policy “Between 2002 and 2012, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. economy is expected to create some 56 million new jobs, half of which will require no more than a high school education. More than 75 million baby boomers will retire in that period. And declining native-born fertility rates will be approaching replacement level. Native-born workers, meanwhile, are becoming more educated with every decade. Arguably the most important statistic for anyone seeking to understand the immigration issue is this: in 1960, half of all American men dropped out of high school to look for unskilled work, whereas less than ten percent do so now. Labor-force participation among foreign-born men exceeds that of the native born: the figure for illegal immigrant men is the highest of any group -- 94 percent. And immigrants are less likely than natives to be unemployed… According to estimates, two-thirds of illegal immigrants have income tax withheld from their paychecks, and the Social Security Administration collects some $7 billion a year that goes unclaimed, most of it thought to come from unauthorized workers.”

From periods of economic prosperity and tolerance to times of increased xenophobia and nativism, the U.S. repeatedly has enacted laws and regulations that reflect the prevailing sentiments of the time. Christian America must view immigration as sacred in the history of our families. I for one grow weary of politics trampling on sensible and compassionate immigration policy. Immigration reform has to address a range of economic, humanitarian, social and ethical dimensions, and not get lost in red herring discussions about the impending “loss of culture and values’ or building of scalable walls that will not work. Immigrants are people, not statistics. They are created in the image of God. Immigrants of all races, creeds and legal statuses have all proven throughout history they contribute richly to this blessed country by bringing strong family values and an enviable hard work ethic. We are the envy of the world because of they’re contributions.

500 years after the first immigrants arrived to lay claim on the treasures of the new world, we are still struggling with the immigration issue, by advancing restrictionist policies and classifying the immigrant as less than. I suppose it’s because it is easy to nullify or ignore the contributions of 14 million fellow human beings when they are “illegal” - it infers they shouldn’t really exist. But they do exist, and they very much want to preserve the American way of life, American values, and American democracy - legally.

In these defining times, it is important to remember the lessons and wrongs of the past so that we do not repeat them. I believe that immigration is the civil rights issue of the 21st century, and how we handle the immigrant will be judged by the Good Lord up above.

Daniel Garza is the President/CEO of CONFIA, www.confianow.com

Compassionate Immigrationism

2007-03-07T16:42:00.001-05:00

The debate over immigration reform begins this week as Federal elected officials begin what are sure to be knock-down, drag-out, good old-fashioned donnybrooks over comprehensive immigration legislation that seek to address the legal status of an estimated 12 to 14 million undocumented workers now in the country. And while immigration reform hangs in the balance, Christians across the vast American firmament are coming to grips on how to reconcile the biblical mandate to show kindness and love for the stranger while maintaining strict law and order.

Throughout history, variegated cultural and social changes have influenced immigration trends so much that our current law is no longer applicable or workable, but I am convinced that new immigration reform can be a humane and effective expression of law even though t he current debate has affirmed for me that America's cultural and social priorities have so split the public order that many no longer seek to reinforce Christian values of compassion, mercy and love for our fellow man. I know this last statement will evoke feelings of exasperation from those focused on building walls, mobilizing the National Guard to the border, and deporting every undocumented person out of America because they sense I don't get it. Well I do. If you have paid attention, everyone agrees that the problem of illegal immigration in America needs to be addressed by a system that is secure, orderly and fair, and that our elected leadership need to put aside animosity and amnesty to advance comprehensive immigration. We must work to make America a lawful, economically prosperous and welcoming society. That also means we must be firm on border security as it is a basic responsibility of any sovereign nation to stop terrorists and criminals from entering its borders, and stop human trafficking and narcotics smuggling. But my brother, we must also be practical and merciful when dealing with those who have worked hard, supported their families, avoided crime and become a part of American life.

Sadly, I sense that our American society's public policies and laws are moving away from the basic commitments and priorities of committed Christian individuals who make up much of our body politic. In every effort of human endeavor we must always, always remember that we are our brother's keeper, and with that responsibility follows accountability before the very eyes of God Almighty. Micah 6:8 tells us to love mercy, do justice and walk humbly with our Lord – these words require us to show compassion, love and respect for one another. Other Scriptural passages such as Exodus 22:21 remind us of our own immigrant legacy, "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt." What is important to point out is that these passages address treatment of the immigrant already in a country, and don't say anything about how they got into the country. These verses cry out across the vista of time to every American today to show fairness toward aliens and the immigrant desperately trying to improve their lot in life.

A society that was not long ago Christian is sadly now clamoring to be identified as predominantly secular. When seen through a historical timetable, the change was triggered in a blink of an eye. Hospitality to strangers and show of mercy to immigrants has been missing the advocacy of churches and Christian men and women (even when there is a compelling case to be made that our economy would benefit from such a reform). It has been replaced by angry calls for deportation and loathing of "illegals" and their children, even though the scriptures call on us to be particularly attentive to the voiceless and the defenseless. Surely the political status of a person does not exempt him/her from the benevolent grace of another Christian brother born on the privileged side of a geographic border. Is not the fundamental moral law of the Golden Rule still in effect in today’s modern times? When did we stop thinking that the aspirations of those who are less fortunate are equal to our very own? How about this one - I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me, found in Matthew 25:35?

And yet, migrant workers, specifically the parents, get dismissed as role models because of their social and economic status and are denied dignity and social standing. We cast blame at them when the economy goes bad; blame them for loss of jobs, bloated welfare rolls, runaway medical costs; and we have even voted in state referendums and initiatives to deny their children citizenship even when they are born on American soil to their undocumented parents. The irony is that they are doing much needed work that American employers need. They provide goods and services that make life easier for the rest of us. Yet instead of recognizing and appreciating their work, many people who suffer from the drawbridge syndrome smugly deny them the opportunity of a public life.

By a twist of historical fate and geographical coincidence, my ancestral hometown lies about 60 miles from the southern tip of Texas, past the Rio Grande and into the Mexican border. My parents, grandparents, great grandparents, and ancestors 400 years back were all born in their homes at or near the small provincial township of Garza Gonzalez, Nuevo Leon, Mexico. My father looked to the United States in much the same way that Woodie Guthrie described in a song he wrote about John Steinbeck's novel - "The Grapes of Wrath" - A book written about the travails and hardships of a migrant family from Oklahoma fleeing the dustbowl and the ravages of the depression. One of the verses of the song reads: "They stood on a Mountain and they looked to the West, and it looked like the promisedland. That bright green valley with a river running through, there was work for every single hand, they thought, there was work for every single hand." For years he traveled to California, Washington, Florida and would return to Mexico for the winter and spring months. Many from Garza Gonzalez also heard about the endless opportunities En los Estados Unidos and soon cast their fortunes to the north finding work as immigrant farm workers. They would talk of the inequality they encountered in the United States, and the mistreatment they received because of their social and cultural status. But they would also talk of the opportunities given to them by kind neighbors, new friendships they established with ranch-owners and farm bosses, how in Christian America hope and opportunity abounded. How they would cross the border penniless and return with the hefty earnings they made during the summer and fall months "en los Estados Unidos". As a migrant farm worker until I was 19, I felt privileged that I was fortunate to have lived half of my youth in Mexico and experienced the depth of its culture, its cities and its stunning landscapes; privileged to have been taught the beautiful Spanish language, and fortunate to learn of its history and enjoy its golden age of cinema. Privileged to receive the support and love of extended family and friends who looked to God for wisdom and redemption.But I was also privileged to have been born in the United States and to have spent the other half of my youth here. I was fortunate to inherit America's richness of values, opportunity, and its spirit of justice. Privileged to grow up in a nation where freedom and responsibility have equal weight, and where the son of a farm working family can grow up to work for the President of the United States (I served in the Bush Administration as Associate Director for the Office of Public Liaison at the White House from March 2004 to January 2006). I would not trade my dual-national experience for anything in the world. And maybe that is why the first wave of marchers during the recent immigration rallies were equally proud to raise the United States and Mexican flags. Pride. Maybe Manifest Destiny meant the expansion of the young and brash American Nation, or maybe it meant that the destiny of the Mexican people and the people of the United States would be eternally joined and appreciated by its peoples, brought together to help each other, to develop trade, increase commerce and create a mutual vision of a better world for generations to come. Times have changed in America. Many lessons have been learned and many people have paid a heavy price in the civil rights struggles of the not to distant past. As Americans, we should be able to better understand each other. As children of two nations tempered by a one-time costly and bitter war, we were brought together by a shared history and a geography marked by God's hand. Hispanics who call the United States their home have experienced the loss of their children in the battlefields of foreign lands in defense of our common values and shared patronage. No one can say we don't belong, and that we do not love our country when we have died to defend it. Unquestionably, America's Christian love and compassion has played an integral part in its development, and it continues to shape our future. We must avoid angry and hurtful rhetoric; immigrants from every part of this world have earned their stake to this great country. They are those hard working, honest people who send their sons to protect this nation, Christian men and women who also labor in the voneyards and give compassionately when someone is in need.

The House will soon follow after the Senate with a debate over immigration that will make the Senate sparring match pale in comparison. And then of course, if Senators and House members reach consenus after the conference process, President George W. Bush has said he will sign an immigration bill that offers strong security measures, a tough domestice enforcement program and a temporary worker component. As Christians, let's come together and call on our leaders to find practical and effective solution to their disagreements.

But let us not forget our brothers and sisters in need.

Daniel Garza is President of Council on Faith in Action www.confianow.com
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

The Democrat Party is Flirting with Pro-Life Voters, I say they're just a Big Tease

2007-01-30T18:55:00.000-05:00

For the past 30 years, Democrat Party officials watched begrudgingly as pro-life Democrats left the party over the issue of abortion. Reagan Democrats left in the 1980s; many also migrated to the Republican Party after the 1994 GOP tidal wave election year, and evangelicals en masse moved to the Republican Party on the double whammy of abortion and gay marriage. Those who left often heard the proverbial "don't let the door hit you on the way out" by the pro-abortion party loyalist who still make up the vast majority of the party.

Lately though, successful Federal and State election wins by pro-life Democrats are challenging the long established liberal stratagem of the Democratic Party. Consequently, some are convinced the November mid-term elections may have marked a defining moment in the future of the pro-life movement in the party. Accordingly, many are now beginning to think they can make a serious run at courting the faith community so as to solidify their newly won leaderships in both houses of Congress (In the last election, evangelicals made up 26 percent of the electorate and 78 percent of them voted for Bush).

Certainly, the Republican advantage among religious voters had come from being able to successfully master the "Values" debate. Measured in that scale, most Democrats came up short in the past. Last year's mid-terms caused a wide crack in that long established stratagem as well.

In the run up to the 2006 elections, it was clear the Republicans had made several fatal missteps, and the drubbing only confirmed what most had suspected; The GOP had failed to excite the requisite number of values voter to retain the leadership in both houses. Many blamed the slew of scandals stemming from the moral shortcomings of some high-profile party members for the losses, and others blamed the perception held by the electorate that the party failed to fulfill campaign promises to reduce abortions, pass anti-gay marriage legislation, increase religious liberties, and the inability to halt the startling growth of the Federal government. Lastly, many others pointed at the mire in Iraq as the over-arching reason causing conservative voter fatigue.

The Democrats in turn seized on the scandals and shortened the values gap by fielding pro-life and pro-faith Democrat candidates to State and Federal positions ( Six new members of the House and one new senator who oppose legal abortion were elected Nov. 7 as part of a Democratic swell that put the party in control of both houses of Congress for the first time since 1994) , opened their "big tent" to pro-life organizations, and promised to advance a more moderate agenda that was more reflective of mainstream America. The election results showed the move to the middle paid off.

The question then becomes, is the party seriously going to embrace a robust pro-life faction within its tent, and should the Hispanic communities of faith buy into it?

Before offering up a personal take on the answer, let us revisit a time where the Democratic Party was 30 years ago, and where it is today on the issue of abortion.

First, the non-profit organization, Democrat's for Life (yes, there is such an organization) points out that the following: Twenty years ago, the Democrats held a 292-seat majority in the House; 125 of those seats belonged to pro-life Democrats. Then, only twelve years ago, Democrats held a 258-seat majority with about 50 pro-life Democrats. Subsequently, the party soon lost the majority in the House while the number of pro-life Democrats had dwindled to 35. The party hit bottom when it lost the majority in the U.S. Senate two years ago (many attributed the loss to three key seats in strong pro-life states such as Georgia , Missouri, and Minnesota).
Now let's take a look at the reasons why the Democratic Party made deliberate attempt to manipulate its values tune (at least during this last election cycle).
A recent Zogby poll commissioned by Associated Television News President Brad O'Leary showed the results spell disaster for Democrats who try to run on the abortion issue.
"The abortion issue is this year's political third rail' for congressional Democrats and for Hillary Clinton in 2008," said O'Leary.
"There is absolutely no way a presidential or a congressional candidate running for office can grow their base if they insist on championing the abortion issue," Mr. O'Leary said.
The poll found a majority of respondents took anti-abortion positions on the following questions:
§ Parental notification laws that were recently upheld by the Supreme Court (55% support for girls 18 yrs. & younger; 69% for girls 16 yrs. old & younger; only 36% and 23% disagree respectively)
§ Abortion ends a human life (59% agree; 29% disagree)
§ The prohibition of federal funds for abortions abroad (69% agree with the prohibition; 21% disagree)
§ Abortion because of the sex of the fetus (86% agree should be illegal; 10% disagree should be illegal)
§ When life begins (50% believe it begins at conception; 19% believe life begins at birth)
§ A new federal partial-birth abortion bill (50% want to see another bill; 39% don't want to see another bill)
§ Requiring counseling about a mother's options before undergoing an abortion (55% agree with such a counseling requirement; 37% disagree)
§ A 24-hour waiting period (56% agree with waiting period; 37% disagree)
§ Federal & state financing of abortions for poor women (51% disagree with financing; 37% disagree)
§ Laws that charge a person who kills a pregnant woman with two murders (64% agree with such laws; 23% disagree)

The poll results clearly suggested a shift in the electorate away from abortion rights over the past decade, as Mr. O'Leary indicated.
He also mentioned that the polls suggest that any congressional Democrat candidate who champions abortion rights could lose as much as 20 percent support from the electorate. For some time now, polls haven shown that the American people's opinion on abortion has been trending against the brutal practice.

To sum up the sentiment, Jeb Burn wrote in a Washington Post editorial titled, "Life and My Party," that he had "a problem with my party these days: I cannot reconcile its traditional liberalism, egalitarianism and life-affirming qualities with its current love affair with nihilism and abortion."

Since self-professed conservatives greatly outnumbered those who identified theselves as liberal, it was especially critical for Democrats to appeal to the center. And so, given the compelling case made by the poll numbers and the electorate's growing discomfort with the moral dimension of abortion, Democrats privately took heed.

Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life, an organization that works to promote pro-life causes in the party said "2004 was very different from 2006 [for pro-life Democrats], and it's going to be very different in 2008 when we rewrite the platform," Day said. "I'm pretty confident it's going to be a lot better and a lot more accommodating for pro-life Democrats." She added "The challenge we have is to not close the door and to keep it open and keep going on this road of really allowing people to vote their conscience and make their own statements on abortion and not have the party dictate it." A young demographic that holds liberal values but is also pro-life is growing despite espousing a view in direct contrast to the party's traditional stance. Day asserted, "Democrats are beginning to think that maybe it's not such a good idea to be in bed with NARAL. They're beginning to realize that NARAL has taken control of our party and it's time to kick them out."

Some of the young pro-life voices in the party include Harold Ford Jr., Bob Casey Jr. and those in the US House like Heath Shuler of North Carolina, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, Charlie Wilson of Ohio, Chris Carney and Jason Altmire both of Pennsylvania.

§ Heath Shuler is a retired National Football League quarterback who comes from an evangelical Christian background and espouses conservative social views.
§ Harold Ford Jr. has stated he is pro-life and supports a ban on same sex marriage. American Prospect article quotes Ford as stating "They're going to say I'm a liberal. I believe that marriage should be between men and women. I don't know any better, that's how I was brought up. We didn't have any choice. Where I grew up, when you awakened on Sunday, you went to church...I learned the faith thing the old-fashioned way ! Me, a liberal ? I chair the faith-based caucus !"
§ Pennsylvania voters chose Democratic state Treasurer Bob Casey Jr. to replace Republican Sen. Rick Santorum. Both ran as Catholics who opposed legal abortion. Casey is described as a social conservative and an economic liberal. He is pro-life, pro-gun rights, and son of the late Pennsylvania governor Bob Casey (One of the low lights of the 1992 Democratic National Convention was the party's refusal to let the elder Casey speak about his pro-life views).

The crux of the matter is this; As a Christian conservative who should be excited about the Democratic Party's new found love for pro-life candidates and it's declared run to the middle, why do I still feel uneasy?

My sense is that there is no Godly conviction behind the party's effort to woo pro-life voters, as much as it is about securing the commanding heights of the U.S. political system. What I mean is, I'm convinced the reason for the party's nominal shift on abortion has resulted more out of a political strategy that is nothing short of voter exploitation and issue manipulation. It is not as a result of a profound and deep seeded belief that abortion is a moral wrong as believed by the segment of the community of faith that supports pro-life democrats through their vote and financial contributions.

"I can tell you what I expect," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. "I think the Democratic leadership will seek to advance the policy agenda of the hardcore groups but do so under the cover of deceptive rhetorical campaigns." (New York Times article)

And this is unfortunate. I am certain many traditional Democrats long for the party of yore whose beliefs were anchored on biblical axioms and an adherence to a Godly calling as expressed by one of party's favorite sons, President John F. Kennedy during his inaugural address " And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God… With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own." Regrettably, the party's recent bent to the middle is not an acknowledgement of its sense of duty to God, but a mere reading of political tea leaves.
To be sure, a closer look shows the elections of these pro-life Democrats won't necessarily satisfy Christian conservatives on other moral issues. Congressman Shuler for example supports stem cell research using embryos from in vitro fertilization. Casey opposes a federal marriage amendment and received campaign money from the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest homosexual activist organization. Moreover, the Democrat Party platform contains enough liberal and human secularist stuff to make any Hispanic Pentecostal Evangelical shudder.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said by his count there is 15 fewer pro-life votes in the House and perhaps four fewer in the Senate, depending upon the issue. He said that might still constitute a majority supporting limits on abortion in some cases, but by a much narrower margin. Of 41 freshmen Democrats elected to the House after all, only 6 are anti-abortion. Regrettably, pro-life groups in the House actually suffered a net loss of 13 members. That means statutory restrictions on abortion, which must be renewed by each Congress, are now in serious jeopardy. This loss of strength actually reflects a political victory by the abortion lobby.

Truth be told, it is the least kept secret in Washington that the few pro-life Democrats in the party are frankly an un-welcomed contingent (The Democrat Party's platform opposes attempts to reverse the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade which recognized abortion as a consitutional right by judicial fiat- over 50 million abortions have been performed since).

But mostly , my concern is that the prospect of future pro-life Democrat wins are anathema to folks like Kate Michelman, past president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. For the Democrats to nominate pro-life candidates, she says, would mean the party is abandoning its "core values."

And this is it, really, what strikes me most; Abortion is a Democrat Party core value.

A fact I cannot reconcile with my Christian beliefs - mainly that God is the author of all life, and it is therefore sacred and to be defended.

Ultimately, if Democrats are going to be a dominant party again, they must at the very least begin to embrace pro-lifers and their Christian worldview. The party will have to prove that it is sincere in its openness and that it stands behind a policy of welcoming those with differing views the issue of abortion. They must begin to encourage those that left to come back; a Herculean effort to be sure. It must celebrate efforts such as the January 20 pro-life march in San Francisco, California where 15,000 Christians will gather once again to celebrate life with a rally and walk carrying "Women Deserve Better than Abortion" signs. It is happening in a city where until recently abortions were reputed to have outnumbered live births. That is the change that gives me optimism. When the movement is made independent of political motives, but motivated by an adherence to Godly principles and beliefs.

And while Catholics and evangelical Christians may be disillusioned with the scandals and personal moral shortcomings of individual members in the conservative right, abortion and gay marriage will still be the issues that determine their vote because both are the right-or-wrong issue of our time. When everything is done and said, the fact is that the Republican Party looks upon abortion and gay marriage as a moral wrong reprehensible to God Almighty, and the Democratic Party does not look upon these social issues as a wrong but as a core belief. That's the crucial difference between the two parties (the Zogby poll referenced earlier showed 90% of registered Republicans are generally pro-life while 80% of registered Democrats are pro-abortion.)

In spite of their fervor and optimism, a scant number of pro-life members in the Democrat Party have a difficult challenge in effectively advancing pro-life policies and initiatives based on a Christian worldview. Many in the Democratic Party would rather lose than run a pro-life candidate.

