Hispanic Programs

Simon's statement today on the selection of Sonia Sotomayor was featured in the Chicago Tribune. Here's an excerpt from the article: 

"President Obama's pick of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to serve on the Supreme Court is an acknowledgement and affirmation of the great demographic changes taking place in America today,'' says Simon Rosenberg, president of New Democrat Network.

"Driven by years of immigration, our nation is going through profound change,'' he suggests today. "The percentage of people of color in the United States has tripled in just the past 45 years, and America is now on track become a majority-minority nation in the next 30-40 years.

"The movement of our nation from a majority white to a more racially complex society is perhaps the single greatest societal change taking place in our great nation today,'' he suggests.

"And if the Supreme Court is to have the societal legitimacy required to do its work, its justices must reflect and speak to the people of America of the 21st Century,'' he says.

"The pick of Judge Sotomayor, a highly qualified, twice-Senate confirmed Latina to serve as one of the nine judges overseeing our judicial system, will not only put a thoughtful and highly experienced judge on the Supreme Court, it will go a long way toward making the Supreme Court one that can truly represent the new people and new realities of 21st Century America."

Rob was quoted in a national Associated Press story about Obama's move toward the center on some issues:

Rob Shapiro, a former economic adviser to President Bill Clinton, said Obama's winning of congressional support for the $787 billion economic stimulus plan soon after taking office, mostly on terms he wanted, remains a major achievement.

The next crucial test will be whether Obama can make progress on health care overhaul, a signature proposal for his first term, said Shapiro, now with NDN, a centrist think tank formerly known as the New Democratic Network. Some of the other issues matter less, since presidents rarely get everything they want even from a Congress controlled by their own party, he said.

"Obama calls himself a pragmatist. That often ends up with fairly centrist policies," Shapiro said. "In the end, the progressives, the left in Congress, will support the president even on getting a half loaf in health care rather than a full loaf," he added.

Finally, Morley and Mike's recent LA Times Op-Ed was re-published in The Oregonian this week, and was also featured in The Arizona Republic, DailyKos and MyDD.

Hispanics Poised to Flex Muscle in Politics, Policy - Check out Andres Ramirez's op-ed published in Roll Call.  Andres writes:

There is no doubt the 2008 elections were indeed historic, but while the results of the 2010 midterms — and the decennial U.S. Census in the same year — may not have the rock star quality of the presidential contest, they very likely will have a far-reaching and long-lasting impact on our nation’s politics and electoral map.

In particular, Hispanics stand to gain substantially from the census as the U.S. Hispanic population continues its rapid rise...it is projected that Hispanics will represent at least 16 percent of the American work force by 2014...The political influence of Hispanics will be felt in key regions and politically important states.

Understandably, as Hispanics are the fastest-growing population and electorate, the issues of most importance to this demographic will become increasingly important.  As NDN's analysis and polling has showed since long ago, immigration remains a pivotal issue to all Hispanics because even if they are not immigrants themselves, it is very likely they have immigrant friends or family.  And also because of the way the tone of the immigration debate turned over the last few years to one that calls into question the most basic civil rights of Hispanics.

State of New York Exemplifies Need for Immigration Reform - It is understandable that Sen. Chuck Shumer (NY) is motivated to move immigration reform legislation; the state he represents is in urgent need of it as illustrated this morning by Kerry Kennedy on Morning Joe as she discussed the motivation behind an auction to raise funds for the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice, and the project to which proceeds will go:

K.Kennedy: In New York State we’re working on a change to a bill called the Farmworkers Justice Act.  Right now in New York State farm workers are not allowed to form unions; you can be fired for forming a union, and they don’t get the right to a day off per week.  In the duck business for instance, the people who feed the ducks to make fois gras have to work 32 days in a row, feed 350 ducks per day 4 times a day and get a total of only four hours off at a time.  So this has to change, and this bill will make that happen.

M.Barnacle: Does this apply also to the largely migrant worker field that arrives in state after state? States like New York, seasonal work?

K.Kennedy: The problem is that there is not Federal legislation, so each state makes its own laws on it.  This will apply to all workers here in New York State.

The trap door under wages will continue due to the undocumented population, and the abuses that take place under the current system of legal immigration will continue until we overhaul our current ineffective federal immigration law in order to protect all workers and all Americans.

