Today marks the completion of the second week of the DREAM Now series. I am sorry I was not able to get a letter out on Wednesday.  Too much travel and not enough sleep led me to come down with a soar throat and a fever on Tuesday.  Thankfully, I’m starting to recover, today.  If you’re not getting enough of your DREAM Now fix I recommend reading Matias Ramos’ post on why he stood up during Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) speech at Netroots Nation.

Thanks in part to the supporters of the DREAM Now Series,  Reid is now on board with pushing DREAM Act this year.  Most of the credit for turning Reid, of course, should go to courageous undocumented youth activists for their civil disobedience in Reid’s office and making their presence known during his appearance at Netroots Nation.  While Reid still needs to be pushed, most of our efforts to get the DREAM Act enacted, this year, should now shift towards securing the last few mostly Republican Senate votes we need.  The National Council of La Raza has a list of Senators who have not yet publicly committed to voting for the DREAM Act.  If your Senator is on that list, you better start getting to work.

Before all of our efforts move towards securing mostly Republican votes for the DREAM Act in the Senate, however, there is one last set of important supposed “allies” that have yet to voice their support for passing the DREAM Act this year and, according to Congressional leadership, are actually obstructing it from happening: the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC).

Those of us in the migrant youth movement have long known that the CHC has been a barrier to passing the DREAM Act on its own.  The supposed defenders of migrant rights in Congress can, in fact, be an enemy of migrant youth.  This uncomfortable fact was spotlighted for the entire progressive blogosphere to see during Nancy Pelosi’s remarks on the DREAM Act to Netroots Nation:

You mentioned the DREAM Act…There is a difference of opinion about how we go forward on that.  In our House we are committed to comprehensive immigration reform.  Our Congressional Hispanic Caucus doesn’t want us taking one piece, you know, taking a piece that might be appealing and leaving the undocumented behind.

So we–our principles are secure our border, enforce our laws, protect our workers, don’t exploit workers coming in, but have a path to legalization for those who are here, not fully documented.  And if we take off some of the rosier pieces of it, the thought is that it would diminish the prospect for comprehensive immigration reform.

Others have a different view, “let’s just run with it if we can get it passed.”  That’s a debate we have.  But our Hispanic Caucus is of the comp–[rehensive view?]–and I support that…That’s why we haven’t, while we’re all co-sponsors and all support the DREAM Act don’t want it to diminish our prospects for dealing with the undocumenteds in our country.

Nancy Pelosi – Netroots Nation (24 July 2010)

Every time someone says the whole thing cannot pass, only part of it, it weakens us, it divides us, it confuses us, it scatters us all over the place. we once had a united movement for comprehensive immigration reform, now we don’t have a united movement, and that is causing, that is detrimental to the movement for all of us.

Luis Gutierrez – The DREAM Is Coming (20 July 2010)

There is a lot to dissect here but the most important points are the following.

First of all, to force another generation of unauthorized migrant youth to give up their lives for the broader movement is exploitation, pure and simple.  This is especially true when undocumented youth themselves and many of their undocumented family members are against it.  Politicians using undocumented youth as the engines for comprehensive immigration reform are no better than the exploitative employers of undocumented workers.

Second, not only is it exploitative to make this argument, but it is strategically wrong.  Getting the DREAM Act passed this year will not weaken the fight for immigration reform, it will strengthen it.  No one questions the fact that undocumented youth are the strongest and most sympathetic leaders of the migrant rights movement.  Why not allow them to earn legal status so that they can fight even harder for their family members and communities?  I know I’m not leaving this fight after the DREAM Act is passed and I can say that for just about everyone that I know whom I consider a leader of the undocumented youth movement.

Finally, and this is a point that no one else talks about, everyday that we wait to pass the DREAM Act is another day where potential migrant youth leaders are being deported, lost to “attrition”, or even to death or suicide.  Anyone who stands in the way of some sort of relief from this violence, now, is not an ally, but an enemy.

Within those three simple truths there is a lot of complexity, part of which I will try to address here.

First, I will address Luis Gutierrez, specifically, since I quoted him as being representative of the CHC, and on immigration, for the most, part he is.  While I believe the CHC can be an enemy of migrant youth, as a whole, I don’t yet consider Luis Gutierrez, personally, an enemy of migrant youth.  I say this because there is no politician currently in U.S. Congress that has done more to advance the cause of migrant rights.  When he introduced CIRASAP he also co-sponsored the DREAM Act, a major nod to the migrant youth movement which I was appreciative of.  After some pressure, he also ended up doing the right thing by saying he’ll inclue LGBT families in CIR.  Many undocumented youth leaders also identify as queer.

