From: Latina Lista

President Obama should be especially tired today. Between the GOP’s constant attacks on his healthcare bill and two meetings with immigration reform advocates pressing him to do something, he should be feeling like one of those rubber Gumby dolls — pulled in all different directions.

Yet, after a day capped off with an update from the bi-partisan Congressional duo, Senators Schumer and Graham, who are responsible for crafting a new Senate immigration reform bill, it would seem the President has regained his form — at least, according to the statement released by the White House this afternoon:

Three of the fourteen immigration reform advocates who met with President Obama today are: (L-R) Eliseo Medina, Executive Vice President, SEIU; Reverend John C. Wester, Bishop of Salt Lake City, Catholic Church;Reverend Luis Cortes, President, Esperanza USA

Statement by the President on Today’s Meetings on Immigration Reform

Today I met with Senators Schumer and Graham and was pleased to learn of their progress in forging a proposal to fix our broken immigration system. I look forward to reviewing their promising framework, and every American should applaud their efforts to reach across party lines and find commonsense answers to one of our most vexing problems.

I also heard from a diverse group of grassroots leaders from around the country about the growing coalition that is working to build momentum for this critical issue. I am optimistic that their efforts will contribute to a favorable climate for moving forward.

I told both the Senators and the community leaders that my commitment to comprehensive immigration reform is unwavering, and that I will continue to be their partner in this important effort.

Several of the grassroots leaders who met with the President released statements of their own — and they were a little more forthcoming than the President about what went down at the White House.

Today Ali Noorani, Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum and Chair of the Reform Immigration for America Campaign met with President Obama and was joined by other immigrant rights leaders from grassroots, labor, and faith organizations for a meeting at the White House on next steps for comprehensive immigration reform legislation.
We had a lively and straightforward meeting with the President and his staff. We made clear that we expect him to keep his promise to overhaul our broken immigration system. We need a system that is fair, just, humane, and that serves our nation’s interests.

The President indicated that his administration is committed to driving a bill forward in the spring of 2010. Based on our conversation, we are optimistic and expecting aggressive and urgent action from the White House on comprehensive immigration reform before March 21st. That day, tens of thousands of Americans are prepared to take an unprecedented action carrying forward the President’s commitment to comprehensive immigration reform in Congress and finally fixing our broken immigration system.

Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change.

“The President today heard two messages loud and clear. He heard about the pain caused by the administration’s enforcement only approach to immigration and how it is tearing families apart. He also heard about the possible consequences of breaking his promises to deliver comprehensive reform: a growing backlash in the immigrant and Latino communities.

“We walk away from this very productive meeting optimistic that if the White House follows through on its commitments, comprehensive reform can be achieved this year. Organizers are doing their part. This meeting is the direct result of the tens of thousands of people preparing to march on Washington on the 21st of this month. Now, the President and Congress need to do their part.”

“We believe that his commitment to comprehensive immigration reform is real, but we also know we want results and so that’s what we’ll be expecting within the next couple of weeks,” said Angelica Salas, director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA).

Popularity: 1% [?]