The vast majority of Hispanics in this country, nearly 75%, self-identify themselves as pro-life. We must unite to demand both parties affirm the Biblical standard of the value, dignity, and sanctity of human life. We must come together to send a clear message to elected members from both the Republican and Democratic parties: Protect our values.

To quote one of the liberal left's most celebrated heroes, Justice William O. Douglas "We are a religious people, whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being". That is the conscience calling us to remedy the evil of abortion. And it is the social ill of abortion that continues to find refuge in the vast majority of the Democrat Party, despite the efforts of a very courageous few battling within its fold. But if you are considering voting for a Democrat candidate, I say to you, be strong and of good courage; reject slick political tactics that entice you to vote for candidates who do not advance a Christian worldview, but stand firm for those who act on Godly conviction, Democrat or Republican.

Every effort to reduce abortion counts — including those of Democrats committed to protecting the rights of the unborn.

The Hill: CHC nears split as female members protest new chairman

2006-11-20T12:29:00.000-05:00

By Josephine Hearn
Five female members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) refused to back incoming Caucus Chairman Joe Baca (D-Calif.) in a vote Wednesday, citing concerns ranging from poor management of the group’s political arm to a lack of respect for female lawmakers.

Reps. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.), Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) and Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.) abstained from a vote to make Baca chairman of the all-Democratic group, while Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) voted "No."

The only female member of the 23-member Caucus to support Baca’s candidacy was the outgoing chairwoman, Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.).

Some lawmakers feared the divisive vote, which devolved into a nasty closed-door debate, could lead the group to break up along gender lines.

"If the feelings that were there [Wednesday] continue to be there, it could happen. Yeah, definitely," said Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.). "If people feel they are being discriminated against, there is a problem."

Baca ran unopposed and was named chairman by a majority of the Caucus. He will serve a two-year term.

Solis said her abstention signified a concern that the women were not accorded the same respect or privileges of seniority as male lawmakers were.

"If we are to be truly representative of the Latino community, we have to give equal treatment to all Caucus members, regardless of gender or seniority," she said.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) had never seen a more bitter meeting of the group."It was divisive. There are differences," he said. "I think [the women] have some legitimate concerns, issues that need to be dealt with. We’re all equals in this process. People want to feel their opinions are valued. They want to feel included."

The vote is the latest and most heated clash between the group’s younger female members and their older male colleagues. Some of the women believe that Baca and some male lawmakers do not accord them sufficient respect, ignore their input or create unnecessary hurdles to their advancement. Others charged that Baca had poorly managed the group’s PAC. Six Hispanic members – three men and three women -- withdrew in protest from the PAC earlier this year with concerns that Baca and his allies had used the fund to contribute to their children’s campaigns. There also has been a sense among some members that Mexican-Americans such as Baca and Napolitano have had a monopoly on the chairmanship.

Asked for comment, Baca did not directly address the women’s charges, instead noting his intention to focus on issues important to Hispanic women.

"Among my plans for the CHC is the creation of a new task force that focuses on Latinas so we can address the unique needs of women in our community."

Baca also noted that Linda Sanchez had volunteered to serve as the group’s whip even after abstaining. Sanchez had taken on the role to try to influence the Caucus from the inside, a House Democratic aide said.

Other female members, however, were not sure that they would participate if the group stayed on the same track.Asked if she would leave the CHC, Loretta Sanchez responded, "You have to look at it, but I believe so."

Wednesday’s meeting also considered the issue of seniority. Some members, especially the women, noted that seniority had often been a key factor in choosing a chairman. They were disappointed that the more senior Velazquez had not been automatically chosen to be chairwoman. Velazquez had toyed with challenging Baca but decided after the election to focus on her role as the incoming chairwoman of the House Small Business Committee.

Some male members countered with the argument that Baca’s service assecond vice chair and later first vice chair of the group qualified him to move up under more recent practice. Those members wished to cease debate and proceed to a vote. They put the issue of ending debate to a vote with those in favor prevailing by a margin of one vote.

After Baca was elected, the discussion became heated as one female lawmaker accused him of having made disparaging personal comments about her to a gathering of state officials. Baca denied having made the comments, but the atmosphere had soured to such an extent that members on both sides left discouraged.

"It was very harsh, very disturbing," one female attendee said. "It’s a very traditional machismo pattern in that they continue to blow it off and argue that it doesn’t exist."

Grijalva, who will serve under Baca as the Caucus’s first vice chair and is well-regarded by both sides, said he would work to prevent a split.

"I’m going to do my part to keep it together," he said. "It’s an important year now that we are in the majority."

The Hill

Hispanics, Evangelicals and the Mid-Term Elections

2006-11-13T14:07:00.000-05:00

Hispanics, Evangelicals and the Mid-Term Elections; Have their political loyalties shifted?

Many in the political center are declaring the beginning of the end for the values movement as they clink their raised champaign glasses in celebration over last Tuesday’s elections. These same voices are now huatedly and cheerfully calling on the two main parties to hurry toward the political center, forsake their base, and endeavor at all cost to attract the much vaunted moderate voters. “The Democrats didn't win the election for being liberal, Republicans lost it for being too conservative” they say.

It is also said in addition to this worrisome abasement of conservative values that the right has also lost all progress made in the past two election cycles with the Hispanic electorate because Hispanics are loyal to a centrist voice.

The fact is, none of the election data or the exit polling bears this out.

I will address the issue of Hispanic voters shifting their party loyalty first, and the calls to have evangelicals go soft on their values and prostrate themselves at the pedestal of political moderation second.

It must be stated that loyalty has to be earned. It must be earned by addressing and respecting the wishes of the electorate (note: I did not say one must endeavor to blindly bestow or obsequiously provide all things desired – that is for a later thesis). The Hispanic vote, like it or not, is now a major force to be reckoned with in the American body politic. As these elections proved, when candidates choose to ignore, and worse yet antagonize an entire constituency, they will experience bitter disappointment.

And so, Hispanics turned out massively against candidates who stridently campaigned against comprehensive immigration reform, and not in rejection of a conservative agenda espoused by these same candidates. Accounting for 8 percent of the total vote on Tuesday, only 29% voted for Republican candidates. In 2004, 44% of Hispanics surveyed in exit polls said they voted for President Bush.) More importantly, 69% of these voters declared to exit pollsters that immigration was their #1 priority compared to 19% who stated the war in Iraq was their #1 priority.

This was not unexpected. Karl Rove, the President’s Senior Policy Advisor, in an interview with the folks from Townhall on the eve of the 2006 mid-term elections stated “. I do think that individual Republican candidates are going to look back after this election and find that the rhetoric that they adopted hurt them in the Hispanic community. And we’re going to find other candidates who are going to look back and find that the rhetoric that they adopted by emphasizing a comprehensive solution to our border problems won them support in the Hispanic community. So I think there’s going to be... And in that instance, I think immigration will be seen as…a comprehensive approach will be seen as a winner, and a narrow restrictionist approach will be seen as a loser.”

Indeed, many of the candidates who took those “restrictionist approaches” to immigration reform are now having to look for jobs outside the Halls of Congress. Moreover, many GOP party leaders have been rightly blaming harsh rhetoric on immigration for the reversal of political fortunes with the Hispanic electorate. The incoming Congress should take heed of these political realities when taking up immigration reform anew, and give immediate consideration to a bill that provides a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who pass a background check and pay fines for entering the country illegally. If the Democrats want to stick around longer than a two-year election cycle, they must reach across the aisle to achieve approval in the House.

On Wednesday, President Bush identified immigration as an area in which he'd work with Democrats. The President has stated “A temporary worker program would meet the needs of our economy, reduce the appeal of human smugglers, make it less likely that people would risk their lives to cross the border, and ease the financial burden on State and local governments by replacing illegal workers with lawful taxpayers. Above all, a temporary worker program would add to our security by making certain we know who is in our country and why they are here.” He added on Wednesday "I would hope we can get something done.. There's an issue where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats."

But make no mistake; neither party will be able to approve a comprehensive immigration reform package on its own. In fact, Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill have yet to identify immigration as a priority. If these past elections have served any lesson, the winds of change are blowing a strong and mighty gale. At the rate that anti-immigration candidates are being rejected by the electorate, I have a feeling continued and persistent Hispanic voter turn out, now more than ever, will help bring about much needed comprehensive immigration reform.

And so, you may ask, if Hispanics did not vote heavily Democrat in rejection of traditional values, then what happened? The moderate’s interpretation of the 2006 midterm election is “..a rejection of a Christian fundamentalism as expressed by the religious right,'' said Robert Parham, a self described centrist Baptist from the Baptist Center for Ethics in Nashville, Tennessee. Famed moderate Senator Arlen Spector added the election results represented a 'seismic earthquake' and that the Republican Party must become 'a lot more progressive and a lot less ideological”.

Let me be clear with the respect to the stated demise of the values voting community; the vast majority of evangelicals (and I am speaking as one) could not and will not align themselves with a candidate that defends a pro-abortion policy, advances a non-traditional marriage agenda, and votes against prayer in schools and other issues that they consider contradictory to Holy Scripture. We cling tightly to individual responsibility and spiritual accountability. Our generation has made a collective decision that we will not stand idly by as we observe countless abortions of innocent life across the land, the misguided experimentation with traditional marriage, unfettered pornography on the web, indecency increasing day by day on our public airwaves, fantastic spikes in illegitimacy, ever increasing incarceration rates, and uncontrolled teen pregnancy (to name a few of the social ills).

The numbers bear this out. According to exit polling by the Pew Research Center, white Christian evangelicals turned out in essentially the same proportion to other voters this week as they did in the last couple of elections. The Gallup Poll showed “religious, white voters tended to be extraordinarily Republican, as usual”. They of course vote Republican because the party’s platform is more compatible to their political and ideological sensibilities. But the Republicans should know, Evangelicals are more loyal to the issues than they are to the party. Voters for the marriage amendment ran hundreds of thousands of votes better than for Republican Senator George Allen in Virginia; which speaks to how discerning the voters are (the initiatives banning gay marriage passed in seven of eight states where they were on the ballot).

No, the election was not a repudiation of conservative values, especially when you consider that most of the incumbents who lost re-election were moderate Republicans such as Senators Chafee and Dewine, or faced conservative candidates such as Bob Casey; who is openly religious and anti-abortion.

If one vies that evangelicals have lost their faith based on the loss of Congress and the Senate by the Republicans, they make the mistake of being shortsighted and assuming they only vote one party. The fact is, the mid-term elections demonstrated the war in Iraq was a compelling factor for many Americans who were frustrated by the perceived lack of progress, and wanted to effectuate a change in course by virtue of their vote. But make no mistake, the Evangelical community will continue to fight for Godly principles and a moral agenda that makes America strong, and we will continue to vote for candidates that advance traditional family values.

The 2006 elections proved Evangelical values voters and the Hispanic electorate (sometime these constituencies are one in the same as it is in my case) are discriminating voters that will not be taken for granted. It also proved the political loyalty of the Hispanic community is yet to be determined.

Daniel Garza is President of Council on Faith in Action www.confianow.com

From the Latin Grammy II

2006-11-03T00:48:00.000-05:00

Thalia isn't much of a singer, but her show's art direction and coreography made up for it.

Marcos Rodriguez, the founder and managing director of Palladium equity partners, whose fund recently grew to over half a million dollars was watching the show from the VIP seats.

Mana, very much in tune with world trends, is an eco-friendly group. Singing along with Juan Luis Guerra stirred up the audience.

Tonight, Univision spared no expense; their production had all the bells and whistles. Steady cams all over the place, flat screens of all shapes and sizes and a double stage set to minimize time loss. The art direction is phenomenal.

Emilio Estefan is here, of course. No surprise. However, Univision's president Ray Rodriguez was MIA.

Shakira, who was the only artist to fly in on a private jet, missed the rehearsals due to technical problems with her Jet. Fortunately her talent and skills kept anyone from noticing.

The top artists were staying at the Ritz Carlton at Central Park South; Mark, the polish driver of the hotel's black Bentley, drove them around. Others stayed at The Mandarin Oriental at the Time AOL center and were seen earlier at the hotel's spa in total nirvana.

Reggaeton is absolutely hot. It's literally on fire. We won't comment on it however, or pretend that we understand anything about it.

Colombia had an amazing night: Fonseca won his first Grammy, with "Te Mando Flores", a song which ranked at the top of the charts in Colombia last year, and Shakira scored 4 more.

Ricky Martin was awarded artist of the year; Miguel Bose introduced him and presented him with the award. During his speech, he announced that he will dedicate himself to fight against human trafficking with children.

Latin Grammy First Report

2006-11-03T00:08:00.000-05:00

Better than ever
NY hosted the best ever Latin Grammy's at the Madison Square Garden.
Shakira got the show started.
Andrea Boccelli sang besame mucho, somos novios...
At 8:30pm, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg walked in, primetime in Univision definitetly helps him grow his political base. The mayor took spanish lessons all of last year, but he didn't really need to use them during the last campaign and his contender wasn't a good match; so tonight he had a chance to say "bienvenidos a mi casa" and dance a little merengue.

Three key people put up all the work for this mega event to happen. Cesar Conde, 32, Univision's dynamic Vice President who also runs Galavision, Gabriel Abaroa President of the Latin Grammy's and Maureen Reidy Chief Marketing Officer of the city of New York and CEO of NYC big events.

St. Petersburg Times' journalist Paul de la Garza, 44 dies

2006-10-31T13:20:00.000-05:00

There are conversations that stay with you for a long time. My first one with Paul de la Garza certainly has.
I met Paul in Bogota about seven years ago when he was The Chicago Tribune’s guy in MexCity. It was at a gathering of local and foreign journalists in the home of Maria Ines Carrizosa who had, arguably, the best “salon” in the city.
Paul was sitting next to my great pal Tod Robberson, at the time the Dallas Morning News’ Lat Am correspondent. The two had known each other since Tod’s days with the Washington Post in Mexico.
As I came into the room, Tod motioned to me to join them. I took some ribbing from Tod for the shirt I was wearing – an oversized blue and white striped jersey that had belonged to my brother Mark.
“Gimme a break,” I said. “It’s comfortable,” and comforting, I might have added…
I sat down next to Paul and we soon began what turned out to be a long and poignant conversation.
Robberson was talking about his dog, Buster (who, according to Tod, was an extraordinarily gifted beast, something that led many of us to suspect that Buster was not only his research assistant but possibly even his ghost writer.) Paul mentioned that his own dog had just died. “Sorry,” I said.
Turns out that the dog had belonged to Paul’s brother, who had died a few years before. “Oh, I understand—my brother died last year,” I said, as I tugged at my jersey (and glared at Robberson.)
“Yeah, well, it’s a bit different,” Tod said, somewhat hesitantly.
But Paul didn’t hesitate. He looked at me and said gently, “My brother was murdered.”
After my brother died I discovered that mentioning the death of a beloved younger sibling was either an icebreaker or a great way to “freeze” a conversation. Paul’s frankness awoke compassion as much as curiosity in me. He was more than ready not only to talk about his brother, but also about the circumstances of his brother’s death.
Paul told me that his brother was murdered when he went out one evening to buy soft drinks for himself and his parents. He was carjacked, –probably for the new car he drove, Paul said– placed in the trunk and taken for a joy ride before his killers shot him and threw his body in the ocean.
The following morning a couple walking on the beach spotted the body and called the police.
When the police went to inform the parents that their son was dead, Paul’s father suffered a heart attack.
From what I remember, the killers were soon caught, probably because they were driving the stolen car.
At the time of the murder, Paul, a native of south Texas, was living in Chicago, working for the AP. He took a leave of absence to be with his family while the accused killers were tried for the murder. Paul attended the trial every day, wheeling his infirm father into the courtroom and parking the wheelchair up front, in full view of the jury.
The two men were found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. Paul called in the story of the verdict to the AP. That last bit made a lot of sense to me. It was the last thing that was going to be done for his brother, and Paul wanted to make sure it was done well.
I asked Paul why he, the youngest of all the children (there were six in the family) was so involved in the case and the trial. “I’m the only one with an education,” he replied. He had studied at the University of Texas; none of the other kids in the family had gone on to university.
We got to talking about our backgrounds and families. His dad was a shrimper, his mom a waitress or chambermaid, if I remember. Good, hardworking people, as he described them.
One of Paul’s jobs was as a cops reporter, a job in which he often interviewed victims of violence and family members of murder victims. He told me about covering the unveiling of a monument for murder victims and how he approached a woman to interview afterwards. She tried to brush him off, saying, “You wouldn’t understand,” to which Paul replied, “Actually, I would.”
Our conversation moved on to other things when Paul pointed to my belly – I was five months pregnant. “You’re first?” he asked. My second, I said. “You got kids?” I asked. He told me that he and his wife were in the process of adopting in Mexico.
We talked a while longer and I dropped him off at his hotel. We exchanged cards, said we’d keep in touch, but only exchanged a few emails from time to time. I heard more about him than from him over the years. He and his wife adopted two kids, moved to DC (where he worked for the St. Petersburg Times) and then to Tampa.
I had not seen Paul in years until, as luck would have it, we ran into each other this past June when I was on a panel at the National Association of Hispanic Journalists convention. (My panel was on at the same time as one on Roberto Clemente. I had secretly hoped no one would show up for my panel so I could go to that panel instead.)
I saw Paul at the back of the room, and when the panel was over I waved to him. I was delighted to see him. He introduced me to Georgia, his wife, and showed me photos of his two children, Monica and Carlos. I told him we’d go visit them “one of these days.”
On Sunday, Paul died suddenly of a heart attack at the age of 44. He will be remembered for his talent and for his compassion.
And I will always remember, and cherish, that first conversation.

MiamiHerald.com | TELEVISA'S EARNINGS SOAR IN 3RD QUARTER

2006-10-27T18:03:00.000-04:00

Grupo Televisa, the world's largest Spanish-language broadcaster, reported its biggest third-quarter profit in at least nine years after World Cup finals boosted ad sales and satellite television subscriptions.

Mexico City-based Televisa had net income of 2.49 billion pesos ($226.4 million), compared with 1.7 billion pesos a year earlier before adjusting for inflation, the company said. Revenue in the quarter rose to 9.22 billion pesos.

Presidential elections falling in the same year as the World Cup has buoyed Televisa profit, said Rogelio Gallegos, a fund manager with Mexico City-based Actinver, which handles about $3 billion in stocks and bonds. In coming quarters, Chief Executive Emilio Azcarraga will enter new businesses such as telephone services and entertainment distribution, he said.

MiamiHerald.com 10/27/2006 International business briefs

Saban Speaks about Univision with Henry Cisneros

2006-10-27T12:18:00.000-04:00

This morning, during the sixth annual Wall Street convention of the New America Alliance, a conversation was organized between Haim Saban (Who leads the group of investors that won the recent bid for Univision) and the former secretary of Housing and Urban Development and Hispanic Community Leader Henry Cisneros, who has previously served as the company's President.

Saban began by clarifying that the FCC has not yet authorized the transaction and for that reason he does not have the “house keys” just yet.

Saban's participation was entertaining and focused on what things can be done for Univisión to have more pro-active impact on the community, such as educating low salary workers in the community about the tax deductions they are entitled to, but don’t know about or have no way to carry out.

Bill Clinton has a great relationship with Saban and announced that they’ve discussed his involvement in his foundation in order to make its campaigns available to the community.

“We have been doing business with Televisa for 20 years. Our relationship with them has always been friendly. The company’s (Univision) differences with them (Televisa) and theirs with the company have ended in legal issues” But he added: “I don’t see why a reasonable agreement can’t be reached. Televisa is an important partner and their leaders, Emilio, Alfonso are reasonable people with whom one can have a good time.”

Saban, who used to talk to his grandmother in Ladin – a Spanish-Jewish language –, exchanged a few words with Cisneros in Spanish saying Latinos are the heart and soul of this country.

On the topic of corporate government and the possibility of inclusiveness, Saban observed: “There will be Latinos on our board. We’re not foolish as to believe that a group of Americans can decide what the Hispanic community wants ...”

Time to get Back in the Game

2006-10-27T07:30:00.000-04:00

Almost daily, I hear someone complain to me about the government. Whether it's mismanagement at city hall, runaway business taxes resulting from laws enacted by the state legislature or court decisions eroding our constitutional heritage, I hear it all the time. We Hispanics love to complain.

But let's be honest, voter turnout in the Hispanic community is unacceptably low. In fact, 64 percent of U.S . citizens age 18 and over voted in the 2004 presidential election, compared to 47 percent for Hispanics according to the U.S. Census Bureau. For all the complaining we do, we don't back it up. It is unquestionable that to make a change, we must be in the game. Voting gets us in the game.