Because of these extremely important steps, I’m willing to give Gutierrez some leeway, but I have to say that he was wrong in trying to talk down undocumented youth in the middle of a historic action.  His implication that undocumented youth are dividing the movement is also wrong.  Mohammad Abdollahi said it best:

Congressman Gutierrez, my name is Mohammad, I was one of the youth that was in the sit-in in Senator McCain’s office, on May 17 in AZ, as a result I have been placed in deportation proceedings so for you to sit here and talk to these 5, 6 youth that are sitting in this office, and to put them down, and to constantly tell them instead of supporting them, is a shame. You need to stand up for this community, this is going to continue to happen, and you need to be their ally.

Mohammad Abdollahi – The DREAM is Coming (20 July 2010)

Just because I am willing to give Gutierrez some leeway, however, does not mean that the rest of the CHC is off the hook.  This is especially true of Nydia Velasquez, the current chairwoman of the CHC who has refused to co-sponsor the DREAM Act.  It is absolutely ridiculous that the migrant youth movement has had to expend energy over this past year and a half trying to get CHC members to co-sponsor the DREAM Act when that energy could have been much better spent elsewhere.

I would like the CHC, as a whole, to come out with a statement in support of moving the DREAM Act on it’s own this year, but with all the egos involved, I doubt that is going to happen.  What we can do, as migrant advocates, though, is make very clear that the CHC does not stand for us when it comes to this issue.  Contrary to Gutierrez’s and Pelosi’s statements, much of the migrant rights movement has already united around pushing the DREAM Act this year.

While asking for a statement from the CHC as a whole might not be the best use of our energy in the short window we have to push the DREAM Act, I do not think it is too much to ask for the chairwoman of the CHC, Nydia Velasquez, to co-sponsor the DREAM Act.  Many CHC members who were previously slow to do so like Joe Baca, Loretta Sanchez and Henry Cuellar, are now co-sponsors of the DREAM Act.  If Nydia Velasquez were to do the same, it would be a huge signal to the migrant youth movement and the public at large that the CHC is ready to allow for the DREAM Act to move on it’s own.

If you haven’t signed the petition, yet, ask Nydia Velasquez to co-sponsor the DREAM Act.

UPDATE: While writing this I asked for a statement from Gutierrez’s office and received the following

From Gutierrez:

It is the whole immigration system that needs fixing, so I will keep fighting for the ten things that need to happen to fix it because I think they fit together and solve things in a holistic manner.  If the Senate or the Speaker tells me we can only get one, I will fight hard for that one thing, but continue to ask for ten because that is what is needed.

Luis Gutierrez (30 July 2010)

From Douglas Rivlin, Press Secretary to Gutierrez (D-IL-04):

The way the Speaker’s remarks were interpreted — that Members of the CHC don’t want DREAM to pass because it would take away power from CIR in the future — doesn’t ring true. I don’t think I have met anyone on the Hill or in the CHC that thinks passing a clean DREAM Act this year hurts CIR significantly.  Maybe a few worry that after any victory, the Democrats will say to the rest of the immigrant community, “okay, come back for more in about 5-10 years.” But that is not a huge concern.

Winning DREAM would not significantly diminish the chances of winning CIR in the future or necessarily help them either.  Losing a vote for the DREAM Act is a different matter.  Losing a vote by a big margin would hurt CIR, especially if Democrats defect, and only a narrow loss in, say, the Senate, would cause no harm and may even help.

Douglas Rivlin (30 July 2010)

This statement from Rivlin is extremely important because it directly contradicts what Nancy Pelosi said at Netroots Nation.  As Rivlin said, passing the DREAM Act will not hurt our chances at passing CIR.  I disagree with Rivlin on other counts, such as the fact that passing the DREAM Act would not help immigration reform in the future, but the statement is still helpful.

It would be even more helpful if the CHC as a whole were to come out with a statement saying that they wouldn’t oppose passing the DREAM Act on it’s own this year.  That way we’re not playing games with politicians intent on passing the blame to one another.  Still, this statement is a good start.

The “DREAM Now” letter series is inspired by a similar campaign started by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network for the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  Every Monday and Wednesday DREAM-eligible youth will publish letters to the President, and each Friday there will be a DREAM wrap-up.  If you’re interested in getting involved or posting these stories on your site, please email Kyle de Beausset at kyle at citizenorange dot com.