At the 100 day marker of President Barack Obama's time in office there were many articles going over what he's done, has not done, wants to do, will do, etc.  The most important untold story is the way Barack Obama has continued to revolutionize the way in which he communicates with the public - namely, a concerted and unprecedented Hispanic outreach strategy.  Long ago, NDN began arguing the importance of the Hispanic electorate and the importance of speaking in Spanish for candidates and public officials. 

Years later, candidate Barack Obama came along with record-breaking levels of outreach to Hispanics and the first television ad in a U.S. general Presidential election in which the candidate speaks entirely en español.

Now, at the White House, President Obama has continued this full fledged effort to communicate with Hispanics - in English and Spanish - at a level of sophistication never seen before.  Spanish language media has caught on, with major outlets like La Opinión, CNN en Español, and EFE highlighting this unprecedented effort.  Notably, "mainstream" media has not reported on Obama's efforts to reach every corner of the fastest growing electorate - often in their own language.

Most recently, on Friday May 8 the White House held its first ever Spanish-language town hall with Latino activists, community leaders, and health care providers from all over the country.  A feat that Univision (who coordinated the event with the White House) described as "an unprecedented and an historic effort to establish a dialogue with the Hispanic community, the largest minority group in the country."  Click here for the entire video and transcript of the town hall.

Just a few days before the town hall, President Obama continued the practice of celebrating Cinco de Mayo - a date of historical importance for Mexico.  President Obama has also demonstrated a commitment to the "shared challenges" between the U.S. and Mexico and to establishing a new dialogue with the Latin American region through a concerted diplomatic mission.  During March and April this mission took the U.S. Vice President to Chile and Central America, the U.S. Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security, the U.S. Attorney General, and the President himself to Mexico and to the Summit of the Americas.

Prior to his travels, the President announced a historic shift in U.S. policy towards Cuba.  The change in policy was matched by its equally historic presentation, with a briefing in Spanish by Dan Restrepo.  When Mr. Restrepo, Senior Adviser to the President on Latin America, addressed the Spanish-language media in their native tongue, he became the first person to speak a language other than English during a White House briefing:

Hispanic voters also love Spanish-language entertainers - President Obama had a guest appearance that rocked the Premios Lo Nuestro award ceremony:

These targeted efforts complement an unprecedented general practice of bi-lingual press and communications by the White House.  President Obama has also held two major interviews with the most popular radio host in the country (who happens to be a Spanish-language radio host), "El Piolin," in addition to already having held four full-length interviews with the two principal Univision News anchors, Jorge Ramos and Maria Elena Salinas (two interviews with each).  These examples clearly highlight the way in which President Obama "gets" that most Hispanics (80% by most polls) speak Spanish and listen to Spanish language media, even if they are English-language dominant.  We congratulate the President on his continued efforts to building a new bridge of understanding between the White House and the vast Hispanic community.

As noted earlier, Heritage felt the need to respond to our Case for Passing of Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year.  We begin our week with a response to their claims:

1.  Illegal Immigration and Labor Supply

NDN argues that, "Legalizing the five percent of the work force that is undocumented would create a higher wage and benefit floor than exists today for all workers …"

Heritage wrote:

Legalization absolutely would create a flood of new immigrants. The 1986 immigration reform granted amnesty to 2.7 million illegal aliens and sent the message that we are not serious about enforcing our immigration laws. By 2006 the number of illegal immigrants in this country had risen to 20 million.

Our response:
1) It is telling that instead of citing Census data, GAO reports, Congressional research service, or other neutral and accurate sources of data, Heritage cites itself as the source for the “20 million” number of estimated undocumented immigrants in the country.  The Census and other Government sources have admitted how difficult it is to project a statistic of undocumenteds and are careful to highlight that we have only estimates.  Yet the confidence with which Heritage throws out numbers gives the impression that it has gone over every inch of the U.S. and been able to magically locate each and every single immigrant to provide such an unequivocal assertion.  Even if this assumption of a number were true, that only helps us make the case for the urgency of CIR.  The more people we have in this country that are unknown to our government, the greater the security threat, the greater the number of individuals we need to bring under the protection of U.S. labor laws and tax laws, and the greater amount of revenue we will generate through taxes if we bring these people out of the shadows.

