Here are a few of Huntsman’s statements on immigration:

“I believe that young kids when they’re dragged here to the United States have no say over their journey. They have no say over their destiny,” he said at an event at the Salem Chamber of Commerce. “And we either have a two-tiered bifurcated system or we allow, somehow, people to achieve the American dream.”

“I hate the thought of a fence on the border. As an American, the thought of a fence to some extent repulses me, because it is not consistent with the image that we projected to the rest of the world. But the situation is such today that I don’t think we have a choice, and before we begin the conversation of processing 11 or 12 million undocumented workers, we’ve got to secure the border. There’s got to be an alternative rather than sending people back. That’s unrealistic.”

“Yes, they came here in an illegal fashion. And yes, they should be punished in some form or fashion. We can find a solution. If President Reagan were here, he would speak to the American people and he would lay out in hopeful, optimistic terms how we can get there, remembering full well that we’re dealing with human beings here. We have to agree. But let me just say one thing about legal immigration. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that our legal immigration system is broken. And if we want to do something about attracting brain power to this country, we need to focus as much on legal immigration.”

What are your thoughts? Do you think that the remaining GOP candidates will regret having taken more extreme positions on immigration?

2012 could be the actual beginning of the long expected Latino political awakening. Why? Perhaps sheer numbers, the reaction to the dire economic costs the community has endured, the evaporation of Latino family wealth in the housing bubble and great Mortgage scams, high unemployment and under-employment, continuously high drop out rates for high school completion of any ethnic group, the appallingly high prison population, and an alarming obesity and diabetes problem that plagues the community. All of these issues are maddening and worthy of action. Simply stated, the Latino community writ large is in crisis.

This crisis is further exacerbated by the anti-immigrant (now largely anti-Latino) social and political movement emerging throughout the country with such mean-spirited fury in Arizona, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina and many other locales signals a most distressing phenomena. The continued aggressive deportations have helped portray Latinos as a marginalized class of dark, uneducated, criminally menacing and generally undesirable people. Our discouraging lack of unity or even outrage is sadly absent amongst our fellow Hispanics. This general lack of passion suggests that a boiling point has not been reached. Hence, to expect an out-pouring of angry or concerned Latino citizenry at the polls is not in the cards.

This lack of cohesiveness readily explains President Obama’s tepid leadership on Latino issues. At times, the Democrats smack of a craven or pusillanimous approach. For instance, the Congressional Democrats, more specifically those in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, have been reluctant to challenge the President on his record deportations that have separated American born children from their parents and have occasionally caught US citizens in the ICE dragnet. As for the GOP, it manifests irrational derailment (crack up) or plain madness. An example of this is how many Republicans refuse to address the immigration problem humanely, while ratcheting up the heated rhetoric that many Latinos find offensive. Additionally, the Republican approach to Latin American foreign policy is irrational, as evidenced by the recent failure to confirm Ambassador Aponte and the continued linking of Hugo Chavez to Iran. Neither party appears to feel the need to cater or attend to our disturbing issues. It is as if our 50 million + population does not matter and may be satisfied with only a handful of swing states: Florida the biggest prize, which empowers the Cuban Americans out of proportion and the smaller states like New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada give the Hispanics some electoral heft. Overall, the Latino vote in electoral terms is largely viewed as those reduced groups of prosperous or “assimilated” Hispanics.

Leadership is another conundrum. Who and where are the leaders the community sees as following them into a foxhole in the endeavor to improve the general welfare? The current GOP primary debate is at best disquieting. It feels like Latino immigrants are readily tossed together with terrorists, Islamic extremists, drug cartel minions, and folks who are stealing America’s jobs. Being the national scapegoats begins to describe us in these difficult times. Yet, we can publish success stories of our 100 most influential Latinos because they are real. But is this the real pulse of our overall condition? We certainly should extol and applaud our achievements but never forget our less fortunate.