Approximately 65,000 undocumented youth graduate from U.S. high schools every year, who could benefit from passage of the DREAM Act.  Many undocumented youth are brought to the United States before they can even remember much else, and some don’t even realize their undocumented status until they have to get a driver’s license, want to join the military, or apply to college.  DREAM Act youth are American in every sense of the word — except on paper.  It’s been nearly a decade since the DREAM Act was first introduced.  If Congress does not act now, another generation of promising young graduates will be relegated to the shadows and blocked from giving back fully to our great nation.

This is what you can do right now to pass the DREAM Act:

1. Sign the DREAM Act Petition
2. Join the DREAM Act Facebook Cause
3. Send a fax in support of the DREAM Act
4. Call your Senator and ask them to pass the DREAM Act now.
5. Email kyle at citizenorange dot com to get more involved

Below is a list of previous entries in the DREAM Now Series:

Mohammad Abdollahi (19 July 2010)
Yahaira Carrillo (21 July 2010)
Weekly Recap – Tell Harry Reid You Want the DREAM Act Now (23 July 2010)
Wendy (26 July 2010)
Matias Ramos (28 July 2010)

This particular piece is worth noting because it gets to the essence of the corruption issues in LA County’s Southeast cities and also explains a bit why I think some of these cities with large Latino (and within that immigrant) populations find themselves with leadership like this:

“”They’ve awakened a sleeping giant,” Denisse Rodarte, a lifelong Bell resident and one of the organizers of the rally, told me in her home a short distance from City Hall.

But why was the giant asleep in the first place, and unaware of the plundering?

Corruption is everywhere in California and beyond, from civic centers to Wall Street. But there’s a particular strain of brazen malfeasance in south and southeast L.A. County, with a shameful history of headlines emanating from Maywood and South Gate and Compton and Carson, to name a few. Whether you’re talking to residents or think-tank types, you hear some common themes.

Those cities have largely poor, immigrant populations that are too busy working to pay close attention to City Hall, which means they can be easily exploited. Voter turnout is low, in part because many residents are undocumented and even many legal immigrants aren’t yet qualified to vote. And there’s not much media presence because of cutbacks by everyone in the industry, including The Times, so the rascals are left to steal with impunity.

“It’s a very predatory type of mentality,” said Cristina Garcia, a Bell Gardens resident who is an adjunct professor at USC.”

I think Lopez could even take it a step further and say that the civic culture in these cities has to change. Now that the citizens are more aware of what is happening, they are in a position to do that. But it will take education, savvy, and dedication.

We have heard “sleeping giant” analogies in Latino politics for years, with every election cycle there is some pundit telling us that the “sleeping giant” will awaken. People were saying this after the 2008 Presidential elections, in which Latinos were credited with giving Obama the edge in certain swing states. Lopez is correct that the population in municipalities like Bell is exploitable because of its immigration and social status. Until we can effectively mobilize those of us who are citizens and eligible to vote and then continue to stay politically engaged beyond simply voting, I have a feeling that we will continue to hear stories like this. Should we have immigration reform of some sort in the near future, it will be up to those of us who are more knowledgeable about political issues to educate our brothers and sisters who are new to the game so that they flex their political muscle.

Last night there was a city council meeting, and residents packed the city hall in protest. Notably, no action was taken against City Chief Administrator Robert Rizzo (meaning that he’s still employed), who earns nearly $800,000 per year. You can get a glimpse of what happened last night in this clip:

Some highlights of exorbitant salaries in this poor city include:

• City Chief Administrative Officer Robert Rizzo is paid a whopping salary of $787,637. In 1993, he started in the City of Bell at $72,000 and has managed to ramp up his salary in the past decade. Rizzo’s current contract with the City of Bell guarantees 12% salary increases each July. And the city council has rewarded this fat cat with another week of vacation, bringing his annual vacation to five weeks.
• Bell Police Chief Randy Adams makes nearly a half million, earning $457,000 a year. This is about 50% more than the police chief of Los Angeles. The City of Bell has about 37,000 people, whereas the city of Los Angeles has a population of about 3.8 million people.
• And the city council members in Bell pay each of themselves a hefty $100,000 per year for what amounts to a part-time job. Cities of comparable size typically pay their council members $400 per month. This particular issue is being investigated by the district attorney, but the salaries of the other city officials (police chief and administrative chief, etc.) appear to not be in violation of any law.