2) Yes, the 1986 law did provide amnesty.  The CIR proposal being discussed today allows no such amnesty.  To become legalized, individuals would have to pay fines, pay taxes, undergo background checks, and a series of other requirements before they could begin the process.

3) Yes, the 1986 law failed to adequately deal with future flow of immigrants, setting unreasonable quotas and limited legal channels, thus making it easier and much, much less expensive for immigrants to come here illegally rather than legally.  That is why we propose broadening legal channels for immigrants, not limiting them.  The absence of accessible, cost-effective legal channels for workers or immigrants in 1986 did not deter people from crossing illegally then, so what makes us think it will suddenly deter immigrants in the future?

2. Illegal Immigration and Federal Deficits

In response to our contention that putting the undocumented population on the road to citizenship will also increase tax revenue in a time of economic crisis, as the newly legal immigrants will pay fees and fines, and become fully integrated into the U.S. tax-paying system, Heritage writes:

This assumes that these individuals will not take anymore social services than they do as illegals. But with an unemployment rate of 8.5% it is difficult to assume that people that are largely high-school dropouts would be able to get jobs with millions of Americans looking for work. In reality, they are more likely to be on unemployment. Furthermore, statistics that are used to show they would bring more money fail to recognize the cost of providing entitlements like Social Security and Medicare to 11 million more people—already broken systems. Overall, amnesty will cost taxpayers at least $2.6 trillion.

First – unless I missed something, it is not looking like those unemployed GM assembly-line workers in Detroit are on their way down here to rural Virginia to pick apples and tomatoes.  There are jobs to do – Americans just don’t want them.  Furthermore, the 2.6 trillion is another number that was just pulled out of the Heritage hat.  In fact, if Heritage were interested in data, they might have read the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate for that same bill they cite (S.1348).  Including the legalization provision, the CBO score for S.1348 stated [emphasis added]:

CBO and JCT estimate that enacting this legislation would:
• Increase federal direct spending by $10 billion over the 2008-2012 period and by $23 billion over the 2008-2017 period.
• Increase federal revenues by $15 billion over the 2008-2012 period and by $48 billion over the 2008-2017 period. That increase would stem largely from greater receipts of Social Security payroll taxes, which are classified as off-budget.

Thus leading to a net gain of at least $30 billion.  Heritage is concerned about Social Security – in fact, there is something called the “Earnings Suspense File” (ESF) held by SSA.  The ESF holds the funds from all the people who pay into the system because it is deducted from their paycheck, but cannot claim those benefits.  For example, undocumented immigrants who use a false or stolen SSA number pay into SSA with each paycheck, but cannot retrieve that money.  The ESF is currently at over $520 billion.

3. Illegal Immigration and Border Violence

NDN wrote:  Tackling the growing influence of the drug cartels in Mexico is going to be hard, cost a great deal of money, and take a long time. One quick and early step toward calming the region will be to take decisive action on clearing up one piece of the problem — the vast illegal trade in undocumented migrants.  Heritage commented:

We do need to reform our immigration system. But not through an amnesty which is what most of the left calls “comprehensive immigration reform.” We need to 1) secure the border and enforce workplace laws (2) support economic development and governance reforms in Latin America (3) reform USCIS (4) strengthen citizenship and (5) improve legal worker programs.

Thanks Heritage, for supporting our argument.  Everything mentioned here by Heritage WOULD BE INCLUDED in our recommended CIR legislation and supporting administrative policies.

4. U.S.-Latin American relations

NDN believes that just as offering a new policy toward Cuba is part of establishing that it is truly a “new day” in hemispheric relations, ending the shameful treatment of Latin migrants here in the United States will go a long way in signaling that America is taking its relations with its southern neighbors much more seriously than in the past.  Heritage commented:

A fundamentally dishonest immigration policy that claims to legalize only those illegal aliens now here is no way to start a “new day” with Latin America. Building a real US-Latin America Partnership takes patience and time.

Absolutely, we don’t believe that only tackling the plight of those who are already here is a solution (more will inevitably come).  NDN argues that CIR must put in place a realistic system for future flow, to serve as a first step in building a partnership with immigrant-sending nations.  President Barack Obama believes working with immigrant-sending nations is a key component of CIR as well.