Perhaps 2012 will be the beginning of a more complete discussion of the Latino community. It is indeed merited in the 2012 electoral discourse. However, if one waits for our current national political leadership or presidential pretenders to address the Latino agenda, the betting is it is going to be plainly unsatisfactory. The new year could still bring a dramatic change in the effect Latinos have on the national scene. The most probable scenario for the Latino community is that if they do turn out in historic numbers is: they will be divided….neither party will be able to claim  with certainty that the Latino vote is wholly theirs. If that is the case then Latinos could be up for grabs every national election thus becoming a significant swing vote.

“We cannot be the anti-illegal immigration party. We have to be the pro-legal immigration party. We have to be a party that advocates for a legal immigration system that’s good for Americans, good for America and honors our tradition both as a nation of immigrants and as a nation of law.”

This warning comes as Mitt Romney ramps up his criticism of Rick Perry for having supported in state tuition for undocumented youth in Texas back in 2001. Romney has already come under criticism for his latest ad:

Do you think the current crop of GOP presidential contenders will heed Senator Rubio’s warnings?

Recently, Governor Perry stated this when asked about the Texas DREAM Act, “To punish these young Texans for their parents’ actions is not what America has always been about.” This statement leads one to believe that he may support some version of the federal DREAM Act. Yet as the political discourse on immigration has continued to become more extreme, Perry has toughened his stance on the issue.

The Huffington Post‘s Yolanda Gonzalez Gomez writes:

“As governor of a state in which nearly 38 percent of the population is Latino and where 1.6 million — mostly Latino — undocumented workers reside, Perry has been clear in his opposition to the inclusion of amnesty in the immigration reform proposals voiced by President Obama, and has favored only a limited version of the DREAM Act.

Under Perry’s mandate, Texas has reinforced security along the border with Mexico, adding more agents, and he has argued for the use of the National Guard, military-style special ops and unmanned aircraft outfitted with high-tech cameras to further monitor and control the border region.

This intensified vigilance has not come cheaply. In a report released by his own administration, the government reported having spent over $400 million since 2005 on border security programs.

Perry has also been a vocal supporter of the Texas Department of Public Safety’s program to request valid residency documents from driver’s license applicants who are not U.S. citizens.

At the beginning this year, Perry presented an emergency package of initiatives to the Texas state legislature that included the elimination of so-called ‘sanctuary cities’ in the state, a requirement that voters show photo identification at the polls, and a mandate that local police comply with federal immigration laws.”

Governor Perry’s “get tough” stance on immigration will give some in the Latino community a reason to pause, but this is where President Obama will have a tough time distinguishing himself from whoever becomes the GOP presidential nominee because of his own aggressive deportation record.

Perry will also have to answer questions about his own job creating record, which recent reports have shown to be at the lower end of the wage spectrum. Recent state budget cuts in Texas will also likely impact jobs, as people are laid off.

But Rick Perry is certainly interesting…ok, I’ll admit, he can be funny, and he is going to likely get more traction than Mitt Romney will get with the average conservative and possibly even with Latino conservatives who don’t mind a Jose Cuervo joke every now and again.

By Luis Alvarado

Last Week one of the most respected Latino organization in the US, (NALEO) National Organization of Elected Officials and Appointed Officers held their annual convention in San Antonio Texas.  In 2008, NALEO invited then Presidential Candidate Sen. Barack Obama to speak, and Obama addressed NALEO promising to return and address the members if he became President.  This year President Obama was invited to attend and once again has declined.  Juan Zapata, President of the Education Fund of NALEO said on Univision’s show  “Al Punto con Jorge Ramos” that the first year he did not show was understandable, the second year was also understood and now on the third year his absence is clearly disrespectful.

The media picked up the tensions between NALEO and Obama, and soon there was media frenzy.  I wanted to see how the Spanish-Speaking media were characterizing this riff, so I Google’d “Obama+NALEO” and found over 350 articles under the News tab.  Surprisingly very few Spanish-speaking articles were written on the story.  ImpreMedia, which claims to be the leading Hispanic News and Information Company in the U.S. in Online and Print, did not write on the riff at NALEO, they just talked about the importance of the Latino vote.  Not a peep on the repeated request to address the convention.