To put things in perspective, the City of Bell has a total area of 2.4 square miles. According to the US Census Bureau, the estimated median household income in the City of Bell is $38,502. The City has a higher percentage of individuals and families living under the poverty level than the national average. And of the city population 25 years and older, only about 3 percent have a bachelor’s degree or higher.

I was able to communicate with a Ricardo Lara, a local candidate for Assembly in the 50th district which includes the City of Bell, and he offered this:

“I’m a strong believer in honest pay for an honest day’s work. While I understand the need to attract qualified staff, I urge the City of Bell to re-evaluate how they compensate top managers. Regardless of results, compensation that is three times the average of neighboring cities is not acceptable, especially when you consider the unemployment rate and the budget deficits we face in Southeast LA County and throughout the state.”

And today the LA Times has come out with an article following up on the original piece showing city outrage over the inflated salaries.

I was particularly struck by this statement in the follow up piece:

“It’s a blue-collar city. A lot of people are just trying to make ends meet,” said Bell resident Victor Munoz, who said he was laid off from his telecommunications job last year and was now taking pharmacy technician classes.

Munoz, 42, has lived in the area for decades and says the immigrant community is largely unaware of what happens at City Hall.

“They don’t know or they don’t understand it,” he said. “Because of the language barrier or their schooling, they don’t always comprehend what’s going on.”

I find this particularly troubling since the City Council in Bell appears to be all Latino. One would hope that officials in our communities would not line their pockets at the expense of the working class that they serve. This reminds me of the cacique mentality that Cockroach People so eloquently writes about in the Latino community in Chicago. What kind of message does this send to youngsters in Bell, California who might be interested in pursuing a career in public service? And what exactly do the citizens of Bell receive for luxury priced city officials? I can guarantee you that it isn’t luxury style city services.

Fenton communications, teaming up with Presente.org, has already been operating a site called, MoveTheGame, urging the public to get involved in the effort to relocate next year’s All-Star game out of Arizona.

Since the Arizona law pretty much sanctions racial profiling in the name of immigration enforcement, one could imagine that an event with MLB, whose league is comprised of not only a diverse group of players but immigrants as well, that there could be hostility towards players, players’ families, and fans. The Major League Baseball Players Association has already issued a statement in opposition to the Arizona law back in April.

My feeling is that it is unconscionable to put MLB players, their families and fans at risk of being stopped by the local law enforcement authorities in this state because they may appear ‘foreign’. Furthermore, Major League Baseball shouldn’t award a state that stokes the flames of hatred and fear with an event like the All-Star game that brings in millions of dollars.

The meat of Murguia and Henderson’s piece is at the end, which I will include for readers here:

Surely the “best interests of baseball” include protecting players and millions of fans of color, not allowing MLB to be perceived as condoning blatant discrimination and injustice, and taking a stand for fairness, equality and other values that Americans and baseball hold dear. Selig should stand up for these players, these fans and these values.

Such a move would not be unprecedented. The NCAA does not allow post-season events, such as the Final Four, to occur in states that fly the Confederate flag. Years ago the NFL stood up to Arizona over its refusal to recognize the Martin Luther King Jr. federal holiday and moved the 1993 Super Bowl. Those sports institutions defended their players and fans, even though there was no direct threat to their safety. The Arizona law, however, is a direct threat, and Selig ought to take action.

If MLB wants to maintain the right to call baseball America’s favorite pastime, and preserve the legacy of Jackie Robinson, the All-Star game should not go to Phoenix next year. Commissioner, for the sake of baseball players and millions of fans, move the game.

If you are in agreement that MLB should move next year’s All-Star game, please take action here.

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

ON COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

American University School of International Service

Washington, D.C.

11:12 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  Thank you.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Everyone please have a seat.  Thank you very much.  Let me thank Pastor Hybels from near my hometown in Chicago, who took time off his vacation to be here today.  We are blessed to have him.

I want to thank President Neil Kerwin and our hosts here at American University; acknowledge my outstanding Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, and members of my administration; all the members of Congress — Hilda deserves applause.  (Applause.)  To all the members of Congress, the elected officials, faith and law enforcement, labor, business leaders and immigration advocates who are here today — thank you for your presence.

I want to thank American University for welcoming me to the campus once again.  Some may recall that the last time I was here I was joined by a dear friend, and a giant of American politics, Senator Edward Kennedy.  (Applause.)  Teddy’s not here right now, but his legacy of civil rights and health care and worker protections is still with us.

