Obama and his fellow Democrats appear to lack the political bravery to take strong leadership on immigration reform. This suggests they have lost whatever courage they may have possessed early on. It increasingly indicates that the President is listening to his top political advisors who have convinced him like Rove did to President Bush that CIR is ‘lose lose’ proposition. They read the polls and know how to count. California for instance has 42 percent white population, but this group represents 70 percent of voter registration within the state. Then combine this reality with the deep divisions among the Hispanic community plus general Latino voter apathy. Further exacerbating this situation are the potential high negative feelings toward immigrants held by some in the Black and Asian communities. All this may be telling Mr. Obama to turn tail on CIR or anything related to immigration reform that could result in positive action for illegal aliens. Moreover, the current Administration is militarizing the US-Mexico border while faintly apologizing over the recent shooting of a Mexican teen by the Border Patrol. In sum, there is no penalty for not doing anything to resolve or achieve some progress on the current immigration tangle. Enforcement or clamping down on the presence and flow of the undocumented into the country seems to be the preferred way forward. However, a severe penalty lies electorally should any constructive attempt be made to help alleviate the current impasse to do the right thing.

On top of it all, the Latino national leadership is AWOL as usual. One big problem appears to be that our narrative lacks passion. With passion, one moves mountains and captures the imagination of the majority. It seems the Latino narrative plainly may not evoke deep feelings like slavery did or the drama of the Cubans fleeing communism or the high seas trek of many immigrants over the last two centuries. Jumping fences, digging tunnels under the border, hiding under the car’s floorboards, and fording river puddles are not captivating. Chases across the desert are equally uninspiring as opposed to the high drama of immigrants arriving at Ellis Island, NY. Add this to the unjust perception that Latino immigrants are a motley lot seeking hand outs. When the vast majority of immigrants came to America before mid 20th century, the US had not established a social safety net to provide those in need. An exception was made for Cuban exiles because their narrative coincided with the height of the Cold War. Hence, their flight from Communism was readily embraced. Now with a social safety net (medicaid, food stamps, etc.) available the dominant white majority in this recent economic downturn has grown mean-spirited and appears to fear these immigrant ‘hordes of mendicants’ who will feast on their largess. Hence, the Latino narrative becomes even more unappealing. Latinos are viewed like the Native Americans who were colonized and occupied by Anglo-Americans simply putting a stake in the land and proclaiming it was no longer Native American property. Likewise the Alamo and Gold Rush served to conquer the Spanish-speaking people of the Southwest. This may explain why Latino narrative does not fit into the traditional American immigrant saga. Distressingly, high hopes for a practical, timely and humane resolution seem to evaporate as time passes. Then again, the Washington approach may be to get out from under the problem (encontrar una salida) and not to resolve it.

Prakash Khatri, an attorney and the former Citizenship and Immigration Ombudsman in the Department of Homeland Security in the previous administration, recently sent out a press release explaining that Mexican immigrant visa applicants would have to wait 131 years ‘in line’ to immigrate to the United States. And this hypothetical scenario is one in which the visa applicant has a US citizen relative sponsoring him or her. Should the relative pass away during this time, the applicant’s place in line becomes void and he has to start again. In what imaginary world do people live to be 131 years?

In essence, current policy encourages illegal immigration because ‘who is willing to wait in line for two lifetimes?’, especially when families are broken up because of immigration status. The upshot is that Khatri suggests that any immigration reform make family reunification a goal especially with regards to US families with relatives in Mexico. The current arrangement is unjust and unworkable. And furthermore, nationality based immigration quotas should be eliminated. Because of the existing quota system, immediate relatives of US citizens from other countries are able to legally immigrate to the US in about ten years, while people from Mexico with US citizen relatives have to wait two lifetimes.

For a politician to talk about this proverbial line without breaking down the reality of what it means to immigrants and their American family members is disingenuous in my view. But this ‘line’ is tossed around to the public, making it sound so easy to follow the current immigration policies. Just this week at the 5 de Mayo festivity at the White House, President Obama referred to ‘the line’, and we have heard California GOP candidate for governor, Meg Whitman, also mention ‘the line’ as well. It’s time for someone to have an honest discussion about what this ‘line’ means without being so flippant in mentioning it to the public.

In the past few days on the Republican side, we have heard Steve Poizner, currently California’s Insurance Commissioner, who is fighting a heated battle with billionaire Meg Whitman telling us, “I’m going to be the truth-teller in this campaign. As governor, I’m going to stop illegal immigration once and for all.” Uh, I hate to break it to you Mr. Poizner, but unless you are going to address global inequity, you probably aren’t going to stop illegal immigration ‘once and for all.’