Hispanic and black businesses are receiving a disproportionately small number of federal stimulus contracts, creating a rising chorus of demands for the Obama administration to be more inclusive and more closely track who receives government-financed work.
Latinos and blacks have faced obstacles to winning government contracts long before the stimulus. They own 6.8 and 5.2 percent of all businesses, respectively, according to census figures. Yet Latino-owned business have received only 1.7 percent of $46 billion in federal stimulus contracts recorded in U.S. government data, and black-owned businesses have received just 1.1 percent.
That pot of money is just a small fraction of the $862 billion economic stimulus law. Billions more have been given to states, which have used the money to award contracts of their own.
Although states record minority status when they award contracts to businesses, there is no central, consistent or public compilation of that data, according to Laura Barrett, director of the Transportation Equity Network. She and other minority advocates are calling for complete and publicly accessible demographic information on all contracts and jobs financed by the stimulus.
Minority businesses are often too small to compete for projects; do not have access to the necessary capital, equipment or bonding requirements; or lose bids to companies with well-established relationships. There also has been an emphasis on spending stimulus money quickly, which favors businesses that have won past contracts.
But minority advocates say that blacks and Latinos have been harder hit by the recession, and getting a fair share of stimulus contracts is key to the recovery of these communities. Unemployment among blacks and Hispanics is much higher than among whites. And although unemployment among whites increased at a faster rate during the worst of the recession than among minorities, rates of those considered underemployed — including people who have given up looking for full-time work or people working part-time because there is no full-time work available — increased faster among minorities than whites.
Figures from the Transportation Department on highway stimulus spending — at the heart of the government’s effort to lift the economy — have further concerned advocacy groups.
Six percent of the $16.9 billion in Federal Highway Administration contract money spent by states has gone to disadvantaged business enterprises, which includes companies owned by minorities as well as women, veterans and the disabled, according to department press secretary Olivia Alair.
Out of $1.1 billion in state-spent Federal Aviation Administration contract money, 7.8 percent has gone to disadvantaged businesses, Alair said, and 8.6 percent of direct Transportation Department contract dollars have gone to those companies.
Alair said some minority companies might not be included in those figures because they are not small businesses or choose not to classify themselves as disadvantaged. Minority businesses also are eligible for stimulus grants, but those are not tracked by race.
Still, “these numbers are far too low,” especially when compared with state and federal goals,” Barrett said. “The businesses and communities that need federal dollars most are seeing the least.”
The Obama administration has taken steps to address minority concerns. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood wrote governors in December urging them to work with disadvantaged businesses. LaHood suggested unbundling large contracts to make them more accessible to small businesses, and emulating a Missouri contracting project that made community groups and openness part of the process.
LaHood’s department has pledged $20 million in subsidies to help disadvantaged businesses pay bonding premiums and fees, and has established a short-term loan program that lent $4.9 million in 2009. Last month, LaHood announced $9.9 million in grants to help businesses owned by minorities and women compete for federal contracts.
Federal agencies held more than 300 events nationwide to educate minority businesses about stimulus opportunities, said White House spokesman Corey Ealons. He also said there is a backlog of awarded contracts that have not yet been entered into the tracking database.
The White House also pointed out that about $21 billion of the $46 billion is guaranteed, and the rest are options. Latino-owned businesses have received 3.7 percent of the guaranteed total, and black-owned businesses 2.4 percent.
The founder and chief executive of one of the nation’s largest black-owned construction companies, Richard Copeland of THOR Construction Inc., said minority-owned companies usually employ 60 percent minorities.
“If we can’t get on these jobs,” he said, “we can’t hire our people from our community, so poverty and drugs and crime and unemployment and welfare become habitual.” His company has done a small amount of weatherization work through Minnesota stimulus contracts.
He said many minority businesses can’t develop the capability to do government work because a “good old boy” network shuts them out of contracts.
Copeland’s company has its headquarters in Minneapolis, and has 200 full-time employees and offices in Los Angeles, Las Vegas, New Orleans and Atlanta. He said he abandoned highway work years ago to focus on erecting buildings.
“These big highway contractors try to keep you off the project, and when you get on, they try to make sure you don’t come back,” he said. “We hear about this all across the country.”
That’s what Samuel Foley Jr., a lawyer for the black-owned construction company Holley Enterprises, says happened to his client.
Holley was subcontracted by James J. Anderson Construction to perform demolition and salvage operations on a subway station repair project in Philadelphia. This enabled Anderson to meet contract guidelines for minority participation, but about two months later Holley’s contract was unfairly terminated, Foley said.
Anderson Construction said in a statement that Holley violated the terms of the contract. Anderson said it did not perform any of the work itself and gave the contract to another disadvantaged business.
Foley, chairman of the National Black Chamber of Commerce Construction Committee, said many companies “play games to get rid of the minority contractor.”
“This is not a unique situation,” he said. “For the past 30 years in Philadelphia it’s been this way.”