I was a candidate for President that day, and some may recall I argued that our country had reached a tipping point; that after years in which we had deferred our most pressing problems, and too often yielded to the politics of the moment, we now faced a choice:  We could squarely confront our challenges with honesty and determination, or we could consign ourselves and our children to a future less prosperous and less secure.

I believed that then and I believe it now.  And that’s why, even as we’ve tackled the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression, even as we’ve wound down the war in Iraq and refocused our efforts in Afghanistan, my administration has refused to ignore some of the fundamental challenges facing this generation.

We launched the most aggressive education reforms in decades, so that our children can gain the knowledge and skills they need to compete in a 21st century global economy.

We have finally delivered on the promise of health reform -– reform that will bring greater security to every American, and that will rein in the skyrocketing costs that threaten families, businesses and the prosperity of our nation.

We’re on the verge of reforming an outdated and ineffective set of rules governing Wall Street -– to give greater power to consumers and prevent the reckless financial speculation that led to this severe recession.

And we’re accelerating the transition to a clean energy economy by significantly raising the fuel-efficiency standards of cars and trucks, and by doubling our use of renewable energies like wind and solar power — steps that have the potential to create whole new industries and hundreds of thousands of new jobs in America.

So, despite the forces of the status quo, despite the polarization and the frequent pettiness of our politics, we are confronting the great challenges of our times.  And while this work isn’t easy, and the changes we seek won’t always happen overnight, what we’ve made clear is that this administration will not just kick the can down the road.

Immigration reform is no exception.  In recent days, the issue of immigration has become once more a source of fresh contention in our country, with the passage of a controversial law in Arizona and the heated reactions we’ve seen across America.  Some have rallied behind this new policy.  Others have protested and launched boycotts of the state.  And everywhere, people have expressed frustration with a system that seems fundamentally broken.

Of course, the tensions around immigration are not new.  On the one hand, we’ve always defined ourselves as a nation of immigrants — a nation that welcomes those willing to embrace America’s precepts.  Indeed, it is this constant flow of immigrants that helped to make America what it is.  The scientific breakthroughs of Albert Einstein, the inventions of Nikola Tesla, the great ventures of Andrew Carnegie’s U.S. Steel and Sergey Brin’s Google, Inc. -– all this was possible because of immigrants.

And then there are the countless names and the quiet acts that never made the history books but were no less consequential in building this country — the generations who braved hardship and great risk to reach our shores in search of a better life for themselves and their families; the millions of people, ancestors to most of us, who believed that there was a place where they could be, at long last, free to work and worship and live their lives in peace.

So this steady stream of hardworking and talented people has made America the engine of the global economy and a beacon of hope around the world.  And it’s allowed us to adapt and thrive in the face of technological and societal change.  To this day, America reaps incredible economic rewards because we remain a magnet for the best and brightest from across the globe.  Folks travel here in the hopes of being a part of a culture of entrepreneurship and ingenuity, and by doing so they strengthen and enrich that culture.  Immigration also means we have a younger workforce -– and a faster-growing economy — than many of our competitors.  And in an increasingly interconnected world, the diversity of our country is a powerful advantage in global competition.

Just a few weeks ago, we had an event of small business owners at the White House.  And one business owner was a woman named Prachee Devadas who came to this country, became a citizen, and opened up a successful technology services company.  When she started, she had just one employee.  Today, she employs more than a hundred people.  This past April, we held a naturalization ceremony at the White House for members of our armed forces.  Even though they were not yet citizens, they had enlisted.  One of them was a woman named Perla Ramos — born and raised in Mexico, came to the United States shortly after 9/11, and she eventually joined the Navy.  And she said, “I take pride in our flag and the history that forged this great nation and the history we write day by day.”

These women, and men and women across this country like them, remind us that immigrants have always helped to build and defend this country -– and that being an American is not a matter of blood or birth.  It’s a matter of faith.  It’s a matter of fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear.  That’s what makes us unique.  That’s what makes us strong.  Anybody can help us write the next great chapter in our history.