When you look back on how far we have come, you learn that other Americans died to preserve the right to vote. Thousands shed their blood on foreign battlefields. When Black, Latino, and Indian GIs returned from the battlefields of WWII (and later Korea), they demanded that all American citizens should have the right to vote regardless of race. They had fought and died for democracy abroad, yet they could not vote at home due to restrictive voting laws meant to deliberately keep us away from the voting booths (One out of every eight American GIs was an African-American; Hispanic or Native-American.) And so, former GIs and community activists led efforts against the laws and the men denying them the vote.

In March 1965, Civil rights activists led by Dr. King and others took to the streets in a peaceful protest for voting rights for African-Americans. They were met with hatred, anger and clubs. The murder of voting-rights activists in Philadelphia, Mississippi, and other acts of violence and terrorism during the turbulent 50's and 60's set the stage for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Today, many of us don't even bother to register. How did we become so negligent, ungrateful and indefferent so fast?

On November 7, Americans will once again elect leaders who will be making decisions that impact our families, our public institutions, local infrastructure projects, and our well being. They will directly impact our schools, our taxes, our roads, and the lives of everyone in our community.I encourage every Hispanic citizen who made the effort to register to get involved and serve your community. Making an educated and informed vote on critical local, state and Federal races will mark the direction our nation takes on issues such as national security, the institution of traditional marriage, the war on terror, and immigration reform. Because you care about your family, your community and the values you hold dear, vote November 7th. Encourage your friends and family, who possess like values, to go to the polls November 7th and vote for candidates who will stand up for what you believe is right. If you don't think your vote matters, think again. Everyone is waiting to see how we vote, for whom we vote and how much we vote.

Daniel Garza, President and CEO of CONFiA
http://www.confianow.com/

Thanks to the Democrats, George Allen is Bigger than Ever!

2006-10-01T13:19:00.000-04:00

President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said "I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made." If I were to apply this principle to U.S. Senator George Allen, then I contend the Democrats have unintentionally elevated him as the primary contender for the Republican Party's 2008 Presidential nomination. You see, if the liberals are attacking Senator Allen that hard, then according to Roosevelt's adage, the Republican base is persuaded to think he must be a helluva conservative.

It should come as no surprise to anyone, except the Democrats, that the most recent polls show Senator Allen is not weakening as a result of several racially-based hits against him, but is actually drawing strength. In fact, he enjoys a 5-point lead and now appears to be distancing himself from his opponent, Democrat Jim Webb.

Unfettered and unrestrained, Allen's foes greedily unleashed on the Virginia Senator because I'm convinced they, well, they feared him. I mean, honest to goodness, to the core and way down deep, they were threatened by him. For some time now, Democrat party strategists worried the likable senator had the credentials and qualities to make a serious run at retaining the Nation's highest office under Republican control for another four years.

So when he stumbled, they pounced.

Smelling blood in the water, the Democrats poured it on in the hopes they would finish him off. Droves of giddy partisan scalawags and energized political hacks frothing at the mouth were unyielding in their efforts to push a story that should have lost its momentum weeks ago. The evidently remorseful and repentant Senator had to answer recriminations for making what many people considered a racially-motivated slight that was caught on videotape during a campaign rally against his opponent's campaign staffer.

In spite of his repeated apologies, the regrettable statements from the junior senator of Virginia were roundly considered to have been a major setback to his Senate re-election and a mortal blow to any Presidential aspirations he may have been harboring. But it now seems the opposition may have over-satiated on the blood and made a tactical mistake in attacking him with such fierceness and ferocity hoping he would crumble and be cast into the dust heap of political could-have-beens.

Although none of the faithful defended his statements (mainly because they were indefensible), the Republican supporters instinctively sensed that Senator Allen was a good man who spoke inappropriately, but that he did not deserve the bruising over-reaction. After all, who amongst us has not stuck his foot in his mouth at one point or another?

Few were aware of Allen's resiliency before all this started, and today he is now known by the party faithful as the man who walked through the opposition's fire and survived; the man who showed admirable grace and stoicism in the face of ardent charges of racial indifference; and as the man who didn't break under adversity. These are venerable leadership qualities people! And now many are starting to notice. Another inadvertent result of the Democrat's fervent obsession with destroying Senator Allen's reputation is that his appearances on the Nation's largest television networks showing him contrite as he offers sincere apologies have provided him valuable national exposure and enviable name recognition.

In the end, the Democrat's eagerness to take advantage of a political opportunity and deal a knockout blow to a potential Republican presidential candidate caused them to overplay their hand. I submit the Democrats have affirmed yet another famous American truism, "A beggar mounted will ride his horse to death".

NBC's Studio 60 Lost a Viewer Last Night

2006-09-20T00:27:00.000-04:00

Another mission accomplished by Hollywood's condescending elites; the shameful and untruthful stereotyping of Christian Americans.

Having heard the rave reviews and the buzz on the street, I decided to invest an hour of my precious leisure time to sit down and watch the premiere of NBC's Studio 60 featuring an all star cast of some of television's brightest and talented actors.
It started out fast and polished. Right out of the box, a cynical and burned out producer (played by Judd Hirsch) of a Saturday Night Live-esque type show interrupted a live skit with an unscripted tear about how bad television writing and comedic creativity had become.

Not bad so far, I thought. Then it turned a bit unpleasant.

Studio 60's own writers drive their point home by concluding the producer's rant with this gratuitous little gem: "The two things that make them scared gutless are the FCC and every psycho religious cult that gets positively horny at the very mention of a boycott."

My friends, as uncomfortable as that statement was, I decide to take it with a grain of salt and continue to see how the drama would unfold.

The story fast-forwards into a full-blown meltdown and the newly hired executive (played by Amanda Peet) is forced to move quickly to save the show. So how does she resolve the situation? She convinces the network boss to re-hire the two biggest talents in television that he himself was forced to fire back when Studio 60 was enjoying unprecedented success. He is ultimately convinced the duo (played by Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford), although irreverent and high maintenance, can indeed infuse the show with credibility and much needed "class".

After the two accept the offer to save the show after an initial reluctance, we then find out Perry's character has broken up with his girlfriend because she had the audacity to sing spiritual hymns on "The 700 Club." Worse yet, Perry's character tells the girlfriend his main problem with her is "You put on a dress and sang for a bigot" (the producers of Studio 60 don't hide who they are referring to; Pat Robertson is mentioned by name later in the show). When she replies that she went on the show because of the faith embraced by the audience of the show inspires her, he snaps back "Throw in the Halloween costumes and you got yourself a Klan rally."

The girlfriend then expresses regret, and states if she could do it all over again she would not have gone on the show. Predictably, by the end of the show, Amanda Peet's character showers Matthew Perry's character with adulation for his brilliance in writing next week's opening skit "Crazy Christians".

Turns out all the rave about clever and ground-breaking writing was your typical Hollywood clichéd anti-Christian screed - a continuum of cheap shots taken at the expense of honest and decent Americans who pray, work and teach their children there is a Creator who gives meaning and purpose to life.

As a Christian, I refuse to be spit on; smugly told by a crass writer with an obvious agenda that folks from the 700 club are a costume short of a Klan rally. It's despicable. NBC executives and the producers of Studio 60 should be ashamed for trying to pass off hatred and contemptible anti-Christian garbage as "creative genius".

Daniel Garza is President of Hispanic and PODER Group

Illegal aliens in Brewster

2006-09-10T19:10:00.000-04:00

January 9 was an unseasonably warm day in Brewster, NY, a small town near the Connecticut border. As on most days, a number of day-laborers gathered in the village center, hoping for some kind of work, probably in construction. When none appeared, eight of them stopped hanging around doing nothing, and decided to take advantage of the weather to enjoy an impromptu game of football. The site they chose for their game was, unfortunately for them, a playing field belonging to Garden Street Elementary School, where another laborer had been found drunk and unconscious three months previously. Before long, all eight laborers were arrested for trespassing. Seven were released on bail, but the eighth, Juan Jimenez, couldn't raise the $3,000 bail money, partly because nearly all his earnings had gone to support his five children in Guatemala.

Jimenez stayed in jail for four months, most of that time being held at the Pike County jail in Lords Valley, Pa, a two-hour drive from his home in Brewster and a place with precious few fellow Spanish speakers. Eventually, on May 5, Jimenez opted to return to his native Guatemala, rather than face deportation proceedings which would probably have barred him from ever entering the USA again. For the crime of playing football on an elementary school's playing field, he spent four months in jail and was eventually forced to leave the country. The judge in his case, Walter Durling, expressed no sympathy for his plight: "He's kicking a soccer ball as an illegal alien," he told lawyers asking for Jimenez's release. "You gave it your best shot, but I'm not going to release this person."

So "kicking a soccer ball as an illegal alien" has now become a deportable offense, making life incredibly difficult for illegal immigrants in Brewster and for the local police. Police are effective only insofar as the law-abiding population trusts them, but if a crime is committed against an illegal immigrant, at this point it would need to be extremely severe before that person called the Brewster police. Effectively, the decision to report any illegal aliens to the federal authorities has given impunity to anybody who would defraud or otherwise harm illegal immigrants.

So far, this story sounds like the kind of woeful tale that has been doing the rounds a lot during the latest resurgence of the immigration debate. The New York Times wrote about the story a couple of times: columnist Peter Applebone asked whether "a group of blond-haired local kids or dads taking a day off from work would have been hauled off to jail for playing soccer," while reporter Anahad O'Connor found a substantial amount of support for Jimenez and his fellow soccer-players in the local community. Five Brewster teenagers even held a bake sale to help raise the $3,000 bail money for Mr Jimenez, and others wrote letters to the local paper pointing out that the playing fields were used for jogging and exercising all the time by people who never face imprisonment.

At the same time, however, there's no doubt that there's also substantial opposition to the day laborers in Brewster: O'Conner quoted Rachel McLaughlin, a mother at the elementary school, saying that "my daughter is a first grader at Garden Street, and I think it's dangerous to have large groups of people loitering in certain areas, especially if they are men."

As it happens, I spent last night in Brewster, staying with my friend Elly and her fiancé Sean, in their lovely house just outside the village. Brewster is a small, bucolic town in Putnam County, with rolling hills and clapboard houses. In the vicinity there are more than a few new McMansions, but the feel of the area is one of quiet gentility. And after talking to Sean, I'm beginning to see the other side of the story, as well as a glimmer of hope for how the day-laborer issue might be resolved.

This year's political races are being more aggressively fought than usual in the area, and Sean said that he was going to be voting for Greg Ball. Ball is the only candidate, says Sean, who is really serious about "cleaning up" Brewster.

By "cleaning up," of course, Sean didn't mean ridding the sidewalks of litter. Rather, he was talking about the Guatemalan day-laborers, who have made the village of Brewster a much less pleasant place. Those who don't find work will stay in the town, and some of them will start drinking, and when they do, they are prone to acting very unsociably towards any single women who walk past them.

Sean told me that Ball wanted to hire more police for the village of Brewster: the police at the moment were "outnumbered," he said, and felt incapable of dealing with the public-order problem. If there were more police, I asked, what would they do? Sean explained that loitering is a crime, and that if the immigrants didn't disperse from the Brewster sidewalks, the police could arrest them.

These immigrants, to hear Sean tell it, do not exactly have an enviable life. They often sleep rough, and sometimes get burned to death when they fall asleep or pass out too close to their fire. When they're not sleeping rough, they often live in incredibly crowded conditions in buildings never designed to house so many people.

The townspeople, too, are unhappy, not least Sean himself. The way he tells it, Brewster used to be a small yet bustling town, which was slowly and literally invaded by aliens. The more that the community of illegal aliens in Brewster grew, the less welcome people felt in town. One shopkeeper was quoted in the New York Times as saying that sales had plunged 70% in two years after groups of day laborers started congregating under her awning. Over the years, Brewster's shops and restaurants have closed down for lack of custom. A few new places have taken their place, catering to the Latino community, but the overall effect of the arrival of the aliens has been a visible deterioration in Brewster's vibrancy, along with an increase in public disorder and drunkeness.

The new Latino community, according to Sean, is not helping the local economy: indeed, the opposite is the case. Since most of the new aliens are illegal immigrants paid cash in hand, they pay few if any taxes. And there's certainly a feeling in town that things were much better before the aliens arrived.

There also seems to be a lack of sympathy among many people in Brewster towards the plight of the aliens themselves: if they're in Brewster illegally, seems to be the feeling, the local community has little if any responsibility for their well-being. But connected with that feeling seems to be the obvious corollary: that if the aliens were legal, and paid taxes, a lot of the animus towards them would dissipate.

Sean, despite being engaged to an alien himself, was convinced that Brewster's aliens were illegal by choice. Sean was sure that there was some way that the aliens could become permanent residents if they wanted to; their failure to do so, in his eyes, was a function of their being more unwilling than unable to navigate the relevant paperwork. I guess he reckoned that they thought that if they became legal they would pay taxes and take home less money, so they didn't want to become legal. Of course, legal unskilled immigrants make a lot more money than illegal unskilled immigrants, don't need to worry about the police, and have the opportunity to become skilled immigrants and make a lot more money still – I'm sure that any of the Guatemalans in Brewster would jump at the chance to apply for a green card were it offered to them. But I'm also sure that Sean is far from atypical: one thing that I definitely learned this weekend is that Americans are likely to vastly underestimate the difficulty of getting a green card.

I looked for Greg Ball's immigration platform: it complains that in Brewster "hundreds of laborers gather to be picked up for a day of tax-free income on most mornings". In other words, there seems to be as much anger at the "tax-free income" part as there is at the "hundreds of laborers" part. Ball continues:

The State of New York is losing close to 2 billion dollars in income taxes per year to a black market economy that forces day laborers into indefinite servitude. While hard working New Yorkers are being forced to pay an increasing burden of taxes, close to 1 million illegal immigrants are living in the land of plenty, tax-free.
Greg Ball released survey results Thursday indicating that 95% of respondents support his plan to adopt, “state legislation to tax the day laborer economy, thereby forcing illegal immigrants to pay a state income tax.”

I'm not quite sure how Greg Ball can reconcile the idea that day-laborers are being forced into indefinite servitude with the idea that they are living in the land of plenty. But in any case his platform is quite clear that illegal immigrants should pay New York state income tax.

I think that's a great idea. After all, Greg Ball loves to talk about taxpayers' rights, and so presumably the illegal immigrants would get some kind of rights when they started paying income tax. What's the least that the government should do in return for income tax revenue? I'd start with some kind of equal protection – a promise that all taxpayers have the right to be protected, rather than threatened, by the police, and that if they haven't broken any New York state laws, then New York state law-enforcement officials will not terrorise them by occasionally handing them over to the Feds. (Something which, despite being reasonably common, is actually of dubious constitutionality in the first place.)

This could be the beginnings of a solution, then. Let New York state recognise and tax its day-laborers, and give them some road to legitimacy and legal residence. If they're allowed to do things like open a bank account, then they might stop having to sleep in overcrowded flophouses. And if an employer finds them hardworking and trustworthy, as by all accounts Juan Jimenez was, then there should be some way of allowing them to take a fully-taxed job. At that point they can start chasing the American Dream along with all the other residents of Brewster. But as things stand, it's hard to chase the American Dream when the American Dream is busy chasing you.

I did learn in Brewster that there are two legitimate sides to the immigration debate. I'm vehemently pro-immigration and pro-immigrant; I live in a city (New York) which is home to the Statue of Liberty ("give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"), which has always welcomed immigrants, and which would grind to a halt overnight were it not for the work that immigrants both legal and illegal do to keep it running.

And yet America is not New York, and there are certainly places in America which have a much more problematic relationship with immigrants in general and illegal immigrants in particular. It is too simplistic and narrow-minded by far to simply dismiss the complaints of people like Sean as knee-jerk racism, and in fact I do not for a minute believe that Sean is the slightest bit xenophobic.

But the heat generated by the immigrant debate in Brewster has certainly adversely affected race relations there: Yolanda Castro-Arce, a lawyer of Puerto Rican background, told the New York Times that she was the target of racial remarks every time she walked along Main Street. The article concludes with this:

"I think you either need to make these people citizens and give them the American dream, or you need to start enforcing the laws that are already on the books," Ms. McLaughlin said. "It's not a race issue, it's a legal issue."
Yet where one resident sees legalities, another may see racism. Ms. Castro-Arce and her husband, also a lawyer, decided the incident at the ball field last month was the final straw: they put their house on the market and are now looking for a home in Westchester.
"I tell my husband all the time that coming here was a big mistake," she said. "I talk to other people about what we've encountered here all the time, and they can't believe it."

It seems to me that the only real hope for the future is to take Rachel McLaughlin's advice and "make these people citizens" somehow. So long as they're illegal they can never come close to assimilating, and the feelings arrayed against them will inevitably spill over onto American citizens like Yolanda Castro-Arce. I'm sure that my friend Sean, as well as would-be Assemblyman Greg Ball, want Brewster to be as welcoming as possible to Americans of all races. And throwing a lot of Latinos in jail is never going to achieve that goal.

Chavez denies reported U.S. allegations of Islamic terrorist activity in Venezuela - Americas - International Herald Tribune

2006-09-10T12:43:00.000-04:00

Chavez denies reported U.S. allegations of Islamic terrorist activity in Venezuela - Americas - International Herald Tribune: "
CARACAS, Venezuela President Hugo Chavez on Tuesday denied accusations attributed to a U.S. military officer that a popular tourist destination off Venezuela's coast has become a refuge for Islamic terrorists.

Chavez referred in a televised speech to a recent article in the Colombian magazine Revista Poder, which quoted Gen. Bantz J. Craddock of the U.S. Southern Command as saying there were indications of 'extremist contacts' on Margarita Island, a popular beach getaway northeast of Caracas.

Chavez denied such terrorist activity and called the comments part of a U.S. plan 'to justify any type of aggression against our country.'

Calling Craddock an 'imperialist general,' Chavez said, 'it's a lie that in Margarita there are Arab terrorists and that Margarita and Venezuela are a nest of Arab terrorism.'

Craddock, like other Washington officials, has previously referred to Chavez's government as a 'destabilizing' force in the region and criticized Venezuela's recent arms purchases.

Chavez, a close ally of Cuban leader Fidel Castro and sharp U.S. critic, accuses Washington of harboring plans to undermine his government, which U.S. officials deny.

CARACAS, Venezuela President Hugo Chavez on Tuesday denied accusations attributed to a U.S. military officer that a popular tourist destination off Venezuela's coast has become a refuge for Islamic terrorists.

Chavez referred in a televised speech to a recent article in the Colombian magazine Revista Poder, which quoted Gen. Bantz J. Craddock of the U.S. Southern Command as saying there were indications of 'extremist contacts' on Margarita Island, a popular"

From Denial to Recovery

2006-08-25T13:52:00.000-04:00

I am the first to admit, we really do take for granted the energy we consume in our everyday lives. Be it in our homes, at work, at play or in public areas such as the local mall or in our community churches, we use large amounts. And although we have a long way to go, the recent spikes in gas prices have caused many of us to no longer dismiss energy conservation as an activity left for our neighbors to practice. We all have a role to play. The average American consumer is starting to get past its conservation denial and move on to recovery.

Indeed, many of us now recycle, purchase artificial Christmas trees, stop littering the Nation's freeways and byways, carpool, use 40 watt light bulbs, and have cut back our water use. These same market forces that caused us to change our ways are even bringing about innovation and timely succor to the earth's ozone. It used to be a rare sight to see a hybrid car on the road, but since energy prices started their ascent, automakers are now offering attractive hybrids at affordable prices.

In spite of these positive lifestyle changes, my green friends, who seem to enjoy finger pointing at other, shall we say, "less conscientious" friends for not doing more to lessen their environmental footprint have become arrogantly adept at highlighting the problems, but sorely ineffectual in offering up viable solutions. The problem is, they are deliberately unreasonable when they blindly deny that we need traditional energy sources to sustain our way of life, heat our homes and to keep our economy strong. They spew out old and tired clichés about America's oil dependence with condescending and nauseatingly self-righteous lecturing.

Long unsatisfied with the protests and rallies of the past, these groups have been executing an intense campaign of frivolous lawsuits, political fundraising for sympathetic candidates and resorted to extreme publicity stunts (Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network, etc.). Even when it comes to renewable energy, they are not completely honest. It seems that each time I agree with them and try to get specific about which alternative energy source we should collectively focus on embracing, I am curtly told there is a problem with this source or that one.

Indulge me for a bit as I list some of the most popular negatives as laid out by the green faction to some of these renewable sources.