Popularity: 1% [?]

From: Ponte Al Dia

It is quite ironic that the Department of Justice has to work hard at having to “restore respect for the law within the culture of the DHS (Department of Homeland Security)” that is, the federal government itself.

Immigration policy during the first year of the Obama administration changed very little and rather perpetuated some of the worst Civil Rights violations by the Bush administration, reported the Immigration Policy Center IPC in its study “The Challenge of Reform.

The criminalizing of immigrants continues under the Obama administration, “in fact federal immigration prosecutions rose to record levels in FY 2009” asserts the IPC, revealing that “under this administration, the federal government is continuing to spend billions of dollars prosecuting non-violent immigration violators while more serious criminals involved in drugs, weapons, and organized crime face a lower probability of prosecution.”

Immigration prosecutions now account for 54% of all federal criminal filings, and will increase 14% for FY 2009, per Syracuse University’s TRAC (Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse).

Much of this prosecution fever is based on the scheme of calling any undocumented immigrant a “criminal alien”. This scheme while in parallel with the vitriol of white supremacist groups is perpetrated by unconstitutionally forcing personal data such as fingerprints into a federal database named with the euphemism “Secure Communities”.

This is how it works according to the IPC : “A closer examination of ICE’s statistics reveals that the use of the term “criminal alien” is misleading and that those identified by “Secure Communities” include large numbers of individuals with no criminal history, individuals charged with (but not convicted of) crimes, and persons “identified” but not found to be deportable. Fingerprint submission and identification is conducted at time of arrest, rather than conviction, thereby presenting the risk of racial profiling and pretextual arrests of those suspected of being unauthorized in order to determine an arrestee’s immigration status.”

Despite these flagrant abuses DHS boasts the fact that now “Secure Communities” expanded from 14 locations to 107 in 2009 and that in its first year 111,000 supposed “criminal aliens” in local custody were purportedly identified.

In reality the “Secure Communities” program is literally contributing to allow extremely violent and organized crime remain unpunished.

Taking away two thirds of our federal resources from combating violent, powerful and well-organized drug, weapon, and human traffickers to solely persecute immigrants is a testament to where our values truly rest.

Popularity: 1% [?]

From: Vivir Latino

The whole “undocumented living in the shadows” metaphor always gnawed at me a little for it’s sinister feel. The shadows are dark places, where bad things happen and bad people live. It kind of feeds into the “good vs. bad immigrant” narrative that we are so fond of talking about here. Maybe that’s why I like the idea of National Coming Out of the Shadows Day being celebrated today in Chicago by hundreds of young people as part of the larger National Coming Out of the Shadows Week , March 15th to the 21st.
The idea of National Coming Our of the Shadows Day and Week is for the undocumented, especially youth, to stand up, unafraid, unashamed and unwilling to accept the idea that there are good immigrants vs. bad immigrants. That is a a dichotomy created by the racist broken immigration system to divide and conquer communities that intersect.
The focus of the event in Chicago today is Senator Durbin and the demand that he support comprehensive immigration reform and the DREAM Act, which would give countless undocumented youth the freedom to continue to grow educationally and professionally.
“We cannot wait any more. Not while our parents are getting deported and our youth’s dreams fall apart due to an obsolete immigration system that has failed us and the country. I have supported Senator Durbin and President Obama, and now we need them to act. This country cannot wait anymore, we will not wait any longer,” said Ireri, IYJL member.

Popularity: 1% [?]

From: CampusProgress.org

In a evening conference call held last night, Mar. 8, anti-immigration group Numbers USA—best known for its brute force attacks on Congress to defeat comprehensive immigration reform in 2007—discussed a variety of tactics to thwart an upcoming march on Washington DC by immigrant rights supporters, including one proposal to call immigrant women from Mexico “the new welfare queens in America.”