5. A Clean Census

On this, NDN believes passing immigration reform this year would go a long way to ensuring we have a clean and effective census count next year.  Heritage:

The census does need to be cleaned up. But cleaning up the census isn’t an excuse for amnesty.

Easy response: NDN AND ADVOCATES FOR CIR DO NOT SUPPORT AMNESTY (see response number 1).  Glad Heritage agrees that the Census must be a clean one. 

Having established that no one is for "amnesty," if Heritage is against the plan to provide those who are currently undocumented with a path to citizenship, even once they have had to undergo a series of background checks and fulfilled a number of requirements, then Heritage is in the unpopular spot supported by approximately 2/10 of voters.  And what would Heritage propose?  Would Heritage propose deporting the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants?  The status quo does not work.  Keeping people in the shadows or blanket deportation won't work for several reasons:

1.  As we mention in "Making the Case," legalization is an untapped source of revenue in a time of economic crisis.
2. It would be impossible to deport the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants.  If legalization would cost $23 billion, DHS has reported that deportation would cost taxpayers over $100 billion (DHS's entire budget is around $35 billion), not to mention it would take around 200 years to carry out that many deportations.
3. About 2/3 of families with undocumented immigrants are mixed status, meaning they also include U.S. citizens.  As such, deportation of immediate family of citizens, or citizens themselves not only brings serious human rights issues to surface, it can bring about a series of legal challenges.

I thought I would share this piece in honor of today.  A nice window into what is happening as we speak in the city of Puebla, heart of 5 de Mayo celebrations.

Little swine flu concern in Cinco de Mayo city
By Kerry Sanders, NBC News correspondent
 
PUEBLA, MEXICO –  It’s difficult to spot any evidence folks here are concerned about the swine flu.

In this city, about 60 miles southeast of Mexico City, few residents are wearing masks.  Stores and restaurants are open.  The town center, called el zocalo, is awash with families, children holding balloons. Lovers are in clutches on city benches, smooching.

In Mexico City, streets are empty, restaurants are closed and it’s so quiet you can hear the birds chirping. But Puebla is alive.

Double decker buses giving city tours are filled – mind you, there are few tourists. Most of those taking the tour, learning the history that dates back to the 16th century, are locals, or families who fled the boredom of the rules in Mexico City.

Puebla is famous for the Battle of Puebla in 1862, when the Mexican Army was victorious over the French occupying forces. It was considered an unlikely victory. While most Americans may know little about that war, it’s become a popular celebration of sorts North of the border. The victory was on May 5, or as it’s better known: Cinco de Mayo.

Let me begin by saying that I have a great deal of respect for Joe Scarborough as one of the few more sensible, moderate Republican voices out there nowadays.  However, Scarborough and Ed Gillespie's appearance on Meet the Press yesterday demonstrated that the Republican party is either unable or unwilling to step back and take an honest look at the main reason behind its current unpopularity.  Republicans are unwilling to accept that it is precisely their conservatism - their social conservatism - that has caused their demise.  There is no "big tent" any longer when it comes to the GOP.

MR. GREGORY:  But, Joe, it seems like the fundamental question is, what does the party want to be, right?......Ron Brown, seen in his column this week in the National Journal, talks about the party being more monochromatic, more conservative regionally and in terms of the voters.  And he talked to Tom Davis of Virginia who said this, "…Tom Davis of Virginia, who chaired the Republican--the National Republican Congressional Committee, calls Specter's defection a `devastating blow' that will send a `bad signal' of ideological intolerance to the moderate white-collar suburbanites the party must recapture if it is to threaten the Democrats' congressional and Electoral College majorities.  `The dilemma for Republicans is, are we--what are we going to become, a coalition or are we going to be a private club?'"
MR. JOE SCARBOROUGH:  ….So there's always a back and forth.  But the bigger question is, what does the Republican Party need to be? We keep hearing that it's too conservative.  You know, it depends on how you define conservative.
MR. GREGORY:  Right.
MR. SCARBOROUGH:  Over the past decade we've spent too much money, we've spread our armies across the globe, we've, we've changed rules on Wall Street that allows, you know, that allowed bankers to leverage 40-to-1.  That's not conservative, that's radical.  And we have to understand that and be truly conservative.