Just today in the GOP Governor’s debate, Steve Poizner said this, “We have to stop illegal immigration,” he said. “The only way to do it is to turn the magnets off, by ending, once and for all, all the taxpayer-funded benefits for people who are here illegally. Meg doesn’t want to go that far; I support Prop. 187; she opposes it.” Well, just to revisit history for a minute, Proposition 187 was ruled unconstitutional. And most immigrants, illegal or otherwise, come here to work. The big incentive is a job whether it is in the legitimate or underground economy. Taxpayer benefits are more of a tangential benefit. Yes, in a more perfect world, we would not have any undocumented people, but in my view, it is absolutely inhumane to deny an undocumented child basic health care or an undocumented field worker basic emergency care should he or she need it. It is no wonder that Steve Poizner is polling far behind and isn’t making gains in the Latino community.

For me, the irony about Steve Poizner’s “tough talk” on immigration is that he has acquired as a press advisor, Bettina Inclan, formerly of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly, who has previously addressed how GOP candidates can avoid “putting off” Hispanics. Unfortunately, I don’t think that Mr. Poizner has digested or taken to heart Ms. Inclan’s reasonable advice. I did notice that there is a Twitter account, @Latinos4Poizner, and nothing has been tweeted. My suspicion is that there isn’t much Latino excitement for Steve Poizner, and he has pretty much blown any chance of generating it.

However, the immigration rhetoric doesn’t improve much with Meg Whitman, but she isn’t perceived to be as harsh when it comes to undocumented children. In the GOP Governor’s debate, she stated that she’s “100 percent against amnesty, no exceptions.” And she also said the following about the border, “We haven’t done what we need to do to secure this border.” Ok fine, but explain to me exactly how we are going to conduct the mass deportations without incurring massive costs. Has Ms. Whitman read this cost benefit analysis about deportations?

I think that Meg Whitman comes across slightly more humane and realistic on immigration than her GOP opponent does when she indicated that she did not want to hold undocumented children accountable for “the sins of their fathers” and that she was not in favor of policies to penalize them. Does this mean that Ms. Whitman could be persuaded to support the DREAM Act or some other effort to legalize the children? Possibly, but I’m not holding my breath.

And finally on the Democratic side, Jerry Brown is telling us that he opposes ‘sanctuary cities’ and driver’s licenses for the undocumented, which are indicative of more centrist views on immigration for someone who is often painted a ‘liberal.’ However, I can see the logic it not wanting to give anyone more driver’s licenses, as many feel that driving is plainly a privilege. The term “sanctuary city” doesn’t have a legal meaning, but it is interpreted as “cities that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws.” With all that cities have to contend with in these lean times, I believe that immigration enforcement should be left to the federal government. We have all seen what happens when it tries to go local, like in Maricopa County, Arizona, and it isn’t pretty.

So what are you thoughts on the immigration rhetoric in the California governor’s race? Are these immigration rants cheap and easy shots or have these candidates offered some concrete solutions to address the immigration issue? Tell us what you think and which candidate you think the Latino community will end up supporting.

Politicians on both the left and the right have been guilty of this kind of spending. We have seen this in California with former assembly speaker Fabian Nuñez spending campaign cash on French wine and Louis Vuitton. This kind of expending should not be excused, and I think that Latino politicians have to be extra careful in not appearing to be “on the take.” And Rubio should be especially careful, as he has been running on the “fiscal conservative” platform and lists “spending” as the first issue on his website (under the “issues” tab). There is also this idea that Miami, where Rubio is from, is a place known for fraud, just google “fraud and Miami” to get an idea. So Rubio and his people should have definitely been on top of any spending that might look questionable in the eyes of the public.

The Democrats in Florida have already jumped on this Rubio “spending spree” with this short ad:

In concluding, I should note that Marco Rubio has agreed to pay back some of the charges to the state GOP, namely some airfare charges that he says were a “mistake.” But what are your thoughts? Should the public forgive and forget or should we be angered that our politicians think that they can get away with these expenditures, especially at the expense of one’s political party or campaign? If you donate to a party or political campaign, how do you expect those dollars to be used?

I think that the Democrats took it for granted that Senator Kennedy was holding this seat warm for them from his grave for the past four months and made a serious miscalculation. Furthermore, the Democratic candidate Martha Coakley left a lot to be desired as a campaigner. She seemed to have an “entitlement mentality” that this seat would just magically become hers after she had won the primary. Nobody likes an “entitlement” mentality. Jerome Karabel, in a piece for the Huffington Post, listed 4 big Coakley offenses:

“1. exuded overconfidence and more than a whiff of entitlement from the moment she won the Democratic primary of December

2. went on a vacation after the primary while her opponent was criss-crossing the state in a pick-up truck

3. did not appear in public a single time during the entire period between December 23 and December 30

4. when asked by a Boston Globe reporter about suggestions that she was being too passive, Coakley bristled, saying “As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?” in an apparent reference to an online video of Scott Brown doing just that.”