The call, which was held at 9 p.m EST, was organized by Numbers USA, and included approximately 45 participants from across the country, many of them representing archconservative“Tea Party” affiliates. In a 30 minute time span, Chad MacDonald, the moderator of the discussion and a worker with Numbers USA, walked callers though ways they could create the perception that there was a grassroots opposition to immigration reform, according to notes taken during the phone call. The actions, organized to pressure Congress to stall on immigration reform, are meant to coincide with the “March For America,” a pro-immigration reform march organized for Mar. 21.

During the discussion, listened to by Campus Progress, activists not only talked about how they should paint Mexican women in the United States as “the new welfare queens,” but they also recommended tactics like referring to immigrant children as “dependents,” rather than “babies,” because “babies” is an “emotional” word. All of this was discussed in the presence of MacDonald and Roy Beck, executive director for Numbers USA, who has his own turbulent past with reported connections to white nationalist groups.

According to notes taken on the phone call:
CALLER 1: I would like to speak out on something. I feel the new welfare queen in America today is women coming from Mexico with a bunch of babies. So I feel they’re all coming over here and having all these babies, they are the new welfare queen in America….

New people in America today with a lot of babies, ’cause they coming from Mexico having a bunch of babies. And our tax dollars is taking care of them babies, ’cause the mothers are illegal. So to me, we need to speak out about letting them know they’re the new welfare queens in America.

CALLER 2: That was well said brother!

MACDONALD: We will make a note of that. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

CALLER 3: One piece of information would be, they aren’t babies, they’re dependents. Don’t use babies. It’s emotional to them. They have dependents. We have babies.
Along with circulating distortions that immigrants somehow use and drain welfare programs—an allegation that has no actual factual basis—Numbers USA and its affiliates are also planning to flood Congressional offices with phone calls and faxes during the pro-immigration march—all with talking points that have been meticulously prepared by Numbers USA—much like the group did in 2007. “I think jobs is the number one way to do it,” said Beck, who noted that growing unemployment during the recession can be fastened to the immigration debate.

“It’s not about reality, it’s all about perception,” Beck said on the call. “What happened in 2007 is that we as a movement created the perception of on Capitol Hill that most American’s did not want amnesty, they did not want comprehensive immigration reform, and that there was an intensity to the people who didn’t want it that could really cause political damage for the careers for the members of Congress. That’s what moves Congress.”

MacDonald added during the discussion, “We are a single issue organization about reducing both legal and illegal immigration. We have an immense amount of resources. We have an incredible coalition and we can answer and frame a question for any ostensible person to reduce overall immigration.”

Popularity: 4% [?]

From: Politics Daily

In July 2008, Sen. Barack Obama took time out of his packed presidential campaign schedule to address a crucial block of voters whom he would need in his fight against Sen. John McCain in the November elections.

During his speech to the League of Latin American Citizens, a leading Latino organization, Obama lamented the lack of presidential leadership on immigration reform in 2006, and promised to do better.

“We need a president who isn’t going to walk away from something as important as comprehensive immigration reform when it becomes politically unpopular,” he told the group. “That’s the commitment I’m making to you. I fought with you in the Senate for comprehensive immigration reform. And I will make it a top priority in my first year as president.”

But after Obama’s victorious presidential campaign, in which he won with 67 percent of the Latino vote, immigration advocates say they are still waiting for the results that Obama promised them 18 months ago. And their patience is wearing thin.

“There is a palpable, grassroots anger that is going to go national if there is not a breakthrough soon,” said Frank Sherry, the founder of America’s Voices, a group that advocates immigration reform. “If there’s not, I think the effort to pass legislation will become akin to a social movement to raise the moral stakes of 11 million people living in the country with no meaningful rights.”

Other Latino leaders and immigration advocates say they understood that the president had to deal first with the economic crisis that confronted him when he came into office, and even that he chose to address health care reform as his next domestic priority. But in interviews with Politics Daily, several said they believe that some Democrats are slow-walking reform to avoid dealing with the politically hot-button issue.