Now, we can’t forget that this process of immigration and eventual inclusion has often been painful.  Each new wave of immigrants has generated fear and resentments towards newcomers, particularly in times of economic upheaval.  Our founding was rooted in the notion that America was unique as a place of refuge and freedom for, in Thomas Jefferson’s words, “oppressed humanity.”  But the ink on our Constitution was barely dry when, amidst conflict, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which placed harsh restrictions of those suspected of having foreign allegiances.  A century ago, immigrants from Ireland, Italy, Poland, other European countries were routinely subjected to rank discrimination and ugly stereotypes.  Chinese immigrants were held in detention and deported from Angel Island in the San Francisco Bay.  They didn’t even get to come in.

So the politics of who is and who is not allowed to enter this country, and on what terms, has always been contentious.  And that remains true today.  And it’s made worse by a failure of those of us in Washington to fix a broken immigration system.

To begin with, our borders have been porous for decades.  Obviously, the problem is greatest along our Southern border, but it’s not restricted to that part of the country.  In fact, because we don’t do a very good job of tracking who comes in and out of the country as visitors, large numbers avoid immigration laws simply by overstaying their visas.

The result is an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.  The overwhelming majority of these men and women are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their children.  Many settle in low-wage sectors of the economy; they work hard, they save, they stay out of trouble.  But because they live in the shadows, they’re vulnerable to unscrupulous businesses who pay them less than the minimum wage or violate worker safety rules -– thereby putting companies who follow those rules, and Americans who rightly demand the minimum wage or overtime, at an unfair [dis]advantage.  Crimes go unreported as victims and witnesses fear coming forward.  And this makes it harder for the police to catch violent criminals and keep neighborhoods safe.  And billions in tax revenue are lost each year because many undocumented workers are paid under the table.

More fundamentally, the presence of so many illegal immigrants makes a mockery of all those who are going through the process of immigrating legally.  Indeed, after years of patchwork fixes and ill-conceived revisions, the legal immigration system is as broken as the borders.  Backlogs and bureaucracy means the process can take years.  While an applicant waits for approval, he or she is often forbidden from visiting the United States –- which means even husbands and wives may be forced to spend many years apart.  High fees and the need for lawyers may exclude worthy applicants.  And while we provide students from around the world visas to get engineering and computer science degrees at our top universities, our laws discourage them from using those skills to start a business or power a new industry right here in the United States.  Instead of training entrepreneurs to create jobs on our shores, we train our competition.

In sum, the system is broken.  And everybody knows it.  Unfortunately, reform has been held hostage to political posturing and special-interest wrangling -– and to the pervasive sentiment in Washington that tackling such a thorny and emotional issue is inherently bad politics.

Just a few years ago, when I was a senator, we forged a bipartisan coalition in favor of comprehensive reform.  Under the leadership of Senator Kennedy, who had been a longtime champion of immigration reform, and Senator John McCain, we worked across the aisle to help pass a bipartisan bill through the Senate.  But that effort eventually came apart.  And now, under the pressures of partisanship and election-year politics, many of the 11 Republican senators who voted for reform in the past have now backed away from their previous support.

Into this breach, states like Arizona have decided to take matters into their own hands.  Given the levels of frustration across the country, this is understandable.  But it is also ill conceived.  And it’s not just that the law Arizona passed is divisive -– although it has fanned the flames of an already contentious debate.  Laws like Arizona’s put huge pressures on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable.  It puts pressure on already hard-strapped state and local budgets.  It makes it difficult for people here illegally to report crimes -– driving a wedge between communities and law enforcement, making our streets more dangerous and the jobs of our police officers more difficult.

And you don’t have to take my word for this.  You can speak to the police chiefs and others from law enforcement here today who will tell you the same thing.

These laws also have the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound.  And as other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country -– a patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed.

Our task then is to make our national laws actually work -– to shape a system that reflects our values as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.  And that means being honest about the problem, and getting past the false debates that divide the country rather than bring it together.

For example, there are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws.  And often this argument is framed in moral terms:  Why should we punish people who are just trying to earn a living?

I recognize the sense of compassion that drives this argument, but I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair.  It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision.  And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration.  And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally.

Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.

Now, if the majority of Americans are skeptical of a blanket amnesty, they are also skeptical that it is possible to round up and deport 11 million people.  They know it’s not possible.  Such an effort would be logistically impossible and wildly expensive.  Moreover, it would tear at the very fabric of this nation -– because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric.  Many have children who are American citizens.  Some are children themselves, brought here by their parents at a very young age, growing up as American kids, only to discover their illegal status when they apply for college or a job.  Migrant workers -– mostly here illegally -– have been the labor force of our farmers and agricultural producers for generations.  So even if it was possible, a program of mass deportations would disrupt our economy and communities in ways that most Americans would find intolerable.