Contrast the Coakley approach with Kennedy style campaigning, which is highly energetic and full of meet and greets and other appearances. Coakley had the perfect model for how to engage with the public in the man whose term she sought to finish, but she did not rise to the occasion.

The loss of this seat does represent a warning for Democrats and to a certain extent for Latinos who hinged their hopes on health care and immigration reform. Pretty much everyone can agree that Senator Kennedy was a big advocate for both of those issues, and now that he’s gone and Scott Brown is in his place, we have an opportunity to forge a new relationship and/or re-group. So far Scott Brown has indicated the following from his campaign website regarding immigration and health care:

“I recognize that our strength as a nation is built on the immigrant experience in America. I welcome legal immigration to this country. However, we are also a nation of laws and government should not adopt policies that encourage illegal immigration. Providing driver’s licenses and in-state tuition to illegal immigrant families will act as a magnet in drawing more people here in violation of the law and it will impose new costs on taxpayers. I oppose amnesty, and I believe we ought to strengthen our border enforcement and institute an employment verification system with penalties for companies that hire illegal immigrants.”

“I believe that all Americans deserve health care coverage, but I am opposed to the health care legislation that is under consideration in Congress and will vote against it. It will raise taxes, increase government spending and lower the quality of care, especially for elders on Medicare. I support strengthening the existing private market system with policies that will drive down costs and make it easier for people to purchase affordable insurance. In Massachusetts, I support the 2006 healthcare law that was successful in expanding coverage, but I also recognize that the state must now turn its attention to controlling costs.”

As for immigration, it doesn’t sound like Brown will even be supportive of the DREAM Act, which is something that many people hoped we would see for undocumented youth. He basically espouses the tough on immigration line without considering the relative benefit to the economy that immigrants have been proven to bring.

And on health care, it appears that Brown is for “more of the same” without articulating which private market policies will help bring down costs. I’m among the many who have been absolutely shocked that health care costs have risen as they have, while the options and services have been cut or whittled away in recent years. I have also noticed pharmaceutical companies increase their profits, merge, and advertise incessantly on TV. A recent poll shows that Latinos have expressed “massive support” for health care reform.

Given the relationship that our community had with Senator Kennedy, I think that it will be more difficult to warm up to Scott Brown, but it certainly is worth continuing to lobby him on the issues we care about.

Worth noting, Angelo Falcon wrote a piece, Latinos and the Political Earthquake in Massachusetts, for New America Media this week. I would recommend reading it, especially the last paragraph, where he asks some rhetorical questions. Frankly, I think that Latinos everywhere are going to have to be more politically engaged and tuned into the issues so that we can leverage beyond the two party system as Falcon questions. Additionally, we are going to have to try to bring those who don’t care about elections or what happens in places like Massachusetts into the fold and explain to them why these special elections matter.

I have perused through the Gutierrez immigration reform bill (CIR ASAP), and some of my initial observations are as follows:

* The bill repeals the 287(g) program and asserts that enforcement of federal immigration law lies with the federal government. The elimination of this program would get rid of the Sheriff Joe Arpaio problem that we have in Arizona along with other immigration profiling incidents.

* There is an earned legalization program for the undocumented, whereby they will have to jump through a series of hoops, pay a $500 fine and application fees, and comply with background checks to qualify for conditional status. This will clearly help bring people out of the shadows.

* There isn’t a temporary worker program, which is something that business owners and many Republicans would like to see.

* The bill does incorporate detention reform and requires better medical treatment and care for immigrants in the detention system.

* The bill prohibits the separation of families, which is an issue that many currently face with children being separated from their parents.

Seneca has also chimed in with some foreshadowing of what we might expect with CIR in the next year:

In many circles we are dealing with getting ‘law breakers’ an amnesty hence you reach for a weapon (more law enforcement) to show cojones (the first portion of the bill is heavy on enforcement). The whole thing will become sheer posturing under the current political environment. The fact is real likely voters are not automatically sympathetic to allowing all these poor foreigners in with a free ride to citizenship. Sad!

I would bet that the majority of whites, blacks, Jews, Asians, Cubans, Puerto Ricans and even divided Mexicans do not favor granting wholesale amnesty or some other status that jumps the undocumented to the front of the line. Even the TPS (Temporary Protected Status) for hundreds of thousands of primarily Central Americans is going on ten years next year. The question being raised is: does ten years kick in some proviso that enables these TPS holders to apply for automatic permanent residence? Therefore, even a firebrand liberal like Rep. Gutierrez has to appear like a sheriff. And Obama is not going to get out in front of this issue, but to only to say that it is time for reform, while giving a nice speech, and then tossing the issue back to Congress.