Hydropower:
It's cheap, unlimited, and reliable right? Well, activists and environmentalists advocates have fought to keep new dams from being built because they argue the nature of hydroelectric systems will often cause the water to take on higher temperatures, lose oxygen content, experience siltation, and cause gains in phosphorus and nitrogen content. As a result, hydropower may have irreversible impacts to natural habitats and thereby reduce fish stock throughout watershed and rivers. And so, they conclude, those working to make hydropower our premiere renewable energy source are swimming upstream.

Bio Mass:
Biomass pollutes the air, causes nauseous smells, and many reject it as a viable option because burning biomass fuels release those nasty greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Plus, it's an expensive source, both in terms of producing the biomass and converting it to alcohols. As a result, they affirm, efforts to have biomass as the renewable energy option that will save our planet have gone up in smoke.

Wind Power:
Who could have a problem with harnessing the wind in order to supply our energy needs? Our green friends of course. Wind power you see, has been found to cause unacceptable rates of raptor mortality and their unsightly presence dotting our public lands have caused a growing number of advocates to join the fight to reduce new windmills from being built. But there's more; Wind power is also relatively expensive to maintain, and the very diffuse source means it requires large numbers of wind generators (and thus large land areas) are required to produce useful amounts of heat or electricity. So according to them it turns out that those advocating for wind power to become an abundant renewable energy source are full of air.

Nuclear Energy:
Where do I even start with this one? When one begins to even mention nuclear energy as a possibility to fix our energy problems, the activists will invoke the human fallibilities that have created the most serious nuclear accidents in history; Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are two classic examples often mentioned as to why we should fight against new plants from being built. Admittedly, it is hard for one to hold up the benefits of nuclear power when the short and long-term biological, genetic and medical dangers associated with the nuclear fuel cycle are thrown in your face with such compelling examples of tragedies and near-misses. There is also the very real problem associated with the storage of long-lived radioactive waste. They then will tell you that those who argue for nuclear energy as an option will only suffer a frustrating meltdown.

Solar Energy:
Admittedly, this is not a problem cited by our green faction. Here the issue is that only areas of the world with lots of sunlight are suitable for solar power generation, and the very diffuse source means low energy production - which means large numbers of solar panels (and thus large land areas) are required to produce useful amounts of energy. Furthermore, the initial cost of a solar panel large enough to provide useful amounts of electricity is very expensive. As a result, very few homeowners or businesses can afford them. Unless solar panels can be made much cheaper, people won't buy them.
But currently, there is an issue regarding the polysilicon supply, the raw material used to produce photovoltaic cells. The shortage has caused prices for polysilicon to more than double over the last two years, which means plans to have the market deliver affordable solar technology anytime soon have fizzled out.

Really, I could go on, but I think you get the picture. No energy source meets their absurdly unrealistic standards of acceptability.

Energy That Falls out of the Sky:
Fortunately for us all, energy, the kind with zero impact to the environment, will soon be falling from the sky to power our washing machines, factories, automobiles, Nintendo video game consoles and our suburban shopping malls. Santo remedio!

Pipe dream you say? You are absolutely right. So if our friends are against nuclear energy, wind power, bio-mass energy, hydropower and solar energy continues to be sold at caviar prices, how then do we meet demand, continue the historic GDP growth, and sustain our way of life?

While we wait for innovation and technology to catch up and meet our energy demand, and while we wait on our green friends to get over their energy denial, the rest of us have been brought to our knees with no relief of energy prices in sight.

There is a better way. We can make smart use of traditional natural resources. To be clear, I am referring to oil and natural gas.

But even here we have self-inflicted wounds. Numerous Federal government restrictions continue to stifle exploration for natural gas in the Rocky Mountain region, and on public lands across Alaska. Oil and gas leases on federal lands are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act to name a few.

Our zeal to protect and preserve our planet have caused us to approve policies that have created damaging restrictions to access, crippled our delivery infrastructure, and stifled exploration of oil and natural gas reserves. Copious and often unreasonable lawsuits by environmental groups have thwarted even the most cursory explorations of oil and gas reserves.

Natural Gas:
The country produces 84% of its natural gas domestically, but while 95% of the new power plants will be fueled by clean-burning natural gas, mature basins are declining, and the available supply of natural gas is not meeting the growing demand. To make matters worse, natural gas producers say they have to run their wells harder to stay even--which means digging more but less productive wells.

Then there is the problem of delivery. One thing is to extract the oil, another is to deliver it for processing. State and local governments have made it almost impossible to build new pipeline systems and ships that transport vast amounts of liquefied natural gas (LNG) over the oceans are finding it a challenge to increase the amount of cargo given the limited infrastructure and the number of processing plants (only five in the U.S.).

Compounding the natural gas problem is that almost two-thirds of the world's natural gas reserves can be found in five countries: Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. In fact, Russia and Iran have almost half the world's natural gas reserves. The other major sources of reserves are found in West Africa and Latin America. Unquestionably, these are all very difficult regions to deal with.

Restrictions on public lands are no small thing mind you. Consider that the Interior Department alone manages more than 500 million acres of public land, or one out of every five acres of U.S. land. These lands account for 30 percent of America's domestic energy production, including 48 percent of geothermal production, 35 percent of natural gas production (25 percent offshore and 10 percent onshore), 35 percent of coal production, 35 percent of oil production (30 percent offshore and 5 percent onshore), 20 percent of wind power, and 17 percent of hydropower.

o In Nevada alone, the Federal Government owns and administers 87% of the state's land.
o The federal government owns and administers 67 percent of Alaska's total acreage.
o The federal government owns and administers about 37 percent of the land in Montana as well.

To be sure, the United States has plenty of natural gas reserves. The government's Energy Information Agency (EIA) believes (conservatively) that there are 1,279.5 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas resources in the United States alone. That is sufficient to take care of America's natural gas demand for fifty to seventy-five years, depending on the growth in demand.

By severely restricting or simply banning drilling access to gas fields in the Rockies, the Arctic, the eastern Gulf, and the Outer Continental Shelf in both the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans, we have artificially created a supply shortage for the country.

A Department of Energy report indicates that over the next 20 years, consumption of natural gas in the United States is projected to grow by more than 50%; while production, if it grows at the rate of the last 10 years, will grow by only 14% (as per the Energy Information Administration). Needless to say, we are headed for a natural gas crisis if we do not take steps to revert the trend.

Oil:
Energy denial is most acute whenever people start talking about the need to increase domestic production of oil. They claim the amount that can be produced will not be enough to make the United States energy independent. I agree. But that shouldn't stop us from lessening our dependence. Our denial has created a disastrous and bleak energy future.

As domestic oil production has continued its decline, the U.S. had to import 58% of its petroleum needs in 2004 to keep its economy roaring at historical growth levels. These oil imports cost more than $150 billion and it is estimated that Americans lost thousands of high-paying jobs. The price of gasoline has nearly doubled over the last three years because of the escalating price of oil. The cost of turning oil into gasoline has also risen because of costly federal regulations on refinery operations and expansions. No new refineries have been built in the U.S. since the 1970s.
And even though the clamoring for gasoline has been inadequately met thus far by expansions of existing refineries, it has come with considerable difficulty.

As is the case with natural gas, there currently exist strict prohibitions to explore and develop oil reserves on the east and west outer continental shelves of the United States - mainly off the Gulf Coast of Florida and the coast of California.

Today's younger generation wouldn't know it, but back in the late 70's, many experts declared with smug assuredness that 30 billion barrels of oil was all that was left in the ground. My guess is that given the rate of production at the time it probably meant we would be back to burning small logs of wood to heat our homes by the 1990s. Since then, we have pumped out an additional 67 billion barrels of oil. Today, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 10 billion barrels are recoverable from one small area alone, enough to increase known domestic reserves by 50 percent. I am of course referring to Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

The House and Senate have actually voted to open ANWR in the past, but they have regrettably failed to come to an agreement on one acceptable bill. The Administration came within three votes of opening ANWR for development. But today ANWR remains off-limits to exploration while we take on more imports, oil prices continue spiking to absurd levels as demand continues to grow faster than existing domestic production.

The restricted patch of vast and mostly desolate land is considered by many to be America's single largest untapped source of oil. A new bill, the American-Made Energy Freedom Act (H.R. 5890), would open it to energy development and use the billions in ANWR leasing and royalty revenues to fund alternative energy projects. Moreover, the Act limits production to the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain, leaving 17.5 million of ANWR's 19 million acres untouched. Most importantly, the surface disturbance on the coastal plain is further limited to no more than 2,000 acres.

Below is a listing of by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) that details how oil from ANWR would power each state based on oil potential (10.4 billion barrels*) and petroleum consumption by state using statistics provided by the Energy Information Agency (EIA), the U.S. Dept of the Interior calculated the number of years that ANWR oil would power each state.

State & Number of Years ANWR Oil Would Supply State:
Alabama	103	Montana	342
Alaska	203	Nebraska	255
Arizona	108	Nevada	226
Arkansas	146	New Hampshire	315
California	16	New Jersey	46
Colorado	120	New Mexico	222
Connecticut	132	New York	34
Delaware	399	North Carolina	58
DC	1,710	North Dakota	399
Florida	29	Ohio	43
Georgia	54	Oklahoma	97
Hawaii	249	Oregon	155
Idaho	363	Pennsylvania	39
Illinois	43	Rhode Island	570
Indiana	68	South Carolina	120
Iowa	132	South Dakota	499
Kansas	141	Tennessee	80
Kentucky	79	Texas	9
Louisiana	36	Utah	218
Maine	249	Vermont	598
Maryland	100	Virginia	62
Massachusetts	75	Washington	68
Michigan	52	West Virginia	266
Minnesota	84	Wisconsin	83
Mississippi	116	Wyoming	374
Missouri	77

10.4 Billion Barrels of Oil is the mean volume USGS estimates for technically recoverable conventional oil in the entire assessment area of ANWR; including federal lands, native-owned private lands and state-regulated waters.

Bottom line is, the opportunities offered by opening exploration and drilling in ANWR cannot be ignored, we do so at our peril.

Conclusion:
Transforming personal commitment and public policy into a healthy, just, and competitive society is essential to sustaining robust economic development in a world of increasing growth and vast opportunities. To that end, Congress should require strict energy conservation, demand investments in technology, promote building nuclear power plants and oil refineries, make hydrogen and fuel cell technology a high priority, and yes, authorize ANWR exploration and drilling. Americans should also drop our energy denial and pass sensible policy that ensures we will have vast and varied sources of energy to heat our homes, sustain our way of life, and keeps our Nation strong.

Daniel Garza is President of Hispanic and PODER Group

"Cross the Border as an Extreme Sport!"

2006-08-24T21:17:00.000-04:00

No, this is not from the Onion: it's real. US citizens like Mauricio Palacios, 30, pay 150 pesos each to be chased across the Mexican desert by the "Border Patrol", in reality Hnahnu tribespeople. Why? Just ask Mauricio, who said afterwards that "It was cool - it was very fun".

The idea, apparently, is "to build empathy for migrants by putting people in their shoes". Or, you know, to make money by exploiting and cheapening the immigrant experience. One or the other.

SANCTUARY, SANCTUARY!

2006-08-17T19:44:00.000-04:00

Quasimodo hurried up to the highest tower of Notre Dame "which housed the great bell," and held the girl before the city's masses congregated below as he "roared savagely...'Sanctuary! Sanctuary! Sanctuary!'"

Today, the Aldalberto United Methodist Church in the City of Chicago can be substituted for the famous cathedral in Victor Hugo's solemn and eternal novel "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", and Elvira Arellano may as well be Esmeralda, the protagonist from the same novel.

The following article is by DON BABWIN, writer for the Associated Press:

CHICAGO- Immigration activists around the country are taking up the cause of a single mother who invoked the ancient principle of sanctuary and took refuge in a Chicago church rather than submit to deportation to Mexico. Elvira Arellano, 31, was holed up for a second day Wednesday at Aldalberto United Methodist Church with the support of the congregation's pastor. With her was her 7-year-old son, Saul, an American citizen.

Federal officials said there is no right to sanctuary in a church under U.S. law and nothing to prevent them from arresting her. But they would not say exactly what they planned to do, or when. The protest raised the spectacle of agents barging into a church and dragging her out.

"She is the face of the movement," said Emma Lozano, executive director of the Chicago immigration-rights group Centro Sin Fronteras, who was at the church with Arellano. In Phoenix, Martin Manteca of Mi Familia Vota said Hispanic activist groups were organizing a vigil in her support. Lozano said an event also was scheduled in Detroit.

Arellano also has attracted attention from political officials including Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, who has voiced his support. And Dolores Huerta, a leader in the effort to organize the nation's farm workers, plans to come to Chicago to show her support, according to Huerta's daughter, Alicia. A few dozen supporters gathered at the storefront church, sitting in the pews and praying for Arellano. But the doors were not barricaded, and there were no apparent efforts to fortify the church.

Arellano, who is president of United Latino Family, which lobbies for families that could be split by deportation, had been ordered to appear at the immigration office in Chicago at 9 a.m. Tuesday, but instead went to the church, where she is an active member.

She said that if authorities want her, they will have to come and get her. "My son is a U.S. citizen," she told reporters. "He doesn't want me to go anywhere, so I'm going to stay with him." Pastor Walter Coleman said his congregation offered Arellano refuge after praying about her plight. Coleman said he does not believe Arellano should have to choose between leaving her son behind or removing him from his home.

"She represents the voice of the undocumented, and we think it's our obligation, our responsibility, to make a stage for that voice to be heard," he said. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said there is nothing preventing the U.S. government from arresting her at the church.

"Ms. Arellano willfully violated U.S. immigration laws and is now facing the consequences of her actions by failing to report to immigration authorities," said agency spokeswoman Gail Montenegro. "We will arrest and deport her as required by law at an appropriate time and place." Legal experts agreed that the traditional doctrine that people are protected from arrest in a church is not recognized under U.S. law.

But Joel Fetzer, associate professor of political science at Pepperdine University in California, said: "If the government comes in, it's going to look very jack-booted fascistic. It would look very bad." Churches and synagogues also tried to offer sanctuary to illegal immigrants escaping civil war in El Salvador during the 1980s, a civil disobedience activity known as the Sanctuary movement. Susan Gzesh, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago who assisted the churches and synagogues that offered sanctuary, said she does not believe federal authorities ever went into the churches to make arrests.

Arellano illegally crossed into the United States in 1997 and was deported shortly afterward. She returned within days, living for three years in Oregon before moving to Chicago in 2000. Arrested two years later at O'Hare Airport, where she was working as a cleaning woman, she was convicted of working under a false Social Security number and ordered to appear at the immigration office in Chicago.

Activists said her desire to come here to work and provide a better life for herself and her son illustrates why they believe the nation's immigration laws must be changed. "She is a leader in the movement who has made the issue of family unity the key issue in the question of the undocumented,"her pastor said. "That is the most sympathetic issue there is."

Others are not so sure. "I don't think the immigration debate should be focused on a woman who ... disregards an order," said Carlina Tapia-Ruano, a Chicago lawyer and president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Tapia-Ruano said she worries that Arellano's story will be used by extremists on both sides of the issue and cited as an example "of how illegals come here to be in flagrant disregard of our laws, and I don't think that's true." - Associated Press writer Carla K. Johnson in Chicago contributed to this report.

***

I say bravo Aldalberto United Methodist Church!

May God help the outcast.

Daniel Garza, President of Hispanic and PODER Group

TEXAS ELECTED OFFICIALS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT SPEAK ON IMMIGRATION

2006-08-16T03:04:00.000-04:00

TELEPHONIC BRIEFING
Texas Elected Officials and Sheriffs Offer Alternative View of Immigration

WHAT: On Wednesday, August 16, the House Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Investigations will hold a "field hearing" in Houston entitled “Criminal Activity and Violence along the Southern Border.” It is part of an ongoing series of 21 congressional hearings that have been held across the country this month on immigration issues, most if not all of them painting an extremely negative picture of immigrants and their contribution to the U.S. A group of Texas elected officials and law enforcement officers take a different view, and they would like to set the record straight in advance of the Houston hearing. They will address questions about immigrants and crime, immigrants and the South Texas economy, border security, immigration reform, and the role of local law enforcement in controlling the immigrant flow.

WHEN: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 8:30 am CT

HOW: Dial: (800) 289-0494 or (913) 981-5520
Confirmation Code: 1639914

WHO: The following elected officials and law enforcement officers will speak:

John Cook, mayor of El Paso
Richard Cortez, mayor of McAllen
Chad Foster, mayor of Eagle Pass
John David Franz, mayor of Hidalgo
Raul Salinas, mayor of Laredo
Beto Salinas, mayor of Mission
Eddie Trevino, mayor of Brownsville
Richard Wiles, police chief of El Paso

Tamar Jacoby, senior fellow, Manhattan Institute will moderate.

Hispanic Movers and Shakers

2006-08-15T18:56:00.000-04:00

Eddie Gonzalez
Eddie Gonzalez was named chairman and CEO of Hispanic marketing firm The Bravo Group. He succeeds Gary Bassell.
Gonzalez was formerly Bravo Group’s Young & Rubicam (Y&R) Latin America head. Gonzalez began his career in 1982 at Y&R Puerto Rico, where after a year he was named managing director.
Gonzalez went on to steer Y&R Latin America into becoming the second-largest network in the region and making it one of the top creative agencies there. He has worked for Y&R across four continents, having also served as chairman and CEO of Y&R Madrid and having held senior management roles in Asia.

David Lizárraga
David C. Lizárraga, president and CEO of The East Los Angeles Community Union (TELACU), received an honorary doctoral degree in Humane Letters from California State University.
Under Lizárraga’s leadership TELACU grew from a small community development corporation to one of the largest such firms in the nation. The company, now with $400 million in assets, has spearheaded job development throughout Southern California
Over the decades Lizárraga, who also serves on California’s Motor Vehicle Boar and on the USHCC Board of Directors, has proved himself a sought after resource in wide-ranging matters including business and civic affairs, inner-city lending and real estate development.

Jorge Lopez
Jorge J. Lopez was named president and chief executive officer of ConEdison Solutions, a subsidiary of Consolidated Edison, Inc. (CEI), and one of the nation’s leading energy services companies.
Lopez will succeed JoAnn F. Ryan who will assume another senior executive position. Lopez joined ConEdison Solutions in 2002 and most recently served as senior vice president of retail commodity and energy services. He also served as vice president of sales.
With over two decades in the industry, Lopez previously served as director of sales, power quality/reliability and distributed generation for Chevron Energy Solutions, the San Francisco-based energy company.

Rosa Rosales
Rosa Rosales was named president of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LUCLAC), the largest and oldest Latino civil rights organization in the U.S., following a vote by the organization’s delegates held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Rosales
Born April 7, 1944, in San Antonio, Texas, Rosales was among the first Mexican-American women to become a labor organizer in recent times. She was the first woman, for example, to hold the position of LULAC state director. Rosales received a BA in liberal arts from the University of Michigan. Most recently she was the national vice president of the Southwest on the LULAC board of directors.

Yvette Ostolaza
Yvette Ostolaza, a litigation partner in the Dallas office of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP—one of the world’s leading international law firms—has been appointed to serve a three-year term on the Board of Directors for the Baylor Health Care System Foundation.
This select group of business professionals actively participates through a wide range of fund development, special events and solicitation of corporate support for the essential needs of Baylor Health Care System.
Ostolaza concentrates in the trial and supervision of complex civil litigation and arbitration in state and federal courts throughout the United States and arbitrations.

Aileen Ugalde
Aileen M. Ugalde, was named University of Miami (UM) vice president, general counsel, and secretary to the Board of Trustees. Ugalde was vice president for government affairs for the university and served as president Donna Shalala’s chief of staff.
While directing the Office of the President’s activities, she also led the University’s efforts in hosting the 2004 Presidential Debate on campus. She first joined the university in 1994 as an assistant general counsel, and in 1998 was promoted to associate general counsel.
A UM alumna, Ugalde graduated with honors from the UM School of Law, where she was a Harvey T. Reid Scholar and member of the University of Miami Law Review.

USHCC
USHCC President and CEO Michael L. Barrera, USHCC Foundation President Frank Lopez and distinguished members of the USHCC Board of Directors, Paul Rodriguez (Region 3) and Alex Garcia (Region 5) were selected to participate in the Hispanic Association on Corporate Responsibility’s (HACR) Executive Education Program for existing and prospective corporate board members.
Scheduled for August 13 – 16, 2006, at the Harvard Business School (HBS) in Boston Massachusetts, the Executive Education Program is the result of a collaborative effort between HACR and HBS to increase the effectiveness and presence of Hispanics in the corporate boardrooms of America's largest companies.