“I think there’s a bit of this Rahm Emanuel kind of mentality, where they think that immigration reform is a liability for Democrats who would rather not take a tough vote,” said Brent Wilkes, executive director of the LULAC group that Obama addressed in 2008. “They think that as long as they think they can keep the immigrant community mollified, they can just put it off without delivering on that promise.”

Wilkes joined more than half a dozen fellow immigration advocates at a Washington, D.C., press conference Monday with a message for a White House they feel has been long on promises and short on results.

“The message to Democrats is that they need to deliver in order to have a shot at maintaining support from the Latino community,” said Clarissa Martinez, director of immigration and national campaigns National Council of La Raza. “Addressing reform is essential for Republicans as well if they have any interest in repairing their relationship with the fastest growing portion of the American electorate.”

Activists are planning a march for immigration reform on March 21 on the National Mall to call for comprehensive immigration reform. Leaders of the reform community recently informed the White House that they had a choice: The march could be a civil rights protest to decry Obama’s lack of follow-through on the issue, or it could be a community rally to urge Americans to support the president’s efforts to pass a bill. The catch, they told the White House, was that he needed to move on something.

So Obama called Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) to the White House for a meeting Monday, which deputy press secretary Bill Burton said would be for the senators to update the president on where things stand on the issue.

According to several people with knowledge of progress on the matter, Schumer is working on a measure that would have the broad contours of the immigration reform bills from 2006 and 2007, including what has been termed a “path to citizenship” for undocumented workers. Although Graham has signaled his support for the concept, Schumer is working to get a second Republican on board before moving forward. The House will not act at all until the Senate passes its bill.

Among the details being discussed for the Schumer-Graham effort are a Schumer plan to create a forgery-proof national identification card, a non-partisan commission to recommend a process for issuing visas, and eliminating the “touch back” provision from previous bills that required illegal immigrants to leave the country before they could begin the legalization process.

LULAC’s Wilkes warned that that any efforts to pass legislation this year need to be a bona fide commitment to build a coalition, not just an election-year attempt to check a box for an interest group. “We don’t want them to make a half-hearted effort just to say they did it,” he said. “We need to see a real effort at reform and only that can quiet the voices that will show up March 21.”

NCLR’s Martinez said: “For the Latino community, the word in 2010 is accountability. Our perspective is that this issue has been debated many times over the years. The country has been waiting for the system to be overhauled for 20 years. For Latinos in particular, we will regard as complicit those who stand on the sidelines, as well as those who are actively trying to obstruct progress.”

The danger for both parties in ignoring the issue and depressing Latino voter turnout in 2010 is considerable, but for Democrats trying to hold onto control of the House and Senate, the peril is acute. Activists say Latinos were key to Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008, and have the power to swing crucial states in 2010.

“There are likely to be close races in California, Nevada, Colorado, Illinois, New York and Florida, in which the Latino vote — and whether it turns out or not — could determine whether Democrats keep control of the Senate or not,” Frank Sherry said. “And when smart politicos say we better not do what the Latinos want because it might hurt our 2010 prospects, they seem to have failed to notice that dramatic demographic changes have changed that electorate.”

Popularity: 4% [?]

From: Latino LA

It was when I first stood atop the Pyramid of the Sun in Teotihuacan,
Mexico in 1976 that I was finally able to grasp something my parents
first communicated to me when I was five years old; that my roots on
this continent are not simply Mexican, but both ancient and
Indigenous.

My red-brown face should have been enough to teach me this. However,
that was not the message I received in school at the time, nor is it
the message little red-brown kids receive today.

I experienced a similar kind of reaffirmation this past month when I
stood in front of the world-renowned, ancient Mayan observatory at
Chichen Itza, on Mexico’s Yucatan peninsula.

Upon my return to the United States, I received a message from a
colleague regarding the U.S. Census Bureau. My mouth soured; another
decade and another story about how the bureau paradoxically insists
that Mexicans are Caucasian. I will have to explain to them again that
Mexicans are the descendants of those who built the pyramids at
Teotihuacan and Chichen Itza – that it was not Caucasians who built
them.