Immigration in a tough congressional election cycle where the Democrats will lose in significant numbers, ‘immigration’ as a standard bearer issue is like adopting a ‘crucifix in front of Dracula’: the body politic will recoil. Obama and our Hispanic members of Congress can be expected probably to show scant political bravery on this topic. It begs to be addressed but the political climate, the stars lining up: the economy (joblessness), the war, the gigantic and deepening debt crisis, and lastly the health care debate will take its toll. The only thing that will energize this coming discussion might be if the mad rabid nationalist Right Wing deems it necessary to add a racist element to the debate. And consequently if all Hispanics and Latinos detect the rising sentiment of anti-Latino/Hispanic, then the sleeping giant will be aroused and prepare for battle. It will become most polarizing. The Dems will see meltdown (or turn-tail) within their party, and the GOP will seek not to fly completely out of control or become plainly unhinged. The pro-immigration reform stalwarts will have to craft a thoughtful, thorough, reasonable strategy that does not just offer a political way out (salida) but a real solution.

A few weeks ago, the Chronicle described the Maldonado pick as follows:

After naming Maldonado on the show, Schwarzenegger said, “He’s a terrific, loyal man that has worked very hard in public service. But he’s also into bipartisanship and post-partisanship, so he can cross the aisle. He makes decisions based on what’s best for the people rather than what’s best for the party.”

Maldonado, a 42-year-old moderate Republican whose family emigrated from Mexico, has provided crucial votes on major legislation this year, including the water overhaul package approved last month and tax increases that were part of the February budget plan.

But apparently, a moderate GOPer isn’t good enough for the more conservative elements of the Republican Party. And the Democrats aren’t too pleased either, as they are conflicted about opposing his appointment, especially because Maldonado is a Latino and they too could face backlash in not supporting him. I am of the opinion that the Democrats should not hold up the Maldonado confirmation. He is bi-partisan, and the California Lieutenant Governor position is basically ceremonial. As for the California GOP, if they want to continue to bicker because Maldonado isn’t conservative enough, well, they can continue on the path of the politics of obstruction. And those Latinos who lean red should note this.

This spoof has created a little partisan bickering:

Here’s what Joanna Burgos, NRCC’s western press secretary, had to say about their little spoof:

“If Gretzky could talk, he’d tell the NRCC to lay off the catnip! In
fact, while the NRCC was busy using Photoshop, Congresswoman Sanchez was preparing to make a donation to deserving Orange County non-profits that are helping the needy this holiday season.”

I will predict that when Loretta Sanchez leaves this earth that she will be remembered more for her holiday cards and other attention seeking activities than for any sort of real charity or activism. And unfortunately, it doesn’t have to be this way. She could really ramp it up in Congress and put her name on some meaningful pieces of legislation.

However, one key issue that Meg Whitman conveniently leaves out is her relationship with former California governor Pete Wilson, who serves as her Campaign Chairman. Yes, Pete Wilson, the guy who publicly supported Proposition 187, which prohibited the undocumented from utilizing social services, health care, and education. Proposition 187 was eventually overturned in federal court, but Pete Wilson continued to defend the measure.

I believe that Proposition 187 helped tip off some of the anti-immigration hysteria that we are still confronting today. Instead of offering a way to regularize undocumented immigrants, who provide so much of the low wage labor that fuels California’s economy, Whitman’s Campaign Chairman Pete Wilson wanted to make sure that they stayed disenfranchised.

My thought is that Meg Whitman would be more genuine in her Latino outreach if she told us why she has chosen to feature Pete Wilson so prominently in her campaign. Is this the kind of change we have to look forward to in the Golden State?

Photo Credit: CHERYL A. GUERRERO Associated Press, Former California Governor Pete Wilson & Meg Whitman at her formal announcement for 2010 governor’s race, September 22, 2009.

Well, now Rev. Rodriguez is back in the news, this time he’s working with right wing Christian groups to infiltrate the Democratic Party, and he’s also being called the “Hispanic Karl Rove.” I find Rev. Rodriguez’s fire and brimestone rhetoric to be offensive at best, but I also see his workings into the Democratic Party being symptomatic of the GOP’s continued shunning of the Latino community. He sounds like a television evangelist ready to fall on the floor and start speaking tongues. Listen to how he manage to offend gays, Muslims, Oprah Winfrey watching Christians in this clip:

Now I am not completely against coalition building with progressives and Christians, but this screaming and stomping about gays and Muslims is not a good way to go about achieving that end. This kind of rhetoric is yet another reason why I firmly believe in the separation of church and state. I don’t think our community needs a “Hispanic Karl Rove” in the likeness of Rev. Samuel Rodriguez. I still think that education and more civic engagement, while learning multiple sides of issues, will serve our community better in the long run. What do you think?