Leticia Van de Putte
Texas State Senator Leticia Van de Putte became the first Hispanic president of the National Conference of State Legislatures, a bipartisan, nonprofit organization that works on behalf of the nation's state legislatures.
As president, she will be a voice in the federal system for the nation's 7,382 state legislators - who collectively represent all Americans.
A Democrat, she succeeds Republican Illinois Senator Steve Rauschenberger to the post of NCSL president. The position alternates each year between the two major parties.
Senator Van de Putte represents a large portion of San Antonio, and is a veteran in her legislature. This is her fourth term in the Texas Senate, following five terms in the House.

I Scream, you Scream, we all Scream for Ice Cream

2006-08-08T10:10:00.000-04:00

I will preface this blog article with a cute story that is making the rounds on the web - goes something like this:

In the days when an ice cream sundae cost much less, a 10 year old boy entered a coffee shop and sat at a table. A waitress put a glass of water in front of him.
"How much is an ice cream sundae?" he asked.

"Fifty cents," replied the waitress impatiently.

The little boy pulled his hand out of his pocket and studied the number of coins in it.

"How much is a dish of plain ice cream?" he inquired.

Some people were now waiting for a table and the waitress was growing edgy. "Thirty-five cents," she said brusquely.

The little boy again counted the coins.

"I'll have the plain ice cream," he said.

The waitress tended to the other customers and would later bring the ice cream, put the bill on the table and walk away.

The boy finished the ice cream, paid the cashier and departed.

When the waitress came back, she began wiping down the table and then swallowed hard at what she saw. There, placed neatly beside the empty dish, were two nickels and five pennies - her tip.

** **

In much the same way, many undocumented workers in spite of the mistreatment and indifference shown to them because of callous stereotypes have dutifully contributed to our economy, paid their fair share of taxes and helped to grow the world’s largest economy (Since 2004, the U.S. has created more jobs than the rest of the G-7 countries combined).

Those who argue against immigration reform often make the point that these workers and their families are a growing burden on American society. Legal immigrants, they say, pay their taxes and work hard to raise their families, and "illegals" take services yet give nothing in return and depress wages.

First of all, it should be noted that up to 40 percent of the undocumented population entered the country legally and overstayed their visas.

Second point is The Commission for Immigration Reform (CIR) reported that the average immigrant and his or her offspring will contribute $80,000 more in taxes than they take in services.

Unauthorized migrants in the United States have paid billions of dollars into a Social Security system that desperately needs the infusion to avoid financial collapse (just like the waitress in our ice cream story needs the tips paid by customers to make ends meet).

According to the U.S. Census Bureau "Compared to the native-born, a significantly higher percentage of immigrants are of working age (between 28 and 54 years of age). As such, the Social Security Administration estimates that three out of four illegal immigrants pay payroll taxes, but can't claim the benefits, amounting to an "illegal surplus" of between $6 billion and $7 billion per year – it is estimated that $500 billion has the total net benefit to the Social Security System.

Another argument is that unauthorized migrants - mostly employed in low-wage, low-skill industries - drive down wages and take jobs away from U.S. citizens.

Howard Chang from the University of Pennsylvania noted this supply-and-demand argument is wrong: "...the demand for labor does not remain fixed when immigrants enter the economy," he argues. "Immigrant workers not only supply labor ... they also demand goods and services, and this demand will translate into greater demand for locally supplied labor."

A 2004 study by the Inter-American Development Bank estimated that the 16.7 million U.S. workers born in Latin America had a combined gross income of $450 billion in 2003, of which a whopping 93 percent was spent in the United States. It was also found that most paid both sales tax and federal tax. In fact, The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimated that state and local taxes paid by the unauthorized immigrant population in the United States totaled about $1.6 billion per year.

Unquestionably, our Nation is strong because of immigrant contributions, and it continues to benefit economically, politically, and socially from immigration.

Bottom line is, contrary to popular belief, they give more than they take. By supporting comprehensive immigration reform we are simply giving back our respect and gratitude.

Until next time. I'm off to get a chocolate sundae with nuts.

Daniel Garza, President of Hispanic and PODER Group

Offsetting emissions

2006-08-07T11:59:00.000-04:00

I'm flying quite a lot this year, so I used the (not particularly user-friendly) CarbonNetural flight calculator to give me some idea of my total emissions. Most people fly less than this in a year, I'm sure, but then again I can think of very many people who fly a lot more. In any case, here are my flights for the year, which collectively account for more carbon emissions than the rest of my life combined:

Flight	Tonnes of CO2
New York–Acapulco return	0.8
New York–Albuquerque	0.4
El Paso–New York	0.3
New York–St Louis return, six times	2.4
New York–London return	1.2
London–Berlin	0.1
Munich–London	0.1
New York–Los Angeles	0.4
Long Beach–San Francisco	0.1
San Francisco–New York	0.4
New York–Portland (Maine) return	0.2
New York–Washington return	0.2
New York–Tucson return	0.8
New York–Ushuaia return (via Santiago)	2.3
Total	9.7

These numbers are inprecise, of course: there's no generally-accepted way for calculating the carbon emissions one is responsible for when taking an airplane. What kind of airplane do you base the model on? What percentage occupancy do you assume? How much cargo do you model? What do you use for the CO2 equivalent of other greenhouse gases emitted? And, most crucially, what multiplier do you use for the extra harm caused by emissions at 35,000 feet?

In any case, the cost to offset 9.7 tonnes of CO2 emissions, according to the Climate Care calculator, is £72.75, which is $137.75 at today's exchange rate. A significant sum, but certainly an affordable one, so I'm happy to offset my flight-related emissions for the year with one donation.

But the weird thing, to me, is that all of the websites I can find about carbon offsets seem to be based in the UK or Canada. People there – at least the environmentally-responsible ones – are very likely to know about offsetting their emissions. In the US, however, when I bring up the subject, I'm generally greeted with blank stares. Some high-profile Americans offset, of course: this article cites Al Gore and Dave Matthews. But the concept is still not generally known about in this country.

What I would love to see would be the ability for flyers to offset their carbon emissions when they buy their plane tickets, rather than having to proactively go to some other website entirely. It shouldn't be too hard for a progressive airline like Virgin or JetBlue to add a little button on their ticket-sales page, saying "offset your carbon emissions from this flight for an extra $22" or whatever – many more people would do that, I'm sure, than currently go to places like Climate Care. Of course, all donations would be tax-deductible.

At the very least, if the airlines won't do it, might not one of the big travel booking sites give it a go? I'd probably switch from Orbitz to Travelocity, say, if it had those kind of environmental credentials.

A Paradise for Culture Vultures

2006-08-06T08:07:00.000-04:00

As I continue my quest to see how Colombia has changed, I headed yesterday to La Candelaria, Bogota's colonial sector. I've always found the rich colonial architecture - some of it rundown, much of it restored - to be strangely comforting.

We had lunch on a terrace overlooking the tiled rooftops and city center. One of those spectacular August days - cloudless, cool, the strong sun beating down.

We wandered down to the Museo Botero, a collection housed in a beautiful old colonial house in the lower part of the Candelaria. In 2000, Maestro Fernando Botero donated 123 of his own works (paintings, drawings, sculpture)and 85 from his own collection, mainly late 19th century and early 20th century pieces by Corot, Renoir, Picasso, Moore, Dali, Chagall. (I was struck by his generosity!) I've never seen so many Boteros housed in one place and perhaps it is the museum with the most extensive collection of his works. Very impressive and beautifully curated.

The Museum also includes a gift shop, a children's workshop, interior patios (typical of colonial houses)with fountains and filled with bouganvillea, a small cafe. One could easily pass an afternoon, a very pleasant afternoon, there.

In another part of the colonial house is the Banco de la Republica's art collection, which has over 3,000 pieces by Colombian, Latin American and European artists. Part of the collection is displayed in 14 rooms, chronologically, beginning with 17th century religious art and finishing with works by contemporary artists.

Attached to the Banco's collection is the Museum of the Banco de la Republica. It is a striking modern structure, which flows nicely into the colonial architecture. There is a small courtyard and cafe between the two buildings and as you step from one to the other, you feel that you are gently gliding between centuries. It's a nice feeling.

After the museum, we walked down to the Plaza de Bolivar. I wanted my daughters to see the plaza and the institutions that ring that plaza - congress, the church (cathedral), Bogota's city hall, and the Supreme Court. The girls chased pidgeons, posed for pix on a llama (I promise, it won't be this year's Christmas card) and asked about the different buildings.

I hadn't seen the new Court and decided to leave the tragic story of the taking of the Palacio de Justicia for another day. This was a day of appreciating something very unique and beautiful in their country.

Fidel Reading

2006-08-04T15:29:00.000-04:00

Fidel Castro turns 80 years old on August 13, 2006.

PODERblog recommends the following books for the occasion:

After Fidel by Brian Latell

Cuba: The Morning After--Confronting Castro's Legacy by Mark Falcoff

The Real Fidel Castro by Leycester Coltman

Fidel: A Critical Portrait by Tad Szulc

The Autumn of the Patriarch

2006-08-01T13:58:00.000-04:00

(from PODER magazine)

Cuba expert Brian Latell talks about the waning days of the Cuban Revolution, and what might happen after Fidel.

By Cathleen Farrell, Miami

While Hurricane Wilma was bearing down on Miami and South Florida, Brian Latell was talking about the winds of change in neighboring Cuba. “Fidel is seriously ill,” the former CIA analyst said. “He is declining physically and cognitively, and he is suffering from some serious, life-threatening illness.” That kind of talk goes over well in Miami, where discussing the demise of Cuba’s leader and speculating on the aftermath is a favorite parlor game.

On that sultry October afternoon, though, Latell, an expert without peer on Fidel Castro, was lunching with a group of journalists to discuss his new book, After Fidel. In it he tackles the question of what will happen to that island nation after Castro dies. While the unstartling conclusion is simply that, “after Fidel, anything is possible,” the book rewards the reader with insights into the dictator and the regime that Latell has gained from nearly four decades of study.

After Fidel is a fascinating study not only of Fidel but also of his younger brother and heir apparent, Raul. Like the good historian he is, Latell, who holds a PhD in Latin American history and taught at Georgetown, carefully distills the complex geopolitical reality of Cuba down to its most basic component: the key human actors in the drama.

He skillfully paints a detailed portrait of two brothers who appear to be mirror opposites: Fidel, charismatic, self-absorbed, megalomaniacal; Raul, cautious, unobtrusive, extremely private.

The book is also part memoir, says Latell, and the title employs a double meaning. “After Fidel also refers to my being after him, trailing him. As a young CIA analyst, I was given the task of getting under his skin, his beard, in his boots.”

Actually Latell has never met Fidel, never come face to face with him, but he is indisputably one of the world’s experts on the Cuban dictator. “I have a dubious distinction—I’m somewhat embarrassed to admit it,” Latell says, laughing. “I have read every public word Fidel has ever spoken.” He began working on Cuba for the CIA in 1964, five years after Castro took power, two years after the U.S.-Soviet showdown over missiles in Cuba.

After Fidel has garnered a lot of attention, in part because it reveals heretofore undisclosed details about both Castro brothers. Latell’s main thesis is that the Cuban revolution has only one indispensable man besides Fidel: Raul Castro. “There is not and never has been a ‘third man’,” Latell says. There is no one else waiting in the wings to take over. Fidel is so paranoid that he trusts no one, Latell explains, no one, that is, except his younger brother Raul, over whom he exerts an extraordinary psychological control.

The best value-added dimension of the book is the information it provides about the enigmatic Raul. Most biographies of Fidel and all the standard histories of the revolution have neglected one of its most important factors, Latell maintains. “To my knowledge, there has never been anything more than a few hundred words written about Raul. Admittedly Raul is not quite as interesting as Fidel, but he is psychologically and emotionally more complex.”

The relationship between the two, the way they effectively share power, may foreshadow Cuba post-Fidel. (In several instances in the book, Latell refers to their conquest of power as the Castros’ revolution.) “To use a theatrical metaphor, if the Cuban revolution were a stage production, Fidel would be the director and Raul the producer.”

Latell believes that should Fidel die first, Raul would, as expected, indeed take power and be able to maintain the revolution intact for a time at least, forestalling the protracted period of chaos that many observers predict. “There are no leaders or group of leaders who could rally support and challenge Raul for leadership.”

On the other hand, given Fidel’s current physical and mental health, Latell says, “If Raul dies first, the revolution would hang by a thread.”

The congenial Latell, although a cool and cerebral analyst, is hardly detached from his subject. In the book and in conversation, he frequently refers to Fidel as a “psychopath” and demonstrates both fascination and revulsion for the man.

Interestingly, he speaks more warmly of Raul, although the younger Castro is known to have killed and ordered executions in cold blood. “Close family members, his sister Juanita—a wonderful person— and Fidel’s daughter Alina Fernandez—also a wonderful person—both say that Raul is the warmer of the two, the more human.” They even used the word “ compassionate”. (Juanita, says Latell, blames Fidel for “turning Raul into a monster.”)

Latell describes Fidel as having a “very constricted psychological scope and capability. He is very insulated, isolated.” Raul, on the other hand, has formed deep and lasting bonds with family members, friends, and colleagues. “Fidel has no sense of humor. Raul is very down-to-earth and has a real self-deprecating sense of humor.”

Yet, Latell notes, “Raul is lacking in so many of the extraordinary leadership qualities of Fidel. He is awkward in public speeches, he does not have direct contact with the masses.” Ironically, it is Raul’s more human qualities, Latell believes, that have enabled him to gain such firm control of the military and to consolidate his role in the revolution.

The world’s longest-serving defense minister—“a job he does exceptionally well,” says Latell— Raul Castro controls the country’s most powerful, wealthiest and best run institution whose many tentacles reach into every aspect of Cuban society. “In 47 years, there has never been a coup attempt, no organized unrest in the military,” Latell says. “There have only been two serious disruptions in the military, in 1959 and in 1989, and both were resolved in favor of the Castro brothers.”

How has Raul managed to maintain control of the military for so long? “In part, because he has had the same men with him since the 1950s,” Latell explains, “but also because he has established genuine friendships with these men, he knows them, he knows their families—something Fidel is incapable of.”

And yet, Raul’s power initially derived from his relationship with his brother. Since their childhood, Raul has been overshadowed by his illustrious, studious and charismatic older brother.

Growing up in what Latell describes as “the Cuban equivalent of the American wild west” in the eastern Cuban countryside, the boys were sent away to school at an early age. Fidel thrived, Raul did not, and was described by one teacher as “a sack of potatoes.” Fidel has a law degree from the University of Havana and was a student leader; Raul has little formal education. Fidel was their father’s favorite, Raul was barely acknowledged. (Latell furthers the discussion of Raul’s paternity by quoting a letter Raul wrote to Fidel referring to their older brother as “your brother”—not “our brother”—and he reveals the name of the man long rumored to be Raul’s biological father.)

In the 1950s Raul became an avowed communist, traveling behind the Iron Curtain and reading Marxist tomes. He was the ideologue of the two; Fidel was the more pragmatic, a Cuban nationalist. During the revolution Raul came into his own as his brother’s loyal lieutenant. (Raul calls Fidel “jefe”, not brother, according to Latell.)

Despite his lack of schooling Raul “is the organization man, with an extraordinary managerial style.” Yet his loyalty to his brother is unwavering, unquestioning and blind, so great is the psychological hold Fidel has on Raul. And that has been the essence and the success of their hold on Cuba.

While the book does not enter into the minutiae of a post-Fidel Cuba—after all, both leaders are geriatric revolutionaries so it’s a coin toss who could go first—Latell does suggest that relations between the U.S. and Cuba might be different under Raul.

“The roles have been reversed: Raul is now the more pragmatic of the two,” says Latell. “Fidel is more dogmatic, inflexible, radical.” Under Raul, would the current policy of estrangement still be sustainable? Latell suggests that Raul’s pragmatism might well allow him as leader to send emissaries to Washington, to put feelers out offering to share intelligence and to work together on counter-terrorism. “Would the U.S. say ‘no’?,” Latell asks.

Latell is reticent about expressing an opinion on U.S. policy towards Cuba. He says he does not want to detract from the discussion of his current book and, he adds, “I may write a book next year on U.S. –Cuba relations, but from the Cuban point of view.”

Fidel, Latell says, has never wanted good relations with the U.S. “His anti-Americanism is in his blood. Fidel hates the United States,” but “I don’t think Raul would have the same blood antipathy.” Raul has only spent 24 hours in the U.S. He rarely, if ever, receives American visitors, Latell says, but “Fidel understands us maybe as well as we do or better.”

The Virginia Monologues

2006-08-01T00:36:00.000-04:00

Colombia is undergoing an interesting national conversation these days, sparked by the televised declarations of a former TV personality/ex-lover of drug kingpin Pablo Escobar.

Virigina Vallejo broke her more than decade-long silence last week when videotaped declarations she made about Escobar and the Colombian political class were broadcast on national TV. During the nearly five-hour long tape,(parts of which were broadcast) Vallejo talks about her love affair with the notorious cartel chief (as well as her relationship with another drug lord, former Cali cartel capo Miguel Rodriguez Orejuela.)

But that's not the good stuff. Vallejo accuses former Justice Minister and senator Alberto Santofimio, Escobar's political godfather, of being the "intellectual author" of the 1989 killing of a beloved presidential candidate, Luis Carlos Galan.

Vallejo said that if Santofimio, who is on trial for ordering the assassination of Galan, gets off "it would be like murdering Galan twice."

Vallejo says she decided to come forward after she saw the Galan family on TV during the trial of Santofimio several weeks ago. Vallejo said that if Santofimio, who is on trial for ordering the assassination of Galan, gets off "it would be like murdering Galan twice." Vallejo declares she heard Santofimio on at least three occasions speak to Escobar of the need to "neutralize" Galan, who Santofimio said was a threat to their plans to turn Colombia into a narco-state.
"This man is a killer," Vallejo said in the tape, as she pointed to a photograph of Santofimio in El Tiempo. "The only thing he didn't do was pull the trigger."

Salacious accusations aside, what I find truly fascinating about all this is the discussion going on in the Colombian press and media and society about Vallejo's role and whether or not her declarations should be admissible as evidence against Santofimio. (Proceedings had actually closed 10 days before the declarations were aired.) Few question the veracity of the declarations. The discussion is more about Colombia's recent past. And what I wonder is whether or not Colombians are ready to revisit it just yet. Some seem to want to. Is this Colombia's version of an ad hoc Truth and Reconciliation commission of the narco-terrorism that reigned from the mid-1980s to the early 1990s? The violence began with the murder of Justice Minister Rodrigo Lara Bonilla, who supported extradition of drug traffickers, and it continued with the taking of the Palace of Justice and murder of most of the justices of the high court. Then bombings which killed hundreds, the murder of over 2,000 policemen in Medellin, the bombing of an Avianca flight in 1989 which killed all aboard...the period ended, it is safe to say, in 1993, shortly before the killing of Escobar. So violent. So much needless loss of life. Such a hate-filled time. How did it all happen? Why couldn't it have been contained? The reason may lie in the coziness between the politcal class and the narcos, and those in civil society who turned a blind eye to drugtrafficking, corruption and an ever weakening justice system.

Are Colombians ready to examine their and their leaders roles in this horrific period? Perhaps this national conversation has already begun.

Change? What change?

2006-07-28T13:27:00.000-04:00

As I read today's El Tiempo here in Bogota, I am reminded of the story of a friend in Montreal whose father had visited Bogota in the 1960s. He visited again in the early 1990s and said, "Do they just keep printing the same newspaper over and over? Colombians are still arguing about building a metro and they are still talking about the guerrilla."
Well, things have changed...somewhat. Today's El Tiempo reports on the "divorcio expres" or quicky divorce that is now available. And divorce is a relatively new phenomenon in Colombia. It essentially became available after the Constitution of 1991. (Before that, Colombians could get a civil separation and some would remarry abroad.)
Yet, while access to divorce is undoubtedly an advance for the many who find themselves in matrimonial limbo, there are still so many mired in an endemic poverty in this country. The paper also reports on the case of a mother whose 14 year old son was murdered in 1997 by a serial killer, Luis Alfredo Garavito. Authorities here identified the boy and turned over his remains to his mother several months ago. The woman, a maid, has several other children; they all live in a single room. She has been unable to bury her son because she does not have the 400,000 pesos-about US $150- to do so. So she keeps his remains in a box next to the bed, the only bed in the house.
It struck me as such a poignant and tragic story. I also find it interesting that El Tiempo gave it so much play - on the front page, below the fold.