The genesis of this nonsensical “misconception” goes back to the era
when the United States militarily took half of Mexico in 1848. At that
time, the Mexican government attempted to protect its former citizens
by insisting that the U.S. government treat them legally as “white,”
so they would not be enslaved or subjected to legal segregation. That
strategy only partially worked, because most Mexicans in this country
have never been treated as “white,” or as full human beings with full
human rights.

That era is long over, yet the fear, shame, denial, and semi-legal
fiction of being “white” remains, perpetrated primarily by government
bureaucrats.

Despite the bureau policy of racial categorization, the Indigenous
Cultures Institute in Texas, a Census 2010 partner, has advanced an
alternative: It asserts that Hispanics, Mexican Americans, and
Indigenous people of Mexico are native or American Indian. After
answering Question 8, regarding whether one is Hispanic or not, the
institute suggests: “If you are a descendant of native people, you can
identify yourself (in Question 9) as an American Indian in the 2010
Census… If you don’t know your tribe, enter “unknown” or “detribalized
native.” If tribe or identity is known, fill it in, i.e., Macehual,
Maya, Quechua, etc.

This may not be the best option, but the bureau has never made it easy
to recognize the indigenous roots of “Mexican Americans/Chicanos” or
“Latinos/Hispanics.” The long and sordid history of the census has
been to direct or redirect them into the white category, even–and
especially–when they have asserted their indigenous roots or when
they have checked the “other” race category. (Since 1980, about half
of Hispanics/Latinos have checked the “other” race category and are
virtually the only group that chooses this category.) This has been a
standard practice of the bureau since the second half of the twentieth
century. Coincidentally, this is also when government bureaucrats
imposed the term “Hispanic,” a tag that generally masks the existence
of indigenous and/or African roots in many peoples of the Americas.

In 2000, the Census Bureau finally recognized a Latin American Indian
category, but it did not create an educational campaign to go with it.
The bureau now recognizes peoples who are traditionally viewed (using
arbitrary criteria) as indigenous in Mexico, Central and South
America, but it does not recognize those who are considered “mestizo”
–- peoples who are at least part, if not primarily, native. The
mestizo category, borne of a dehumanizing racial caste system in the
Americas, is also a troublesome category, yet it is how most people of
Mexican and Central American descent identify, comprising
approximately 75 percent of all “Latinos/Hispanics.”

The Indigenous Institute promotes its idea as a means by which Mexican
Americans or Latinos/Hispanics can honor their indigenous ancestry. If
this option is widely embraced, it remains to be seen how the bureau
will count this information. The same question arises if people choose
the American Indian category and write in “mestizo.”

Traditionally, the bureau has taken a narrow view of who is
indigenous, because the “American Indian” category was designed not to
ascertain indigeneity, but to count “U.S. Indians.” If a more
expansive view is embraced widely –- as advocated by the institute -–
it would result in an increase from 5 million (the 2009 census
estimate) to perhaps 30 to 40 million people. (Not all of the nation’s
close to 50 million Hispanics/Latinos can or would claim indigenous
ancestry.)

If done correctly, the institute’s suggestion need not negatively
affect the allocation of resources to specific tribes. Neither should
the way people identify be subject to government approval. Yet, the
ramifications of exercising such an option should indeed be studied.

Popularity: 4% [?]

From: The South Chicagoan

It has been years since I personally set foot in Mexico. But my impression has always been that those border towns directly across from the United States were always so kitschy that no self-respecting individual wanting to see Mexico would seriously go there.

So when I learned that Texas state officials had issued an advisory telling people to avoid the area when they make spring-break trips later this month, my honest reaction was two-fold.

IT IS NO loss, AND how many idiots are going to want to believe this refers to the whole country.

Specifically, the Texas Department of Public Safety issued an advisory in recent days saying that U.S. citizens should avoid visiting the cities along the international border.

Anyone paying attention to news reports from the region in recent years knows about the violence in Ciudad Juarez, where the drug lords whose power has reached such heights that local police and government are unable to restrain them has created a situation of violence that has left innocent bystanders dead.