As the 2012 election enters into full swing, there is no question that Spanish-speaking media will once again play a large roll in how candidates communicate with the Latino voter, Latinos will be heavily courted and campaigns will spend fortunes to win their vote.  During the 2008 Presidential race, there was a love fest between the media and Obama’s presidential campaign, even more evident with the Spanish-speaking media, which has demonstrated great resistance to calling the President out on his record or lack of participation with the Latino Community.  Hence why I conclude the subject did not receive any ink on any of the ImpreMedia periodicals.

Another motive to understand this behavior is that of economics.  On the last election cycle unions and Democratic candidates spent millions of dollars attacking Republicans and painting them as anti-Latinos, thus enraging Latinos in hopes of punishing Republicans and raising voter turnout.  Feeding a captive audience with the anti-Latino strategy has propelled Democrats to public offices in heavy Latino districts as well as increased profits to Spanish-speaking media corporations.  Introducing an anti-Latino message against Obama dilutes the formula and both Democrats and Spanish-speaking media lose out.  In the end, ImpreMedia‘s silence on the main issues that mater for Latinos to understand and participate in the political process is deafeningly silent, my hope is that Latinos soon learn to use new information media and join mainstream America in how they select their candidates.

What are your thoughts about Ted Cruz? Do you think the raza in Texas will come out to support him?

For those who have avoided a computer for the past few weeks, President Obama’s social media team is gearing up for his 2012 run with his ‘Are You In?’ campaign on Facebook. Essentially, one clicks that they’re “in”, gets bombarded with options to help with the campaign, and it’s off to the races. The only problem is that not everyone is “in.” If anything, Latinos are growing increasingly skeptical of President Obama’s ability to support our community beyond a White House Latin Music Night. As a close friend of mine stated, “I’m NOT in. Obama has my vote, no doubt. But I’m still not sure if he has my money or time. What happened to Immigration Reform? On that note, what the hell happened to the DREAM Act?” His point is valid, and allows us to dispense with the elephant in the room: President Obama has yet to deliver substance on the rhetoric he employed to secure the Latino vote. But more importantly, my friend’s comment embodies the demand that Obama be the “change” president for all disenfranchised groups.

When President Obama was elected, he became more than just the president. Every minority demographic and constituency who supported him felt he was the one to address their issues, and subsequently felt their needs warranted top priority in the Oval Office. Environmentalists saw him as the one to break our dependence on oil, the LGBT community saw him as the first glimmer of hope since Harvey Milk, education advocates felt he would fix NCLB, everyone thought he would end the wars, and the list is endless. I was guilty of this as well, feeling my time and money spent for Obama justified my demand he provide immigration reform, pass the DREAM Act, and end the Cuban embargo. It was incredibly misguided for people to think he would do everything for everyone in those first two years, especially since we didn’t know how eight years under Bubbles the Clown would derail “Change We Can Believe In.”

Simply, no one could have foreseen how the healthcare debate was going to turn into the actual Mayweather-Pacquiao fight, or how the economy was going to put nearly all American policy progress on hold. And of course, no one could have predicted a Republican Party platform of ‘Do absolutely nothing until Obama is out of Office.’ Even as we see a rebounding economy and know we’re much better off under Obama than we would have been under McCain, hardly anyone is happy. The tone of compromise and bi-partisanship looks like weakness, and has caused previous Obama season ticket holders to cancel their subscriptions. They’re still fans, just not willing to pay top dollar for an underperforming product. Indeed, it’s mind boggling to know that the Obama administration botched a prime opportunity to galvanize voters after Arizona kicked off a domino effect that showed the Republican Party’s true feelings towards Latinos. Even if Arizona is an outlier in the greater immigration debate, the reality is we’ve seen the American auto industry and LGBT community get more “change” than we have. Thus, I don’t blame my friend for hesitating to be “in” because Obama’s performance on Latino issues has been subpar at best.