A homecoming, of sorts

2006-07-27T23:31:00.000-04:00

It's been five years, five long years, since I've been in Colombia. I returned this evening to a country where I had spent 10 of the happiest years of my life, to the country where my children were born, to one of the most beautiful and fascinating places on earth.
I'm told the place has changed a lot-mainly for the better-in my absence (the two have nothing to do with each other, though.)
I flew from Miami to Barranquilla (impo$$ible to get a cheap direct flight today to Bogota) and spent an hour and a half in the airport before my flight to the capital. So easy to go through customs and immigration - no visa required, no bizarre questions that stress me out - and so nice to hear the familiar accent and feel the warm hospitality at every turn.
I whipped out my laptop and it picked up the WiFi right away. (Yes, Colombia has changed.)
As I sipped the best cafe con leche I've had in the last five years, I asked myself why the hell I left in the first place. (Such is my affinity for good coffee..)
I plan to see many old and dear friends while I am here. I want to know how they have been all these long years, how they see Colombia and its future.
Feeling the cold evening air here brings back many memories. Bogotanos are among the most cultured people around.They are wonderful conversationalists because they read, they know their (and other people's) geography and history. They are engaged in the world beyond their borders. I've missed that. I truly have.
But now I am feeling those 2,600 meters closer to the stars (soroche! altitude sickness) so I will call it a night.

WorldNetDaily: Illegal-alien activists target Lou Dobbs

2006-07-26T03:19:00.000-04:00

"WASHINGTON Illegal-alien activists who have pulled off major rallies in several cities in recent weeks plan to shift part of their focus May 1 by targeting a newsman they see hurting their cause.
An 'Ax AOL' campaign is being organized to coincide with a national action by various groups defending illegal immigration, but the real target of their wrath is Lou Dobbs of CNN. "

For more info:
hispanic.cc/ax_aol.htm
www.prandmarketing.com/auth/forbidden/news/prnews/10386.html

Will One of Virginia’s Two Favorite Sons be Your Next President?

2006-07-21T22:54:00.000-04:00

PREFACE: This is the first in a series of profiles we will have on potential U.S. presidential candidates for 2008.

From the glorious days of the American Revolution to the terrible years of the Civil War, and through modern times, Virginia has been a key player in U.S. history and politics for over 400 years. Today, Virginia just might provide the Democratic and Republican parties with their next
presidential candidates and the U.S. with its next president.

Virginia's Republican Senator George Allen and its former Democratic Governor Mark Warner are being heavily courted by their political parties and may well end up fighting it out with other contenders for their parties' nominations. At any rate, it's a safe bet that we will be seeing many more appearances by both men in the nation's television news shows, and in the nation's newspapers as the country gears up for the 2008 presidential race.

So far this year, Allen has visited Iowa, New Hampshire, Texas, South Carolina, and North Carolina in March and April, all key primary states. Through his many appearances, he has been able to capture the attention of many Republicans, who are talking about him as a potential presidential or vice-presidential nominee.

He is the son of the famous Washington Redskin's football coach, George H. Allen, and is regarded as an unpretentious "average Joe" who proudly shows off his Southern heritage by knocking about in his cowboy boots.

The seemingly easygoing Allen has an impressive political resume in his native Virginia where he first served in the state's House of Delegates from 1983 to 1991. That same year, Allen won a special election, which allowed him to represent Virginia's seventh district in the U.S. House of Representatives. After one term, he ran for governor and was elected as Virginia's 67th Governor in 1993. He then ran for the senate and defeated incumbent Democratic Virginia Senator Chuck Robb in 2000.

Allen says his personal role model is Ronald Reagan and just like the late president, he is a splendid orator with an amiable and politically astute approach to his profession. In fact, when he began his active involvement in politics in 1976 he was named state Chairman of Young Virginians for Reagan.

Conservatives in his state adore him. As governor, he took on the state bureaucracy. Even before taking office, he asked 400 public employees for their resignations. As governor, he eliminated parole for violent criminals and drastically reformed the state welfare program. He managed to push through a highly successful legislative agenda even though Republicans were the minority party in the State General Assembly.

There's no mistaking Allen's deep rooted conservatism. As Governor, Allen attracted businesses to Virginia by offering millions of dollars in tax incentives. As Senator, he voted for Bush's tax cuts. And although he has refused to say whether he is pro-life or pro-choice, or whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned, he is rated 100% by National Right to Life. He also supports a marriage amendment in Virginia and has stated his disregard for activist judges in the federal bench. But even many moderates love him because he has an unpredictable libertarian streak.

Mark Warner was born into a family of modest means. He was the first one to attend college, earning a law degree at Harvard. He was one of the co-founders of the telecommunications company Nextel and made a fortune estimated at $200 million before entering politics. In 2001, he was elected governor of Virginia by five points, he left in January 2006 with an approval rating of 75%. In 2005 Time magazine ranked Mark Warner as one of the top 5 governors of the United States.

Many Democrats are hoping Warner will be the party's next Bill Clinton -- a presidential candidate with Southern charm and a mix of conservative views on issues like budgets, bureaucracies and a liberal approach to civil rights, labor issues and education that will appeal equally to NASCAR dads and soccer moms.

Even though, Virginia has not voted for a Democrat since 1964, many on the Democratic side are hoping the state could be the starting point to recapture the South. The 11 states of the South plus Oklahoma, Kentucky and West Virginia, have 173 electoral votes between them, and for years now has been solidly Republican. If Democrats don’t manage to loosen the stranglehold Republicans' have on the south, they have to win at least 74% of the electoral votes in all other states to win the Presidency. Bill Clinton, a former Arkansas governor, was the last to pull it off in 1996 when he won West Virginia by a razor thin margin. Clinton also won Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida, and Arkansas. Sen. John Kerry lost all of the southern state as well as the national election in 2004.

Many feel Mark Warner is the man to begin a era in the South for the Democratic faithful because of his recent achievements as governor of Virginia. He worked with Republican officials and the business community to reform the tax code, which resulted in a great decrease in food and income taxes and pushed through a school reform bill, which many believe improved the quality of high school education.

Warner’s much vaunted economic programs are credited with helping Virginia achieve a growth rate of 5.9 %, outpacing the national average of 4.8 %. During his tenure, Mr. Warner says he made "more cuts in state government than anyone in Virginian history."

Zell Miller, a former conservative Democratic Senator from Georgia who is notorious among Democrats for breaking ranks and speaking at the 2004 Republican National Convention in support of President George W. Bush for President, listed Mr. Warner as someone who would be an ideal candidate for President. When Warner served as chairman of the National Governors Association from 2004-2005, it gave him an opportunity to travel the country and expand his political contacts. He visited Iowa, a must for presidential contenders, and established a Political Action Committee or PAC. The PAC has raised $8.2 million dollars since Election Day 2005 according to published reports.

No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, this election will be exciting to watch, in particular if the candidates are as talented and closely matched as Senator Allen and Governor Warner. Maybe they can compromise; one can be President and the other Vice-President?

Carlos de Cordoba, Page One Media staff
Daniel Garza, President of Hispanic and PODER group

Lou... ser

2006-07-21T00:40:00.000-04:00

Llevo varios años viendo a Lou Dobbs y su sección de Money Line en CNN. La empecé a ver hace mucho tiempo, y siempre pensé que él sabía unas cosas sofisticadísimas de economía, de las que yo no entendía nada. Hablaba con tanta seguridad, y tenía invitados tan importantes, que parecía ser todo un experto en la materia. Al fin y al cabo estaba en CNN.

En algún momento –en 1999– renunció para meterse en un proyecto de Internet relacionado con el espacio. El espacio es una cosa complicada, para gente inteligente, y por eso pensé que Lou Dobbs era el hombre perfecto para hacerlo. Ya saben, la Nasa, el cosmos, las estrellas. Carl Sagan y Lou Dobbs, pensé. El portal se vino a pique. Pero bueno, todos nos metimos en proyectos de Internet y todos nos vinimos a pique. Nada tenía que ver ahí la inteligencia de Lou Dobbs.

Su “seriedad” me quedó ratificada cuando lo vi sentado haciendo unos programas conjuntos con Bill Emmott, el ex director de The Economist, la publicación más seria del mundo. Por asociación, me dije: CNN, The Economist, Bill Emmott, Lou Dobbs… este tipo sabe de lo que habla.

En 1980, cuando CNN inició el cubrimiento 24/7/365 de las guerras, las hambrunas, los desastres naturales, el mundo se hizo más pequeño. Pero desde que Ted Turner le dijo adiós al mundo de los medios –cuando renuncio a la junta directiva de Time Warner–, el mundo se ha vuelto a ensanchar, al menos al interior de CNN. Así me lo dijo Christiane Amanpur en Londres, cuando la entrevisté hace un par de años. Ya no es lo mismo que cuando estaba Turner a la cabeza. Peculiar y todo, Turner ponía ante todo las noticias.

El merger con AOL y las peleas internas con Gerald Levine también le pegaron duro a la cadena de noticias. Y como si fuera poco, el fenómeno de Fox y su particular estilo pusieron a dudar a CNN y la obligaron a introducir cambios infortunados, como un programa de temas legales conducido por Nancy Grace en el que le grita a sus espectadores por la televisión.

Pero el más impactante de todos es la cruzada que ha montado desde su programa Lou Dobbs contra los inmigrantes. El viejo periodista parece un activista de los Minute men y no un analista serio de un problema importante que requiere una solución.

Dobbs confunde a la audiencia con teorías económicas simplistas, haciéndoles creer que los problemas de desempleo de Estados Unidos son culpa de los inmigrantes que viven en su país. Habla de terrorismo y se refiere a la frontera con México como si alguno de los terroristas de septiembre 11 hubieran venido de allá.

No menciona la inmensa cantidad de trabajos que los estadounidenses no están dispuestos a hacer, a ningún precio. Ni la cantidad de negocios que se quebrarían sin la mano de obra extranjera. Ni el inmenso aporte de los inmigrantes –sobre todo de los hispanos, que ya son la minoría más grande del país– a la economía de Estados Unidos.

Lou Dobbs debería seguir el ejemplo de Mike Wallace, que se retiró en el punto más alto del programa 60 minutos hace pocos días. Sin pintarse el pelo, sin dejar sus rabietas, sin dejar a un lado el estilo periodístico que lo caracterizó toda la vida. El señor Dobbs debería dejarle a la cadena Fox ese tipo de programas –que los hacen muy bien– y no tratar de competir haciendo el ridículo.

Uno puede estar en desacuerdo con las posiciones políticas de una persona. Pero tiende a despreciarlas si no son originales. Ser serio y decir la verdad sigue siendo todavía la mejor estrategia para tener buen rating. Ahora que Mike Wallace tendrá más tiempo libre, Dobbs debería pedirle una cita, unos tips que le refresquen la memoria.

Freelance Writing Panel

2006-07-20T22:13:00.000-04:00

Please join us Monday, July 24, at Books n Books in Coral Gables for a panel on freelance writing.

http://www.mediabistro.com/courses/cache/crs1901.asp

La fórmula de Bloomberg

2006-07-17T12:50:00.000-04:00

Las páginas editoriales del Wall Street Journal no me parecen las más centradas. En general, son muy cargadas a la derecha y paso por encima de ellas cuando leo el diario, que es de primera. Pero el miércoles pasado había una columna que sí valía la pena. Era del alcalde de Nueva York, Michael Bloomberg, y trataba uno de los dos temas más importantes del debate político de hoy en Estados Unidos. La inmigración. El otro es la guerra en Irak.

Para Bloomberg, la inmigración tiene hoy la trascendencia que tuvieron los derechos civiles en los sesenta, la crisis de Watergate en los setenta, etc… No es un tema de moda, es el tema de esta década. Él lo ve como un gran problema. Y claro, de los tres millones de inmigrantes que hay en Nueva York, 500,000 son ilegales.

La clave, según él, es encontrar un balance entre las normas de seguridad necesarias después de septiembre 11, y el principio de realidad que existe cuando se habla de medio millón de habitantes incrustados en la economía de una ciudad y doce millones en la de un país. Para aproximarse al tema, Bloomberg propone verlo a través del prisma de cuatro sencillos principios:

1. Reducir los incentivos. Como empresario –y sí que lo es– sabe que contratar ilegales es muy fácil, que las penalidades son muy pocas y que los mecanismos para revisar a nivel federal quién es y quién no es ilegal son casi inexistentes. Esto también lleva a que los trabajadores sin papeles sean explotados por sus jefes.

2. Incrementar las oportunidades legales. Hay dos niveles de trabajadores a quienes se les debería permitir la entrada a Estados Unidos y para ellos los cupos de visas son muy pocos. Los primeros son los trabajadores que hacen tareas que no requieren mucha preparación y que, por esta misma razón, no son bien remuneradas –en dólares, pero sí en pesos mexicanos u hondurenos–. Los otros, son los PhD que llegan con sus ideas y sus proyectos a generar riqueza en este país, pero que tampoco cuentan con cupos suficientes.

3. Reducir el acceso. Controlar las fronteras, como una prioridad de seguridad nacional.

4. Sean serios. Bloomberg no lo llama así exactamente, pero su cuarto punto es “get real”, que lo que quiere decir es, sean serios. Y es el mejor de todos los puntos del alcalde. Bloomberg dice que deportar 11 millones de ilegales es como sacar de este país a todo el estado de Illinois y que eso no es más que una fantasía. También se refiere a la propuesta del Senado de usar trabajadores temporales que después de un tiempo deban regresar a su país. Esto equivale, según él, a registrarse para luego ser deportados. Impensable. Bloomberg dice que esto incentivaría un mercado negro de documentos, y que aplicar la ley se volvería un imposible.

Hay sólo una solución práctica y aplicable, dice Bloomberg, que además respeta la tradición de este país. Ofrecerles a quienes ya están aquí la oportunidad de quedarse junto con sus familias, aceptando que tengan que pagar algunas multas. Dice el alcalde que si el sistema los ha dejado entrar y ha recibido su dinero –dos terceras partes de los inmigrantes pagan el seguro social y los servicios de salud- es hora de ofrecerles una solución realista.

El tema no es nada fácil y hay senadores que han tenido tres posiciones distintas en un mismo mes. Bloomberg es de una claridad incomparable. Lo que más le ayuda a su visión política es no tener en cuenta la política. Eso le ha permitido aguantar duros ataques por largos periodos, sin preocuparse por las encuestas, y seguir adelante con sus programas. Por pura convicción.

Fue eso lo que ocurrió cuando se tomó el sistema educativo de la ciudad. El New York Times, que lo criticó con fuerza, terminó reconociendo tiempo después, en un editorial, que había tomado la decisión correcta. Y en temas de seguridad aguantó por un tiempo las llamadas de los influyentes que no veían policías en sus vecindarios, mientras él atacaba la crisis en los “barrios problema”. Una vez que bajó la criminalidad, tuvo el reconocimiento de todos.

Tener una fortuna de 5.1 billones de dólares, y ser el alcalde de la ciudad más importante del país, no ha hecho que se aleje de la gente. Su puesto de trabajo –un cubículo igual al de todo su equipo, en medio en un salón parecido a un ‘trading floor”– sólo se reconoce por el hecho de que en vez de tener un computador convencional, tiene unas pantallas del sistema Bloomberg, que él mismo inventó.

En este debate es difícil saber a quién escuchar. Los ilegales quieren papeles. Los políticos votos. Los empresarios dinero. Y depende de dónde estén y en qué industria compitan, cambian sus intereses. Michael Bloomberg es descendiente de inmigrantes, empresario exitoso y un duro en seguridad. Y tiene, como sus indicadores económicos, perfectamente medido el ritmo del país. No estaría nada mal que lo escucharan en Washington.

---
Isaac Lee Es el editor en jefe de las revistas PODER, Hispanic y Hispanic Trends.

Ruben Navarrette: Putting The Blame Where It Belongs

2006-07-15T16:53:00.000-04:00

This month's column by Ruben Navarrete for Hispanic Trends.

In many countries in Latin America, the perpetual tension is political. Life is a series of closed suitcases, each offering a different mixture of freedoms and governance: Democracy? Oligarchy? Republic? Once or twice per century, you may get the chance to swap one for another. Deal, or no deal?

Not in Mexico. There, the tension is economic. It’s about dollars and cents. Life isn’t about competing ideologies as much as opportunities, lost and found.

It used to be that the economic story of Mexico could be told in broad strokes. There was no middle class. You were either rich, or you were poor. And the poor vastly outnumbered the rich. Many of the poor had no choice but to look for work in the United States. And the rich shrugged, and let it happen. For much of the 20th Century, Mexican migrants—once out of sight and living in Los Angeles or Denver or Kansas City—were completely out of mind.

Now some of that has changed. Thanks in part to the modest growth in small businesses and the debatable benefit of trade deals such as NAFTA and nearly $20 billion in remittances sent home annually by expatriates in the United States, more Mexicans are getting an economic foothold at home. Moreover, those who do wander across the border are not as easily forgotten. Much of the credit for that goes to Mexican President Vicente Fox who often called immigrant workers “heroes” for their contributions to their homeland. And whereas once there was no Mexican middle class to speak of, now there’s a tiny sliver of one.

Not that the Mexican economy isn’t still in bad shape. According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, forty percent of Mexican households earn less than $4,100 per year. Only 15 percent of households fall into the category of what might be called “upper-middle class”—those who earn more than $11,000 a year. The remaining 45 percent fall into the middle.

For the most part, the drama south of the border is what it has always been: rich Mexican, poor Mexican. Mother Mexico still looks upon her children and plays favorites. The concept of Mexico still works for some of its citizens but not for others. And the number of migrants coming to the United States is higher than it has been in years.

There is one silver lining: Many Mexicans have come to see this mass exodus of human capital for what it is—a national tragedy. And they’re looking for leaders who recognize it as such and have a plan to end it. Mother Mexico may still not care that so many of her children can’t wait to flee the nest, but real mothers throughout Mexico care a great deal that their families have been broken apart because of government’s failure to provide gainful employment at home.

It’s no wonder that the recurring theme in this year’s presidential election in Mexico was jobs, jobs, jobs. It wasn’t just the Mexican economy, stupid. There was, throughout the electorate, an insatiable thirst for job creation. The hope was that, if there were suddenly well-paying jobs in Mexico, the young and daring would turn their ambitions inward and stay put in their cities, towns and villages. For the rich and middle class, there was the PAN as represented by Felipe Calderon, ex-member of the Mexican Congress and former Energy Minister. And going to bat for the poor, there was the PRD (Democratic Revolution Party) whose banner was carried by Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the charismatic former mayor of Mexico City.

Leading up to the election, many Americans may have wondered why they should even concern themselves with the outcome of a presidential contest in another country.

The answer is obvious: This isn’t Las Vegas. What happens in Mexico does not stay in Mexico. The bleaker the economic picture, the more migrants will stream across the U.S.-Mexican border. Trade policy could also be affected if Mexican farmers and other producers suffer to the point where they find it difficult to compete abroad.

No matter how this election turns out, this is but a baby step on Mexico’s long march toward a full and functioning democracy.

Americans naturally want to know what it all means for them.

Here’s a better question: What will it mean for Mexicans? It could mean a lot—or not much at all. Elections come and go. But, until someone tackles the fundamental problem with Mexico—that the rich and powerful prey on the poor and weak—nothing will change.

What does this election mean for Mexicans and Mexico? The answer depends on whether the new president is honest enough to put the blame for the country’s predicament where it belongs and whether he’s bold enough to do something about it.

----
Ruben Navarrette is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union Tribune, a nationally syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group, and a regular commentator on National Public Radio.

"Pit Bull" of the House Latches On to Immigration - New York Times

2006-07-11T20:30:00.000-04:00

"Pit Bull" of the House Latches On to Immigration - New York Times: "WASHINGTON, July 10 - Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. has no tolerance for illegal immigrants, either in his political life or personal life."

'My housekeeper in Wisconsin was born in Wisconsin,' says Mr. Sensenbrenner, the Republican congressman and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. 'My housekeeper here is a naturalized U.S. citizen from Nicaragua.'"

Bloomberg Testifies at Senate Hearing on Immigration - New York Times

2006-07-07T05:39:00.000-04:00

Filed at 4:17 p.m. ET
PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- The economy of the country's largest city and the entire nation would collapse if illegal immigrants were deported en masse, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg told a Senate committee hearing Wednesday."

Down Mexico Way

2006-07-06T16:37:00.001-04:00

The closeness of the race in Mexico has taken precedence in coverage of the election. With good reason, of course. But there is another, perhaps equally compelling, story, and that is voter turnout. An estimated 41 million people voted on Sunday, July 2. Those 41 million people represent almost 60 percent of eligible voters in Mexico, a country of 106 million people. I cannot recall an election in recent times, anywhere, with such a high turnout. (There are a number of countries in Latin America - Chile, Peru, Uruguay - where the vote is mandatory, but it is not in Mexico.)