The situation is so tense that Mexico had to send the Army in to try to regain control of the city. Texas state officials say the situation is bad in other border towns, including Tijuana and Nogales.

THE NATIVISTS OF our nation want to believe this is somehow reflective of the Mexican society as a whole, when it really is merely reflective of the fact that the drug situation afflicting both nations reaches a particularly tense situation at the point where the two nations meet up.

Head south of the U.S./Mexico border and the situation becomes drastically less violent. When one gets significantly south of those Mexican states along the border (places like Sonora or Tamaulipas), you start to find cities whose cultural amenities make them seriously worth seeing.

In short, anybody who thinks they’re seeing Mexico and enjoying the full cultural experience by visiting Tijuana deserves to get ripped off, or pay way too much money for those tacky, cheap knick-knacks sold as souvenirs to tourists who don’t know any better.

So while I understand there are people whose economic livelihood depends on a certain flow of tourists passing through the border area, I don’t think there’s any real loss to those of us in the United States if we stay away from Matamoros.

IF IT SEEMS like I’m pushing places like Guadalajara (where my maternal grandfather was born) or Cancun, if not Mexico City itself, I’d say they are more what the country is about than the kitchiness on the border.

I don’t consider that to be disrespectful to the nation where my ethnic origins lie. Any place has its parts that are more relevant for outsiders to see than others. Take the United States. Would anyone suggest that an international tourist get the quality U.S. experience by visiting a place such as Truth or Consequences, N.M. (I don’t want to hear about the local spas) or Brownsville, Texas?

There are other places they would want to see in limited time. Anyone wanting to see Mexico on equally limited time shouldn’t be wasting too much time in Tijuana (a place I was in only once, for about two hours, some 36 years ago. My main memory is of peddlers on the streets selling sticks of chewing gum.)

So as long as people keep in mind that this latest advisory from Texas officials is directed specifically to the border region, it is about as sensible a warning as could be issued to parents whose college-age kids are contemplating a trip toTijuana or Rosarito Beach to act stupid for a few days.

BY THE WAY, Mexico tourism officials point out that the murder rate in and near that beach is actually lower than that of New Orleans. Quite a selling point.

The State Department, which issues its warnings of regions around the world that U.S. citizens should avoid, says that Mexico is no more dangerous than any other place on Planet Earth, with the exception of the border towns where people are advised to use “extreme caution” if they happen to be traveling through the area.

So what should we think, other than that those people who want to see this warning as an indictment on all of Mexico are nothing more than nitwits? For the sarcastic streak in me wants to quip that the reason those border cities appear so absurd is because of their proximity to all those Texans and Arizonans.

It seems like the “Wild West” atmosphere that Texans like to think was so colorful on their side of the border is now insanity in Mexico. Perhaps it was never all that cute or colorful in Texas either.

Popularity: 4% [?]

From: The Huffington Post

Last week, nearly 350 advocates from Latino organizations affiliated with the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), descended on Capitol Hill and conducted Congressional visits with a clear message: the time for immigration reform is now, and those who obstruct progress or sit on the sidelines will be held accountable. NCLR also unveiled a one-minute video in English and Spanish reminding President Obama, in his own words, of his campaign promise to rise above fear and demagoguery and restore order and dignity to the nation’s broken immigration system. The videos are circulating online, through NCLR’s network of Latino community organizations, and with multiple other partners. Many of the people who came to meet with their members of Congress will be returning to DC on March 21 to join in the March for America to take a stand for all of America’s workers, families, and communities across the country.

Last Friday, the Associated Press reported that President Obama will meet on Monday with Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC), and is “looking forward to hearing more about their efforts toward producing a bipartisan bill,” according to White House spokesman Nicholas Shapiro.