This inaction becomes symbolic because it makes the Latino vote one in which we’ll essentially be choosing between the lesser of two evils. Republicans shouldn’t win the Latino vote by denying access to education for undocumented yet deserving students, and supporting the legalization of racial profiling. However, does that mean a Democrat should win simply because he doesn’t endorse such a platform? Ultimately, Obama wins the Latino vote because the alternative is reminiscent of some of the governments Latinos have fled their home countries from. Therefore, an Obama victory of the Latino vote should not be celebrated by any means, because it just means we will have picked the person who scares us less. If that’s the case, then why be “in”? For me, the answer is simple.

President Obama may not have delivered on what he promised, but he has set the stage to do so. We can’t have comprehensive immigration reform without healthcare reform, which took too long because people don’t have a consensus on healthcare as a right or a privilege. Then there’s the DREAM Act, which should have been passed, but wasn’t because Washington hasn’t found a way to sell it. And by sell it I mean people haven’t gotten the teacher’s unions to buy into it. It doesn’t take a viewing of Waiting for Superman to show us who is calling the shots educationally, meaning our pressure for the DREAM Act needs to start with the unions, not Washington. Combined with the fact President Obama inherited a three ring circus, we just can’t measure his success on two years that were dedicated to avoiding a depression and dealing with a political environment that is starting to mirror the drama of High School. Nor can we measure his success on catering to our needs over those of others, because he unintentionally became the “change” president for all marginalized groups.

Bottom line, we all think President Obama needs to satisfy our agenda now, even though history tells us he won’t. We also know his being reelected doesn’t guarantee that our issues are addressed, especially if Congress stays divided. But what we should also know is that reelection guarantees eight years of work towards a progressive policy agenda that affects all Americans, and will ultimately be shaped by Latinos in the coming decades. To ensure this happens, we need to be “in” and do more than just vote. The alternative of choosing a party comprised of Arizona-supporters, not voting, or casting a vote for independent candidates who will never win leaves too much to chance. Regrettably, what my friend said is probably the norm for a good number of Latino voters. Obama has their vote, but probably won’t have their time, money, or energy like he did the last time. I just hope that changes, because not being “in” is too risky.

Matthew Stieglitz received his BA in Communication from the University of Delaware. He is currently a 2011 Master of Public Administration candidate at Cornell University concentrating in Government, Politics, & Policy Studies. After receiving his MPA, Matthew will attend law school in order to merge his public affairs background with a legal education to most effectively advocate for Latinos.

The Tea Party stems from the following : this so-called conservative resistance is plainly white Americans who borrow from several historical trends like the Boston Tea Party of the 1770s, but perhaps more importantly from the Know-Nothing Movement of the 19th century. But today add to the equation the reality that traditional White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) along with their close cousins the Scots-Irish feel under siege. In the aftermath of the Great Depression and WWII, they began to feel their position erode: ethnic minorities like the Irish Catholics, Italians and the Jewish community secured a firm and effective socio-economic and political status equal to the WASPs. Thus, the Anglo-Saxon narrative began to crumble: the America of Currier and Ives and Saturday Evening Post was increasingly a nostalgia trip.

When JFK won in 1960, the rise of white ethnic Catholics increased. Moreover, the Civil Rights movement in the early 60s unleashed a ‘people of color’ activism: Blacks primarily as well as Latinos, Native Americans and Asians, who sought to gain more recognition and fair treatment. Subsequently, the murders of JFK, RFK and MLK along with the Watergate Scandal and the military fiasco (retreat) in Vietnam profoundly questioned American ‘exceptionalism’. The American traditional power elite was shell shocked. This so-called exceptionalism had been a White Anglo-Saxon rich and a poor Scot-Irish narrative, which depicted these so-called original Americans as stewards of the American experience. For over 175 years, these inheritors of this narrative have extolled the American way of life and suddenly in the late 1950s and through the 60s, they began to grow wary of a central federal government that promoted or protected this perceived erosion of exceptionalism. This included: urban riots, busing, affirmative action, integration, civil rights, feminism, pro-choice, gay rights, environmentalism, rise in crime, anti-war protests, anti-poverty programs, welfare, gun control, immigration and growing narcotics use. These were all demonized and perceived as threats to the American narrative.