What does that say about the Mexican electorate? Does it tell us that they value their democracy and the right to vote? Is it because voting for more than one candidate in Mexico is a relatively new phenomenon and Mexicans are more inspired to exercise their right to vote because of that?

I am watching the count not from the DF, where I'd love to be, but from Montreal (I also love being in Montreal, of course.) Canadians have access to a wide variety of media, including U.S. media, so it is kind of fun to contrast and compare.

Mexico is much more important to the day-to-day life of the United States than it is to Canada. The only really tangible connection Mexico and Canada have is NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement (...well, that and the hoardes of winter-weary tourists that invade Cancun from December to April.) Yet, there has been an appreciable amount of coverage of the Mexico election here. For on, The Globe and Mail, one of Canada's national newspapers, ran a front page story on Calderon "Calderon Declares Victory" on Tuesday, with a giant photo of Calderon above the fold. Montreal's highly regarded Le Devoir and The National Post have both been following developments closely with reports from their own correspondents and not just wire service copy.

Canadians have long been interested in events beyond their borders, so it is perhaps not surprising that they should be so interested in a near neighbor.

La Madre Patria is Living the Golden Years

2006-07-04T22:21:00.000-04:00

As I write this blog article I am in the sun baked country of Spain traveling from the city of Burgos and on my way to Santander aboard a chartered bus I am sharing as part of cultural exchange program hosted by the Embassy of Spain. I have just spent two relaxing days in Burgos taking in the sights and sounds as its peoples celebrate the Fiesta of San Pedro, an annual town festival unique to this northern Castilian community.

It is the second occasion I have had to visit Spain - my wife and I traveled to Madrid back in 1990 for our honeymoon. And just like fifteen years ago, the first impression I get is probably the same as many other folks that have come before me: Europe is old. I mean the people seem collectively older than in those of the United States, the magnificent building are certainly older and even the land appears aged and tired. Maybe it's because Burgos is in fact a very old European city and of course, its civilized society has been around much longer than ours has. And yet, in spite of its age it is only recently that Spain is regaining the social, cultural and economic grandeur it once had back when it was funding projects to find new worlds.

In fact, I submit that Spain's recent economic rise in the past 20 years is a model for the rest of Latin American countries. Twenty years ago, Spain's economic and political situation was not unlike much of Latin America. In 1960 Spain's GDP represented only 4% of the European Union's Economic and Monetary system (UEM), but thanks to its rise, today Spain's GDP represents 12.5% of UEM total. In 1970, life expectancy in Spain was 71.9 years, but today life expectancy has remarkably risen to 78.3. Employment in the agricultural sector represented 18.4% in 1985, and today it only represents 5.4% of the total economy.

There are other glowing signs that demonstrate Spain's economic ascendance, its economy grew 3.4% last year, over twice the euro-zone average, and is expected to best the average again this year by a full percentage point. Telefónica, Grupo Ferrovial, real estate developer Metrovacesa, Santander and BBVA Banks are now premiere Spanish companies that are competing at the international level.

In contrast to the resurgence occurring in Spain, Latin American countries continue to struggle with social challenges such as persistent poverty, corruption in all sectors, unequal application of justice, and anti-business political regimes. In 1980, 20% of all Latin Americans lived in extreme poverty. Today, 19% continue to live in extreme poverty. In 2002, 71% of Hondurans lived under the poverty line and 56% of Guatemalans shared the same fate. In 2003, the mortality rate of women giving birth per 100,000 in Canada was 8, but in El Salvador the mortality rate per 100,000 was 173. In 2005, average life expectancy in Canada was 80.4, but in Bolivia the life expectancy was 64.9. That's correct; Bolivians on average will die 15 years ahead of Canadians while living under the same sun!

Chronic unemployment, rampant rise in homicides and other crimes, increased gang recruitment, dismal infant mortality rates, unfettered water contamination, lack of health and educational institutions, corrupt politicians, deficient property right laws, unstable monetary policies are just a few of the challenges that continue to plague much of Latin America, and help is far from sight.

My point is, Spain has proven that these conditions can be reverted. It long ago rejected the closed economic systems imposed by past fascist regimes and seized the talents of its people (In 1939 Franco initiated a program of reconstruction based on the concept of economic self-sufficiency or autarchy. The program, aimed at increasing national economic production, favored the established industrial and financial interests at the expense of the lower classes and the agricultural regions. Acute shortages and starvation wages were widespread in the early 1940s, a period which saw the worst inflation in Spain's history. By the end of the decade, Spain's level of economic development was among the lowest in southern Europe.)

The country has benefited greatly from the political discipline demonstrated under the Felix Gonzales and Jose Maria Aznar Administrations by instituting pro-entrepreneurial policies, investing in its educational institutions, took full advantage of their proximity to their highly developed European neighbors, put its monetary policy in order, set socially responsible public policies in motion, tightened property rights and has become the second most visited nation by tourist in the world (second only to France). Spain is now seeking to join the G-8 as it has now reached social and economic parity with many of the developed countries currently within the ranks of the organization.

Spain is showing that an old dog can teach new tricks.

Brewing Boycotts

2006-06-28T12:39:00.000-04:00

Here's the current column Ruben Navarrete wrote for the current issue of Hispanic Trends:

The immigration debate has me rethinking my view on boycotts and other forms of economic pressure.
What changed my mind? Some ticked off Hispanics and one terrified beer company.
I liken boycotts to a temper tantrum. Whether it’s Southern Baptists calling on their flock to forgo Disney products, or the United Farm Workers union asking supporters not to buy grapes, or, more recently, a top Vatican official asking that Christians boycott the film, The Da Vinci Code, I’m not sympathetic to those who resort to economic blackmail to get their way.
But now, I’m having second thoughts. Boycotts can be an effective weapon – if used in self-defense. As the nation’s mood on immigration gets ugly, many Hispanics – especially Mexicans and Mexican-Americans – feel put off and picked on. Why wouldn’t they? What with border vigilantes burning the Mexican flag, an Internet video game letting players shoot Mexicans crossing the border, Hispanic officials in California receiving death threats, a Mexican restaurant near San Diego being firebombed, and a 17-year-old Hispanic youth in Houston being beaten and sodomized by two white boys who yelled racial slurs.
Confronted with the vile and the vicious, Hispanics have the right to defend themselves. They can organize and protest and vote. But there’s also the big gun in their arsenal – about $700 million in annual spending power, a figure expected to swell to $1 trillion by 2010.
Besides, the nation’s 40 million Hispanics are fiercely brand loyal. If you get their attention and deliver a quality product, Hispanics won’t just beat a path to your door. They’ll bust down the door, plop down in the living room, open up their wallets, and stay for decades. Likewise, if they get a bad taste in their mouth about you, your company or product, you could lose millions, perhaps billions, of dollars for much of the foreseeable future.
Which brings us back to the terrified beer company. Miller Brewing Co. is based in Wisconsin and that just happens to be the home state of Republican Congressman James Sensenbrenner, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. The Wisconsin lawmaker is also the author of HR 4437, an enforcement-heavy immigration bill that has been criticized by Hispanic organizations and immigrants rights groups as excessively punitive. The bill makes unauthorized presence in the United States a felony. Over the years, Sensenbrenner has received political contributions from - you guessed it - Miller Brewing Co.
A group of Hispanic activists in Chicago connected the dots and demanded a meeting with Miller executives, where the activists informed the company that they were prepared to launch a national boycott of their product to protest the company’s support of Sensenbrenner.
You see – and this is hardly a secret - Hispanics drink a lot of beer. In fact, marketing experts say Hispanics drink more beer per capita than other racial and ethnic groups. It seems that 50 percent of the beer consumed in the U.S. comes from just nine states - including California, Texas, Florida, Arizona, Illinois, and New York. They’re the same nine states with the highest concentration of Hispanics.
So what would happen if Hispanics suddenly got the word to stop buying Miller beer?
Something like that happened before. A generation ago, the most popular beer for Hispanic community was Coors Beer. Thanks to a series of public relations blunders in the 1970’s, and the zeal with which the Coors family lent its support to a rightwing political agenda in the 1980’s, Hispanics lost their taste for the Colorado brew.
Anheuser-Busch Inc. rushed to fill the void, and gained an advantage in market share that it seems determined to never surrender. The St. Louis-based beer company recently created a marketing division aimed at Hispanics and increased its 2006 spending on advertising in Hispanic media to more than $60 million. Today, the two top brands of beer for Hispanics are Budweiser and Bud Light, both produced by Anheuser-Busch.
As it turns out, Miller Brewing Co. has also made a substantial investment in pursuit of the Hispanic market, inking a $100 million, three-year ad package with a well-known Spanish-language television company. So when the activists threatened to boycott, it got Miller’s attention. The brewery agreed to run newspaper ads denouncing the Sensenbrenner bill and to even help the group of activists campaign against the measure in Washington.
Soon thereafter, Miller Brewing Co. put out a one-page ad in a Spanish-language newspaper announcing its opposition to HR 4437, which it described as “anti-immigration legislation.” In a statement, the company insisted that it had a history of supporting Hispanic organizations and pledged to “continue to support the Hispanic community and the rights of immigrants.”
Miller executives deny that they caved into the threat of a boycott by Hispanics. We may never know. It’s a question worth thinking about – over a beer.

---
Ruben Navarrette is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune, a nationally syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group and a frequent contributor to National Public Radio.

Judge Rules That U.S. Has Broad Powers to Detain Noncitizens Indefinitely - New York Times

2006-06-15T08:41:00.000-04:00

Judge Rules That U.S. Has Broad Powers to Detain Noncitizens Indefinitely - New York Times

A federal judge in Brooklyn ruled yesterday that the government has wide latitude under immigration law to detain noncitizens on the basis of religion, race or national origin, and to hold them indefinitely without explanation.

Polishing Up on English

2006-06-12T13:15:00.000-04:00

There's a joke that has been making the rounds recently.

What do you call a person that speaks three languages?...A Tri-lingual.
What do you call a person that speaks two languages?...A Bi-lingual.
What do you call a person that speaks one language?...An American.

The 'private' joke which tends to provoke laughter among polyglots has raised an eyebrow on more than one over-sensitive monolingual, especially against the backdrop of the English language coming under attack as Congress works to reform our immigration laws.

I say, what's wrong with a bi-lingual or tri-lingual society? Why are people like Lou Dobbs and Tom Tancredo getting their knickers in a twist? Is all this talk about exporting America, keeping illegal immigrants away from low-paying jobs, and preventing any Spanish word to make it into ol' Webster's dictionary considered social progress?

I always thought I was above such monolingual doctrine until I walked into Lee Nails, a $15 manicure/pedicure nail salon below my apartment building. After I was escorted onto a massage chair and my feet were dunked into a pale of lukewarm water, I was told that Sora would be doing my French pedicure that afternoon. My few attempts to initiate the customary small talk, where not reciprocated by Sora. Maybe she was shy? Perhaps she was focused on my cuticles? No hard feelings, I thought as I nuzzled deep into the massage chair holding a copy of last month's Vogue.

While I browsed through Edmundo Castillo's spring heel collection, Sora began to rattle off like a tin roof beneath a thunderstorm. She wasn't talking to me. She was chatting to her co-worker, giving a manicure next to me-in Korean. Their smiles turned to giggles, and their giggles turned to hysterical laughter. Occasionally Sora would make eye contact with me or my big toe, yet the giggles always followed. I too wanted to laugh, but I had yet to learn what the source of their amusement was. My subsequent attempts to carry on with my fashion fix where useless as I couldn't keep from wondering, are their laughs at my expense?! Instinct kicked in, and I could feel my face turning red. Suddenly the situation made me feel like Elaine Benes in a Seinfeld episode with a script uncannily resembling my situation.

And yes, I suddenly found it easy to sympathize with monolingual Americans calling for English to be the official language of the United States. All at once, as my nails were being buffed, I caught myself in a circle of hypocrisy.

Being bilingual myself, I see the advantages that come from knowing another language, and thus see that having English as a national language would be a more reasonable approach. Most Americans accept that our country is made up of immigrants, and it is imperative to have something that unifies us all-the English language, and I agree. A "national language" will strengthen national culture. An "official language" would be enforced through government institutions and foment resentment. Furthermore, immigrants are well aware that learning English is the key to opportunity in the United States. Or better yet, as President Bush stated, "English allows newcomers to go from picking crops to opening a grocery, from cleaning offices to running offices." The Migration Policy Institute reported that 85% of immigrants say that it is hard to get a good job or prosper in this country without learning English. Also, a national survey by the Pew Hispanic Center found that 59% of first generation immigrants eventually become bi-lingual or even prefer English. To third generation immigrants, English-only is the norm.

Language, like customs and traditions, is a vehicle for preserving heritage. And that, gals & gents, is exactly what immigrants--whether Korean, Mexican, or Lithuanian-want to pass on to their children and grandchildren.

In the end my paranoia did not merit recruiting a Frank Constanza translator, like Elaine did in the classic Seinfeld episode, nor to give up $15 manicures. I was back in the massage chair two weeks later, and have since learned of an amazing Korean restaurant nearby, compliments of Sora Lee. Who, by the way, speaks pretty decent English.

Melissa Buia is Staff at Page One Media, she was former Program Director for the Congressional Hispanic Leadership Institute.

More Americans get their news…en español??

2006-06-09T18:40:00.000-04:00

Last week I had the chance to sit down and chat with Maria Elena Salinas, Univision news co-anchor. She’s a very smart and well-spoken woman, whose petite frame and youthful face belie her 51 years. I interviewed her for PODER about her autobiography, I Am My Father’s Daughter. Of course the conversation turned to many other topics, notably immigration (Maria Elena is the daughter of Mexican immigrants). She said that while the issue isn’t a Latino issue, it has galvanized and united the community, in her opinion. (But I’m not going to give away the store – read the rest of the interview in the July/August PODER.)

Maria Elena, who has been anchoring the news for 25 years, also told me she shares a birthday—December 30— with two other notable newswomen: Katie Couric and Meredith Viera. We talked about all the fuss being made about a woman anchoring the evening news, and Maria Elena said, “The big challenge for Katie is not to beat ABC and NBC. We often beat CBS in a lot of major markets. First, she’s going to have to beat us [Univision].”

The World Cup and Global Politics:The Rise of the Masses

2006-06-09T10:00:00.000-04:00

People of the world are anxiously awaiting the start of the biggest global spectacle, which comes along just once every four years; the 2006 World Cup to be held in Germany. The tournament, showcasing the beautiful game of futbol, as soccer is known, clearly overshadows any other sport far and away. Consider this, in December of 2005 the draw for the World Cup finals were conducted in Leipzig, Germany. More than 350 million people watched their television sets to observe the fate of their country. In contrast, less than 100 million people watched America’s biggest sporting event – the Super Bowl. To give further perspective, the drawing wasn’t even a sporting event!

To say it’s momentous, is understating the truth. For the next two months - oblivious to the average American – the World Cup phenomena will interrupt the daily work schedules of the laboring masses, suspend political campaigns of the powerful, disrupt domestic commerce and the international trade of goods, and grip the attention of the rich and poor in every corner of the world.

To be sure, the masses who will be following the World Cup see themselves as much more than mere sports fans. The impression for most of the billions who watch the matches is that the games create a rare opportunity for the participating countries to be showcased in front of a true global audience. And as crazy as it sounds to Americans, these “fans” are in a sense participants in an international infomercial where their country’s image to the world hangs in the balance pending their team’s performance (think Ivory Coast, Ecuador, Togo, Ukraine, Trinidad & Tobago, etc). Indubitably, National pride will surge when a country’s team demonstrates dominance by winning, and the morale of the masses will receive a crushing blow when its team demonstrates weakness by losing.

Many government officials in these smaller countries recognize their World Cup team’s performance represents much more than a simple win or loss as well. It represents national identity, and they know the outcome will enhance or diminish the Nation’s standing in the global community (or at least that is the impression; and we all know what they say about impression being reality). The performance of a National team on the pitch will also reverberate in different ways. England and Argentina’s rivalry has now reached mythic proportions for instance– sure the war over the Falkland Islands raised the hate intensity a notch between the two, but it’s in a World Cup match where they’re hatred is manifested in all its true ugliness (Think English football star David Beckham getting red-carded for stomping on his Argentine opponent and causing his team to lose the match in the last Cup). The game will be resurfaced as part of World Cup lore for time infinitum due entirely to that incident.

At minimum, the games will affect the collective work schedules of every nation’s labor pool and cause a spike in beer consumption on a massive global scale. At its extreme, the results will affect the national psyche and confidence of its peoples, and in some countries it will even affect National election results. This sounds far-fetched you say?

In Mexico for example, political strategists predict that the performance of the National Team will tilt the results of the tight presidential election race. According to many political insiders, the conservative party candidate, Felipe Calderon stands to benefit from a favorable performance by “El Tricolor” while the opposing candidate Manuel Lopez Obrador will benefit from a miserable result. Calderon even met with the team at its training ground in Mexico City. He traded jokes with the players, got a group photo while displaying the team shirt and gave them inspirational praises, all in front of the TV cameras.

The free market reformer, Calderon has been holding political rallies recently where he has made continuous remarks about the National Team, while Lopez Obrador, who promises to put an end to free market reforms by creating massive infrastructure projects and new welfare programs, has bandied gratuitous references to the World Cup as well in order to gain the favor of the masses.

It gets uglier people; many in the global community shudder at the thought of having team Iran beat the teams of freedom-loving democratic nations. Politicians around the world are aggressively pushing an effort to have the Cup’s governing body, Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), boycott Iran’s National team from the World Cup. To be more accurate, the reason for the request to have FIFA intervene is to pressure Iran’s hardline leadership into terminating their nuclear program.

In fact, pleadings are now falling on Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, to keep Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, from coming to Germany and participate in the World Cup. One newspaper, the Rheinische Post, said there had been “clear signals” that the governments of Britain, France and Germany, which have been involved in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, will ask the European Union to impose a travel ban on Iran’s political elite.

FIFA is trying to avoid the getting involved by delaying an answer and praying that the avid soccer fan, President Ahmadinejad, will announce he is too busy to watch Mexico beat Iran (wink, wink). Bottom line is I think it speaks volumes about the importance of the World Cup when political leaders leverage it as a tool to eliminate national nuclear programs.

I suppose it was inevitable that politics would rear its ugly head into such an immensely popular event when you consider that it is obsessively followed by the masses in every corner of the world. As absurd as it sounds, leaders will rise and fall based on the ability of its nation’s eleven man team to score more goals than the opposing nation’s eleven man team on a soccer pitch.

And so from now until the end of the games, politicians will look for clever ways to associate themselves to the good fortunes of the national team despite FIFA’s past attempts to avoid it’s premiere event from getting mired in politics. To borrow a cliché “If the World Cup masses won’t go to politics, then politics will go to the World Cup masses”.

I guess the World Cup turns out to be like everything else in life; you have to take the good with the bad.

Alan García

2006-06-07T10:04:00.000-04:00

The election of Alan García to the presidency in Peru is generally being spun in the US media as an anti-Chávez, lesser-of-two-evils vote. No one is particularly enthusiastic about the prospect of a populist president who brought Peru to its economic kneees in the 1980s, but they reckon he's a safer bet than a former coup leader destined to rule out of Hugo Chávez's pocket.So it's worth clearing up a few misconceptions. Yes, Chávez's endorsement of Ollanta Humala backfired. But García would have won this election anyway: anybody running against Humala would have won this election anyway. Imagine the Democrats nominating Dennis Kucinich, say, to run for President (or Michael Dukakis, for that matter): he'd lose against any Republican opponent, no matter who endorsed him or who didn't.

More importantly, García has clearly placed himself on the market-friendly side of the big line dividing the Latin American left. On Chávez's side one finds Evo Morales, of Bolivia; Lucio Gutiérrez, of Ecuador; and Nestor Kirchner, of Argentina. The smarter side is led by Lula, of Brazil; he's joined by Michelle Bachelet, of Chile; Tabaré Vázquez, of Uruguay; and whomever wins the coming election in Mexico. (Álvaro Uribe of Colombia, of course, is the lone right-winger in the region.) Expect Peru, like Brazil and Urguay and Mexico, to continue to run substantial primary surpluses, and to generally stay on very good terms with the IMF.

In fact, Garcia II is well placed to look like a fiscal and economic genius by the end of his first term. The reason is that Peru's economy is one of the fastest-growing in the Americas, thanks to the conservative economic policies of Alejandro Toledo and Pedro-Pablo Kuczynski. Neither of them has gained much if any popular support as a consequence: Kuczynski's own presidential bid fizzled and died almost before it began. But the incoming government will inherit an economy which is already creating a lot of wealth. Garcia's task is to try to redistribute some of that wealth from the white urban elite to the native, rural poor.