But let’s be clear. If the meeting is just to “hear more,” it’s not going to cut it. The president had a meeting with Republican and Democratic members of both chambers in June 2009, and in August held a White House summit, hosted by Secretary Janet Napolitano, with a large number of representatives from faith, labor, business, law enforcement, immigrant, ethnic, and civil rights groups. Around that time, Schumer and Graham started working on a bipartisan proposal, and Schumer announced he would have the parameters of a proposal ready by Labor Day 2009.

With the Congressional legislative runway getting crowded and time running out before the November elections, it is time to land this plane. Monday’s meeting must be followed by a clear, bipartisan proposal and a firm timeline for Senate action. Anything less will be regarded as more stalling by the tens of thousands coming to DC to march in two weeks.

During their Congressional visits last week, community leaders often heard “we are open to consider a reform proposal” from Congress members on both side of the aisle. Well, it’s time to stand up and be counted. The country has waited over 20 years for a solution, and those who sit on the sidelines waiting for others to lead will be just as complicit as those who actively obstruct its progress. Immigration reform can help strengthen our economy and the labor rights of all working people, bring stability back to our communities, and quell the rise of hate groups and extremism we are witnessing across the country. From a policy, political, and moral perspective, it’s time to act.

Popularity: 7% [?]

From: Caivan.org

In examining immigration policy, those interested in the topic are apt to first look to traditional, English speaking media covering the matter. For Californians, this means reading the LA Times, The Daily News, The Sac Bee, The San Francisco Chronicle, etc.

In becoming preoccupied with English speaking outlets, the immigration issue from the “other perspective” gets shoved into a blind spot. A disclaimer: This isn’t a call to put on the suit of multiculturalism or to adopt the “other perspective” as one’s own.

Instead, it’s essentially a call similar to the wise maxim for watching cable political pundits: Consider more than one perspective to see an argument from the big picture. Looking to only one perspective risks turning one into a mindless, partisan cheerleader.

To be aware of what the other side has to say about current immigration issues aids in more effectively assessing the immigration situation. In this awareness, there’s still a need to read with a critical eye, considering whether certain concerns are fair ones.

In a fascinating angle of examining immigration, the Hispanic community voice raises a legitimate concern. Namely, it notes that both parties are solidly out of touch with proposing a solution to the immigration problem.

The Hispanic publication La Opinion recently reported about the split within the Republican Party over immigration reform. Steve Poizner, running for the gubernatorial nomination against Meg Whitman, takes a hard stance on the immigration issue. Poizner, according to La Opinion, said that “illegal immigrants are overwhelming our education, health care and public benefits systems.” Meanwhile, his counterpart, Whitman, advocates a more moderate approach to immigration reform, according to the same publication.

The implication is that the Republican Party lacks consensus on immigration reform, a more than accurate assessment highlighted at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). This lack of consensus in the Republican Party is certainly a factor continuing to plague it, despite an effort by conservatives to push more Hispanic conservative candidates.

As much as the the Hispanic community gives grief to Republicans for lack of vision, Democrats aren’t exempted from Hispanic ire. The liberal organization, the National Council of La Raza (NCLA), called out President Obama for his unkept promise to implement immigration reform in a timely manner.

NCLA recently released a video of President Obama addressing a Hispanic crowd earlier last year, showering them with immigration reform promises. Agree or disagree with NCLA in terms of their ultimate vision for an immigration reform bill, they too make an overall valid criticism of current political party structure.

Their point? Democratic leadership has labeled itself as the party of minorities and of diversity. But when it comes to actually delivering the goods, there are more politically expedient measures to focus on (i.e. Healthcare reform). It’s actually worse to promise something and not deliver it. It ultimately begs the question, do the Democratic elites really care for minorities?

The biggest implication is that both parties seem to be out of touch with minorities, being more concerned with pandering to their base and courting special interest money. In a sense, independents and Hispanics share a commonality. Both parties are ignoring their concerns and needs.

This isn’t necessarily a call for instituting a third party, but a call for a better class of candidates to come forward in future elections. Citizens need candidates who are actually interested in the well-being of their constituents and in making the American dream available to those willing to work within the system in a fair manner.

Popularity: 5% [?]