One result was the increasing awareness of the diluting of the traditional core WASP position in American society. The feeling among this dominant group was of being challenged by non-American cultural threats like the increased use of the Spanish language and the increasing migration of ‘non-whites’ (Latinos, Asians and Muslims) into the US. The most defining event was the passage of the Public Accommodations portion of the Civil Rights Act under President Lyndon Johnson which was even more disturbing to this first among equals group. President Johnson presciently noted at the time that this legislation created a White stampede out of the Democratic party. The South, the Mid-west and the Mountain states as many of the suburbs of the Northeast and the West Coast became solidly Republican. The GOP was no longer the Episcopalian Church at prayer. Its mild-mannered conservative demeanor was pushed aside by the arrival of poor and middle class southern whites and white ethnics (Reagan Democrats) along with other beleaguered whites. These included the affluent or middle class and poor religious, rural and laboring whites and non-WASPs. Politically they referred to themselves as “Middle America.”

This embattled group of mostly European-Americans are not unlike formerly powerful minorities around the world who have found themselves undone by unsettling demographic realignment and a radicalized, shrinking political base. True, in the short term everything is in their favor. However, in the mid to long term, the numbers and resulting politics spell their decline. See the Africkaners. They fell prey initially to political isolation, followed by marginalization and even repudiation on the world stage.

Additionally, the abortion debate mobilized the Catholic Church as well as the more fundamental religious sects and many of their faithful (mostly former Democrats) now found solace in the GOP. Hence, Civil Rights and abortion were the two defining ‘wedge’ issues that attracted the vast majority of whites into the GOP fold.This new ‘emerging majority’ as the Nixonites labeled them began to promote the GOP as the God-fearing party of traditional ‘winners’ and not the Democratic party of ‘losers’: non-whites, the underdogs, the poor, the gays, the minority poor, the egg-head intellectuals and artists, and unions. Hence, this spawned culture wars which increased class distrust. Moreover, patriotic friction ensued with the GOP hiding behind American soldiers, defending the second amendment and attacking the ‘un-American’ position of these ‘new threats’ to traditional America. And the Democrats almost disoriented rallied around (or hid behind) the poor, feminists, victimized groups, unions, gays, environmentalists, entertainment industry, anti-war protesters, and other aggrieved minorities.

Eventually, political reality caught up with both parties. The GOP’s automatic support of virtually any military expenditure or war created enormous cost. This cost has been mostly ignored by the cowed Democrats. At the same time, the GOP clamored continuously for reducing the tax burden and deregulating the economy while the Democrats readily supported a vast array of costly social programs and set asides. Additionally, the response to the 9/11 terrorist act increased massive federal spending as did the grotesquely expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. With a deregulated (predatory) financial sector came the economic bust in 2008 on top of an already ailing economy. This became the Great Recession of 2008 with increasingly widespread unemployment. The balanced budget of the Clinton years was no longer an economic virtue. The US economy no longer ‘unfolded’. It unraveled. The spending spree continues by both political parties, but it seems to have slowed down. The challenge is that discretionary spending is virtually non-existent in the budget. Everything seems to be recurring or fixed entitlement programs. Hence, the Tea Party phenomenon appeared within the GOP in 2010.