It won't be easy. But if he succeeds, this highly gifted orator could be the embodiment of a realistic alternative to Chávez's Bolivarian utopianism. Look for the announcement of a solid economic team, with strong Wall Street credentials. García is the right man at the right time to prove that fiscal prudence and fiery populism can have a much greater effect together than either one individually could ever achieve.

A Gigante of American Cinema

2006-06-05T18:04:00.000-04:00

I watched a 1950s classic over the weekend, Giant, the saga of a Texas ranching family. Great stuff. The film, starring Elizabeth Taylor (at her gorgeous best) and Rock Hudson (at the height of his gorgeousity, as well as the height of his height), spans some 30 years in the lives of the Benedict family, wealthy landowners and cattle ranchers. One of the subtexts of the movie is the strangely cozy and cozily strained relationship between the Mexican ranch hands and the Texan ranchers. The ranchers certainly have a fair command of Spanish (they give grammatically correct orders and berate their servants in excellent Castilian) and there is a muted affection on both sides. A muted affection, yes, but also an appalling lack of awareness—or is it a lack of interest? —of the abysmal living conditions of the hard working and impoverished ranch hands.

The Rock Hudson character, ‘Bick’ Benedict, undergoes the most interesting character development, by far. When his new bride Lesley (Taylor) gets off the train from Maryland and speaks warmly to one of the Mexican ranch hands, Hudson gruffly hurries her along. Over the years, Lesley befriends and helps the ranch hands. Bick stands by; he doesn’t stand in her way…(doesn’t help either). Twenty some years later, their doctor son Jordan (played by a puny and redheaded Dennis Hopper – Easy Rider was still a decade away, folks) marries Juanita, a beautiful and noble Mexican health care worker. Lesley enthusiastically welcomes her new daughter-in-law; Bick is not quite sure what to make of it all, but—give him credit—he welcomes Juanita, nonetheless.

The resulting offspring, the adorable Jordan III, inherited his mother’s dark beauty (thank God) and not his father’s geeky redheadedness. Typically, the grandson breaks the ice, and his grandfather’s reserve. As the movie draws to a close, Bick not only seems to have dropped his guard about race; he seems oblivious to how his fellow white folks treat Mexicans…until his ire is provoked by a little name calling. Just as the Benedict family is settling in for a lunch of cheeseburgers at Sarge’s diner, the owner kicks out a humble Mexican family at a neighboring table. Bick/Hudson tries to cajole Sarge into letting them stay, to no avail. When Sarge calls the Mexicans “wetbacks”, Bick throws the first punch. As the two men trash the diner and pummel each other, “The Yellow Rose of Texas” plays in the background. (That scene alone is worth the price of admission.)
What I found truly remarkable about Giant is how aware the filmmakers were of the times in which they lived—and how fearlessly they portrayed an uncomfortable truth.

It's Now or Never

2006-06-01T10:46:00.000-04:00

After six years of promising to fix the Nation's broken immigration law, President George W. Bush is finally oh so close to an immigration reform bill landing on his desk and making good on that promise. Our Nation stands at a critical crossroad.

If a bill is passed millions will be plucked out of the shadows and be allowed to contribute freely to the American experience; employers will have a labor bonanza that will continue fueling the Nation's surging economy; and the President would be pleased that a new generation of grateful Hispanics will be voting Republican candidates into office for years to come.

Regrettably, if enforcement-only Republican and Democrat members in the House and the Senate successfully derail passage of a bill they stubbornly believe to be amnesty they will assure years of status quo that will damage us all socially and economically; spoil the President's second term signature legislation which he badly needs; and drive the Hispanic voter away from the Republican party for a long time to come.

This is lamentable when you consider that no three people have done more to ensure passage of an immigration bill than Republican President Bush, Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Republican Senator John McCain. Yet ironically, it is the Republicans who are going to get beaten up if a bill is not passed.

Why? Well you see, while the debate on immigration reform rages on in every corner of our country, negotiators from both chambers will work feverishly to reconcile the differences and agree on a compromise to the opposing immigration reform bills approved in both Republican-controlled chambers of the Capitol. A majority of Senators are hoping House Republicans (and a few Democrat members) will be reasonable enough to consider expanding their enforcement-only bill passed several months ago and consider offering citizenship to millions of immigrants currently undocumented in the U.S.

But when questioned whether he would accept any legislation that would put undocumented immigrants on a path to citizenship, Congressmen Jim Sensenbrenner, R-WI, answered a flat "no" on NBC's "Meet the Press".
The Senate's insistence to offer undocumented immigrants an opportunity at citizenship looks to be a deal-breaker that will prevent passage of a compromise on immigration reform, he added. This is important because the man chairs the critically important committee that is leading the immigration reform effort on the House side.

So who can save the day for the Republicans? Well believe it or not, Democrats! Just as the NAFTA Bill needed the Republicans to save the day during the Clinton Administration, the immigration reform bill is most likely going to be a bill passed with help of Democrats in the House and the Senate over the objections of many enforcement-only Republicans (even though Democrats are having their own challenges fending off admonitions from labor unions to resist backing any immigration bill that includes a temporary worker program). And that is the beauty of our legislative system; sometimes our parties need each other.

I think this is defining legislation for the Hispanic community as well because this issue is personal to us; it's about family, culture and recognition of our desire for policy that is reflective of a collective Hispanic agenda.

Latinos are the fastest growing segment of the electorate, and Hispanics are going to vote in large numbers in the next Presidential election. Their votes are the all-important swing votes in many states. Thousands of Hispanic-Americans joined non-citizens in street protests to denounce the House bill and call for broader legislation. The question of whom they will vote for is up for grabs, and I believe the bill's outcome will weigh heavily in that decision.

And while politics has been an undercurrent the entire time that the Senate has tried to write this legislation Republican party leaders continue to steadfastly resist granting "amnesty", polls show that voters back the proposal by an overwhelming 63-29 percent. Even Republican voters say yes by 63-30 percent.

Given the political storm unleashed by this latest round of immigration legislation debate I fear that if Congress fails to get a bill during this session, the President may not be able to revive an immigration effort next year, and we will have lost all opportunity to address our Nation's broken immigration policy.

Where have you gone, Asa Hutchinson?

2006-05-30T18:29:00.000-04:00

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

2006-05-26T10:34:00.000-04:00

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...

2006-05-24T10:20:00.000-04:00

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

2006-05-17T19:43:00.000-04:00

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!

2006-05-13T14:08:00.000-04:00

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

2006-05-11T16:13:00.000-04:00

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

2006-05-09T20:22:00.000-04:00

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"

2006-05-03T16:16:00.000-04:00

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

2006-05-01T18:06:00.000-04:00

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

U.S. Hispanic CoC emerges as immigration pivot player

2006-04-26T20:03:00.000-04:00

From the Business and Lobbying section of The Hill.

By Alexander Bolton

The imbroglio that has arisen around the politically hot issue of immigration reform has put the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in a strong position, as Republican and Democratic leaders are turning more often to the nonpartisan group to gain leverage in the Hispanic community.

U.S. Hispanic CoC emerges as immigration pivot player

Nationwide Immigration Roundup

2006-04-20T11:34:00.000-04:00

CNN.com - Immigration arrests 9 bosses along with 1,000 workers - Apr 20, 2006

From CNN.com:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Federal immigration authorities arrested nine people linked to the firm IFCO Systems and rounded up more than 1,000 illegal immigrants in multistate raids, federal law enforcement officials said."

Holding our Breath

2006-04-19T18:00:00.000-04:00

STORMY SEAS AHEAD; CAN THE AMERICAN POLITICAL PROCESS SURVIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM?

The good;

When the U.S. Senate returns later this month from spring recess, we will have a second chance effort to pass meaningful comprehensive immigration reform. The Senator of Pennsylvania, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter-R, has promised to hold new hearings and report out a revised bill by May 4. The Hagel-Martinez "compromise" bill, which failed to pass the Senate earlier this month, will be front and center.

It was also reported that Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. issued a press release stating their intention "to produce a strong border security bill that will not make unlawful presence in the United States a felony." Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida lauded the promise to eliminate a plan that was "offensive, excessive and demonized hard-working immigrants." Terrific.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist-R and President Bush, to their credit, are doing their level best to keep this bill from slipping into a highly probable catatonic state. Frist has been trying like mad to make sure Senators don't turn on each other, and the President is trying to keep his party together. A highly probable candidate for the upcoming 08' presidential campaign, Frist needs an immigration fight like he needs a hole in the head. I applaud both for making a good faith effort to push forth a bill that is proving to be more divisive then previously anticipated.

The bad;

There is talk of the Republican Party imploding because of the internal fights between pro-business, faith-based, Hispanic conservatives who are pro-immigrant on one side and the strong nationalists, anti-trade populists opposing immigration reform on the other.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are not in a position to celebrate either; Senator Harry Reid-D is under intense pressure by the labor unions to derail any sort of bill that would allow millions of temporary workers to keep wages down and job demand low. The unions are threatening to cut off future campaign funds if Reid works to support any immigration bill that includes a temporary worker component. Additionally, many Democratic Senators such as Charles Schumer-D, NY argued fiercely against any compromise bill.

And the ugly;

Party leaders on both sides are now attacking each other as antagonist towards true immigration reform in order to win the favor of the highly regarded Hispanic vote. The RNC is releasing commercials soon that will go after Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid-D, NV as thee Democrat most responsible for blocking progress on an immigration bill, and the Democratic Party has posted articles on it's website charging that the GOP is turning it's back on Hispanics. The article titled No Room at the Inn reads "We already knew Republicans like Tom Tancredo, James Sensenbrenner and Senator Jeff Sessions weren't on board with embracing the Hispanic community. But even President Bush and Senator John McCain would foreclose the possibility to earn citizenship for law-abiding Hispanics who come here to work. Now it appears the so-called Christian right is closing the doors on Hispanics, too. Even James Dobson, who heads Focus on the Family, is refusing to comment on the immigration issue."

Now we hear there are plans underway for a national mass boycott of businesses and schools by the immigrant and Hispanic Communities on May 1. "High school students have been the most active so far in organizing rallies and educating groups on the proposed changes to immigration laws. The kids have really started the whole thing here. A lot of them are concerned about their parents, some of whom might not be documented, and what that will mean for them as American citizens," Said Roberto Flores of the Beaumont chapter of the League of United Latin American Citizens.

Hispanic kids boycotting school? Good Lord, it's getting real bad now.

Having learned nothing from the Civil rights struggle of the past, we are shockingly, and with our eyes wide open, moving towards a storm of political discord that will test our nation's political system once again, a regrettable storm that will result in an old fashioned drag-down, bare-knuckles donnybrook over who has the last word. At the end, there may be nobody left standing.

The good news:

We can do something about it now. We must call out to our federal leaders to avoid the attacks and not base their positions on emotions, polls or the current politics of immigration. We must call on them to consider all legitimate national interests and not forget the human aspect to this important bill. That they seek to strike a balance between national security and a practical system that allows for willing workers to be hired by willing employers.

And yes, part of the solution includes a respect for the rule of law by the immigrant community. But this can only be made possible by creating a practical system that allows foreign workers to come here and fill the jobs the economy needs filled - a legal avenue is always the preferred method. It is a sad irony that in an economy that is moving towards globalization and free trade, the current U.S. law restricts movement of people.

The truth is, a failed attempt at comprehensive immigration reform will fail us all. It is widely acknowledged that our present system is broken, and so we must come together because our self-interest in passing an immigration law is so clear: the United States benefits tremendously economically and culturally from immigration, always has always will.

President Abraham Lincoln held the Nation together during its worst period. And although this struggle does not equal the divide caused by the Civil War, it needs a leader nonetheless to rise up and champion this cause and coalesce the variant voices desirous of honest to goodness reform.

Daniel Garza is President Hispanic, Hispanic Trends & PODER magazines

Immigrant advocates to boycott Univision

2006-04-14T16:00:00.000-04:00

Article by Sara A. Carter published today on Inland Valley Daily Bulletin:
DailyBulletin.com - News

Immigrant Bashing: Is History Being Repeated Again?

2006-04-14T10:37:00.000-04:00

Speaking out against America's undocumented community seems fashionable these days. Many have taken to the airwaves, the streets and even schoolyards to get in on the action.

I believe that the numbers we saw by the immigrant, and Hispanic, community in marches throughout America were partly a reaction to the ungrateful Americans who continue to argue that the undocumented community should leave our country; the same Americans who believe fruits and vegetables will pick themselves, that hotel rooms will be cleaned by fairies and their yards will be mowed by their teenage sons. Yeah right.

It boggles my mind how it is that some Americans have not learned to address the issue of immigration in a more civil tone given our vast history of constant immigration. And are we not creating a fracture in our society by heaping so much indignation on an elemental sector of our society, the undocumented community?

I submit that we are, and the consequences could be far reaching.

First, let's travel back in time while allowing me to get personal. My grandfather came to America long ago as part of the Bracero program of the 1940's and 50's. It was a time when America desperately needed the extra help to win the war abroad. And although the braceros entered the country legally and quickly converted the agricultural fields of America into the most productive worldwide, the treatment they received was not what they deserved. As Pauline R. Kibbe, of the University of New Mexico Press wrote in 1948:
"Generally speaking, the Latin American migratory worker... is regarded as a necessary evil_ nothing more nor less than an unavoidable adjunct to the harvest season, Judging by the treatment that has been accorded him, one might assume that he is not a human being at all, and needs no protection from the elements, and when the crop has been harvested, vanishes into the limbo of forgotten things - until the next harvest season rolls around. He has no past, no future, only a brief and anonymous present."

Today, it is not a stretch to say that undocumented workers, and those who work in the service sector, could be taken back in time and not notice a difference in attitudes. They continue to be treated with just as much indifference, and I would argue, given even less gratitude for the hard labor they endure because of their social and economic status.

Migrant workers, specifically the parents, get dismissed as role models because of their social and economic status; they are denied dignity and social standing. We cast blame at them when the economy goes bad; blame them for loss of jobs, bloated welfare rolls, runaway medical costs; and we have even voted in state referendums and initiatives to deny their children citizenship even when they are born on American soil to their undocumented parents.

If we travel even further back in time, history tells us that when the war between the United States and Mexico ended in 1848 there were close to 75,000 Mexicans living in what was formerly Mexican territory, from Texas to California. They were given a choice: return to Mexico or begin a newly defined life in the United States. If they didn't declare their choice after a year, they would automatically become citizens of the United States.

By the time California became a state in 1850, it has been well documented that there were already over 10,000 Mexicans living in California alone. Agriculture was already one of the main sources of income for the state thanks to the Mexican labor community, a group which was also responsible for the construction and maintenance of railroads, mines and ranchos during this period of transition. And yet, after the Treaty of Guadalupe had been ratified and put into effect, the California gold rush soon created conflicts between Yankees and the so-called Californios on issues of land. The state constitutional convention agreed that the remaining California Mexicans were not American citizens, and now required some further action by Congress to make them United States citizens.

The Mexican Embassy protested the treatment of California's Mexican miners-whose civil and property rights were violated-by invoking the protection of the treaty. You may have already guessed it: there would be no justice for many of those who chose to stay as United States citizens to this day.

By a twist of historical fate and geographical coincidence, my ancestral hometown lies about 60 miles from the southern tip of Texas, past the Rio Grande and into the Mexican border. My parents, grandparents, great grandparents, and ancestors 400 years back were all born in their homes at or near the small provincial township of Garza Gonzalez, Nuevo Leon, Mexico.

My father looked to the fields and the orchards of "El Norte" certain that if he worked hard, he would fulfill the American dream as many immigrants had before him. He crossed the Rio Grande River on the shoulders of his uncle, yes, undocumented. He would later be sponsored by a ranch boss and eventually become naturalized.

He looked to the United States in much the same way that Woodie Guthrie described in a song he wrote about John Steinbeck's novel - "The Grapes of Wrath" - A book written about the travails and hardships of a migrant family from Oklahoma fleeing the dustbowl and the ravages of the depression. One of the verses of the song reads:
"They stood on a Mountain and they looked to the West, and it looked like the promisedland. That bright green valley with a river running through, there was work for every single hand, they thought, there was work for every single hand."

For years he traveled to California, Washington, Florida and would return to Mexico for the winter and spring months.

Many from Garza Gonzalez also heard about the endless opportunities En los Estados Unidos and soon cast their fortunes to the north finding work as immigrant farm workers. They would talk of the inequality they encountered in the United States, and the mistreatment they received because of their social and cultural status. But they would also talk of the opportunities given to them by kind neighbors, new friendships they established with ranch-owners and farm bosses, how in America hope and opportunity abounded. How they would cross the border penniless and return with the hefty earnings they made during the summer and fall months "en los Estados Unidos".

As a migrant farm worker until I was 19, I can identify with those Mexican natives who were caught between two countries after the Mexican-American War. But it is not because of what you might be thinking; it was mainly because I felt a sense of privilege.

Privileged that I was fortunate to have lived half of my youth in Mexico and experienced the depth of its culture, its cities and its stunning landscapes; privileged to have been taught the beautiful Spanish language, and fortunate to learn of its history and world class golden age of cinema featuring of course, its most archetypal singer, Pedro Infante.

But I am also privileged to have been born in the United States and to have spent the other half of my youth here. I was fortunate to inherit America's richness of values, opportunity, and its spirit of justice. Privileged to grow up in a nation where freedom and responsibility have equal weight, and where the son of a farm working family can grow up to work for the President of the United States (I served in the Bush Administration as Associate Director for the Office of Public Liaison at the White House from March 2004 to January 2006).

I would not trade my dual-national experience for anything in the world. And maybe that is why the first wave of marchers was proud to raise the United States and Mexican flags. Pride. Maybe Manifest Destiny meant the expansion of the young and brash American Nation, or maybe it meant that the destiny of the Mexican people and the people of the United States would be eternally joined and appreciated by its peoples, brought together to help each other, to develop trade, increase commerce and create a mutual vision of a better world for generations to come.

Times have changed in America. Many lessons have been learned and many people have paid a heavy price in the civil rights struggles of the not to distant past. As Americans, we should be able to better understand each other. As children of two nations tempered by a one-time costly and bitter war, we were brought together by a shared history and a geography marked by God's hand. Hispanics who call the United States their home have experienced the loss of their children in the battlefields of foreign lands in defense of our common values and shared patronage. No one can say we don't belong, and that we do not love our country when we have died to defend it.

Unquestionably, America's rich diversity has played an integral part in its development, and it continues to shape our future. The stories and traditions from our past have much to tell us about our future. We must avoid angry and hurtful rhetoric; immigrants from every part of this world have earned their stake to this great country. They are those hard working, honest people who send their sons to protect this nation, who pay their taxes and give compassionately when someone is in need.

I was thought to be mindful that just because you have been at the wrong end of an injustice, that doesn't make you a better human being; of course, it certainly doesn't make you a lesser human being either. What makes you a better human being is how you react to the treatment you have experienced; what you do to make things better for others so that they don't get the same treatment. The humility borne from constant indignations and condescension can allow a person to bear for so long.

When it comes to addressing unjust and impractical laws; waiting does not solve a thing. Now is time for all Americans, including common-law Americans to make their voices heard loud and clear.

Martin Luther King once wrote "When you take a cross-country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading white and colored (...) When you are forever fighting a sense of nobodiness, then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait."

It is true that in many places the contributions of Hispanics and other groups were not appreciated anywhere near the level they rightfully deserve to be. It is true that many opportunities were kept from Hispanics and other groups in the past- in spite of their abilities, their skills and their talents (and it continues today).

But our grandfathers, fathers, and other fellow Hispanics believed in the vision of a great country, a compassionate country. They paid the highest price by giving their lives in fighting battlefields abroad so that others like them could take full advantage of opportunities available to other Americans today.

In short, they gave too much for us to lose hope and not continue on their aspirations and their vision for a more just and equal America. U.S. immigration policy can be a comprehensive and humane expression of law. Let's come together and call on Senators Frist and Reid to come together now and find a solution to their disagreements, there is no better time than the present.

Daniel Garza is President Hispanic, Hispanic Trends & PODER magazines

Welcome

2006-04-12T16:39:00.000-04:00

You are visiting the PODER Magazine Blog site.

We are pleased to announce that we will be offering insightful opinions and balanced content regarding issues that are impacting the Hispanic community today. We will have information on today's most relevant decision makers in the Americas who are addressing the topics, trends, opportunities, and challenges facing our hemisphere.

PODER - The Magazine is the must-read publication for U.S. Hispanic elites, providing readers
with critical analysis of business, economic and social trends, information they need to make more informed business decisions.

Please visit our site again soon.

Daniel Garza