...............

MR. GREGORY:  [On the Economy] You say independents are with Republicans on this.  Obama advisers say just the opposite, that he's in the high 60s in terms of approval among independents, much more trust for Obama than for Republicans on the economy.  And, and this from the ABC/Washington Post poll:  Who do you trust to do a better job handling the economy?  It's Obama 61 percent, Republicans in Congress 24 percent.
................
MR. GREGORY:  "The Last Best Hope:  Restoring Conservatism and America's Promise." And then look at the headline from The New York Times this week: "GOP Debate:  A Broader Party or a Purer One?" Both of you address this question.  Should it be broader?  Should it be purer?
MR. SCARBOROUGH:  That's a false choice, though.  Ronald Reagan was about as conservative as you can be.  Ronald Reagan said, you know, the government that governs the least governs best.  Thirty years ago you had Margaret Thatcher, 30 years ago this month, coming into power.  Again, Thatcher, a hard-core conservative on economic issues, especially.  We need to be conservative, but like Reagan.

But it was not President Reagan's fiscal policies that earned him two elections and popularity - it was his character.  Mr. Scarborough and most Republicans fail to understand the moment in history that we are living.  Republican, Democrat, Independent voters - who might disagree on fiscal policy, tax policy, etc. - all supported President Obama because he changed the tone of the debate.  They supported him because of what he stands for: empathy, conciliation, unity, progress.   As stated by Simon - the key to unlocking America's 21st century electorate is to understand and embrace how the concept of race is changing in America.  Fear-mongering, highly secterian, anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-Hispanic rhetoric and actions - in the name of "conservatism" - is the reason for the GOP's minority status.  Case in point (also played during Meet the Press):

As demonstrated by the recent polling conducted by ABC/Washington Post and the New York Times, American voters reject these "conservative" values.  Passing comprehensive immigration reform is one way for Democrats to consolidate their majority status by demonstrating to voters that they are problem solvers, and it is also a way for Republicans to begin the long road back to mainstream America.

Meet the Press ended with very fitting footage from an interview with Jack Kemp, who passed away this weekend:

(Videotape, February 9, 1997)
Representative JACK KEMP:  It's the single most important issue facing America at the turn of the century and the new millennium:  racial reconciliation, civility.  An America where you can have a dialogue over affirmative action, for instance, without being accused of being a, a racist on either way, or on either side of that issue.  These are important issues that have to be addressed, and I would like to see an America in which black and white actually listen to each other.  And it can't be solved with rhetoric, it has to be solved with sound, positive, progressive, inclusive policies.  And I want to see the Republican Party lead that debate, because we are the party of Lincoln.  And we must be an inclusionary party that says that by the year 2000, as I tried to say at Harlem one day during the campaign, I'd like to see an America where half of all black Americans are voting Democrat, but the other half are voting Republican.

 

Yesterday we received news that Sheriff Clarence Dupnik in Pima County, AZ is calling for all schools to answer questions that would effectively turn them into immigration police.  Dupnik wants schools to ask their students whether they are in this country legally.  Even though this idea has been rejected by the Arizona and U.S. Supreme court in the past, the fact that it is even being considered is dangerous.  There is much at stake for teachers in stopping Dupnik and any other sheriff who supports similar measures - schools receive funding based on the number of students per school (regardless of their legal status).  Consequently, the number of teachers hired by schools is based on the size of the student body (again, regardless of the students' legal status).  If we begin inquiring about legal status in schools, we can expect to see panic take over families, communities, and kids will stay home.  If these children stop going to school, the most hurt by this will be teachers, as state and federal funding to schools will decrease in proportion to the number of kids who stay home. 

Luckily, not all Arizona border sheriffs support the idea.  Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada said schools "can't afford" to do this.  It is estimated that 60,000-65,000 of the 1.2 million students in Arizona schools are not in the country legally.  This translates to 5.4% of the student population.  If Arizona schools lose 5.4% of the student population, their budget and resources will dimish accordingly, which will make it likely that the schools will also have to sacrifice 5.4% of their teachers.

We will continue to see localities try to grapple with dealing with our broken immigration system until the federal government passes comprehensive immigration reform.