At first glance, the Tea Party is a relatively disorganized movement, but it is plainly spurred on by the horrific deficit spending, the debt growth, and the direction of the GOP: fiscally in disarray. It also seeks to neutralize the Democrats. Upon closer examination, it consists mostly of the white traditional nostalgic inheritors of the American narrative who seek to thwart the central (federal) government from empowering those ‘unnecessary’ recipients and threats. Thus, their grand design or scheme is to eliminate the funding for this ‘monstrous’ government apparatus. Hence, in short, one can readily detect the panic among the deteriorating traditional class of ‘first real’ Americans and their determination to make suspects of all perceived threatening groups (ie. non-whites) and defend the local government structure which preserves the American narrative. Borrowing its name from an American revolutionary event protesting Britain’s unfair taxation, the Tea Partiers’ tactics often resemble the ‘Know-nothings‘ from yester-year. They now appear to be creating serious dissension within the traditional GOP coalition. Security Republicans fear cuts in the defense establishment. Social conservatives want more religious values reflected in government and legislation. The Tea Party members at first glance may come across as fiscal Republicans, but there lurks a threatening anarchic element among the activists. ‘Shut the government down if necessary: who needs it?’ seems to be their motto. They do not seem to be concerned with the Latino or the poor people’s plight in economic terms nor do they seek a solution or comprehensive reform of immigration. In fact, if a serious consideration of immigration reform does emerge, the enormous cost involved in processing 12 million undocumented will certainly antagonize and re-energize the Tea Party. As the 2012 Presidential elections draw closer, these social, fiscal and security conservatives will coalesce but be pulled and tugged in different directions. Not any current GOP hopeful is able to bring them together cohesively. But then again, as always, the whole national economic, security and social discussion in general US elections revolve around capturing or winning this white nostalgic Middle America vote. Many observers might be tempted to say that this formerly governing class of whites find itself in a political death throe. Close examination of this group’s electoral behavior and the political appeals to them reveal that these so-called Tea Partiers together with the regular white coalition are the real swing vote in the US…..not African-Americans and certainly not Latinos…for now!

Congresswoman Herrera Beutler also does do this weird furrowing of her brows when talking about spending. I guess that’s for dramatic effect. One thing to note, she talks a lot about small business and the private sector, but according to her Wikipedia page, it looks like she has pretty much been a government employee throughout her career:

US-Mexico relations have clearly had a rough time in 2010. Mexico’s seeming inability to deal with the increased violence south of the border plus the disruptive and unfortunate so-called Wikileaks has made many policy-makers pause on both sides of the border.

These Wikileaks have become a serious diplomatic embarrassment to the US world-wide. But in the case of Mexico they may have created even greater tensions given the timing. Official and personal assessments in diplomatic reporting are never meant for public disclosure. Yet everyone knows that diplomats carry out their duty by reporting situations as they see them. Hence, awkward situations are created when revelations of this reporting plainly embarrass both the US and Mexico.  But the underlying problem is that relations are managed by both sides in an equally clumsy if not maladroit manner.

The Mexicans rely primarily on their nationalistic Foreign Ministry (SRE). This limits other actors or constituencies from having a more substantial role. Whereas on the US side even though Mexico is a NAFTA country, the bi-lateral relationship is still managed like the rest of Latin America: too often as an afterthought. European policy in Washington is guided by the historical gravity of the Trans-Atlantic ties and their constituencies (DoD, Treasury, the banks, the Council on Foreign Relations, academia et al). Middle East policy is primarily driven by the pro-Israeli lobby and the energy sector. Africa policy is largely formulated with plenty of NGOs and the Black Congressional Caucus input. Asia policy is guided by the US Navy (DoD), Treasury, Walmart, the banks, the high tech economy and the trade sector.  Whereas, US Latin American policy, by and large a constituency orphan (except for the glandular Calle Ocho crowd and the equally emotional anti-narcotics and anti-immigrant groups) is in the virtual hands of the State Department bureaucracy. It does not attract the influential and powerful top-cover of the other regions’ constituencies. Hence, without daily guidance from on top (the White House, Wall Street, the energy sector or powerful ethnic lobbies) the State Department bureaucratic mattress mice policy-handlers are cautious, timid, risk averse, invariably resort to lecturing the Latins on the virtues of America, insensitively imparting adult supervision and placing careers first over policy (hence more responsive to the GOP members of Congress because they do threaten careers unlike the Democrats). Therefore , the WikiLeaks stories have become a real validation of Mexican (Latin) suspicions of the US lack of serious purpose or attention and only episodically engaged. Consistent and serious policy treatment by the US will only come about when the Latin Americans begin to cultivate domestic heavy hitters in the US to become their constituents or supporters. The Mexican-American community and Latinos in general are notably missing in action in any foreign policy formulation. As for the Latin Americans and especially the Mexicans, the lesson to be learned is that only weak powers largely depend on the foreign ministry of a great power for problem resolution. It is difficult to foresee how the out years will significantly improve.