Now, once we get past the two poles of this debate, it becomes possible to shape a practical, common-sense approach that reflects our heritage and our values.  Such an approach demands accountability from everybody -– from government, from businesses and from individuals.

Government has a threshold responsibility to secure our borders.  That’s why I directed my Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano — a former border governor — to improve our enforcement policy without having to wait for a new law.

Today, we have more boots on the ground near the Southwest border than at any time in our history.  Let me repeat that:  We have more boots on the ground on the Southwest border than at any time in our history.  We doubled the personnel assigned to Border Enforcement Security Task Forces.  We tripled the number of intelligence analysts along the border.  For the first time, we’ve begun screening 100 percent of southbound rail shipments.  And as a result, we’re seizing more illegal guns, cash and drugs than in years past.  Contrary to some of the reports that you see, crime along the border is down.  And statistics collected by Customs and Border Protection reflect a significant reduction in the number of people trying to cross the border illegally.

So the bottom line is this:  The southern border is more secure today than at any time in the past 20 years.  That doesn’t mean we don’t have more work to do.  We have to do that work, but it’s important that we acknowledge the facts.  Even as we are committed to doing what’s necessary to secure our borders, even without passage of the new law, there are those who argue that we should not move forward with any other elements of reform until we have fully sealed our borders.  But our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols.  It won’t work.  Our borders will not be secure as long as our limited resources are devoted to not only stopping gangs and potential terrorists, but also the hundreds of thousands who attempt to cross each year simply to find work.

That’s why businesses must be held accountable if they break the law by deliberately hiring and exploiting undocumented workers.  We’ve already begun to step up enforcement against the worst workplace offenders.  And we’re implementing and improving a system to give employers a reliable way to verify that their employees are here legally.  But we need to do more.  We cannot continue just to look the other way as a significant portion of our economy operates outside the law.  It breeds abuse and bad practices.  It punishes employers who act responsibly and undercuts American workers.  And ultimately, if the demand for undocumented workers falls, the incentive for people to come here illegally will decline as well.

Finally, we have to demand responsibility from people living here illegally.  They must be required to admit that they broke the law.  They should be required to register, pay their taxes, pay a fine, and learn English.  They must get right with the law before they can get in line and earn their citizenship — not just because it is fair, not just because it will make clear to those who might wish to come to America they must do so inside the bounds of the law, but because this is how we demonstrate that being — what being an American means.  Being a citizen of this country comes not only with rights but also with certain fundamental responsibilities.  We can create a pathway for legal status that is fair, reflective of our values, and works.

Now, stopping illegal immigration must go hand in hand with reforming our creaky system of legal immigration.  We’ve begun to do that, by eliminating a backlog in background checks that at one point stretched back almost a year.  That’s just for the background check.  People can now track the status of their immigration applications by email or text message.  We’ve improved accountability and safety in the detention system.  And we’ve stemmed the increases in naturalization fees.  But here, too, we need to do more.  We should make it easier for the best and the brightest to come to start businesses and develop products and create jobs.

Our laws should respect families following the rules -– instead of splitting them apart.  We need to provide farms a legal way to hire the workers they rely on, and a path for those workers to earn legal status.  And we should stop punishing innocent young people for the actions of their parents by denying them the chance to stay here and earn an education and contribute their talents to build the country where they’ve grown up.  The DREAM Act would do this, and that’s why I supported this bill as a state legislator and as a U.S. senator — and why I continue to support it as president.

So these are the essential elements of comprehensive immigration reform.  The question now is whether we will have the courage and the political will to pass a bill through Congress, to finally get it done.  Last summer, I held a meeting with leaders of both parties, including many of the Republicans who had supported reform in the past — and some who hadn’t.  I was pleased to see a bipartisan framework proposed in the Senate by Senators Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer, with whom I met to discuss this issue.  I’ve spoken with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to plot the way forward and meet — and then I met with them earlier this week.

And I’ve spoken with representatives from a growing coalition of labor unions and business groups, immigrant advocates and community organizations, law enforcement, local government -– all who recognize the importance of immigration reform.  And I’ve met with leaders from America’s religious communities, like Pastor Hybels — people of different faiths and beliefs, some liberal, some conservative, who nonetheless share a sense of urgency; who understand that fixing our broken immigration system is not only a political issue, not just an economic issue, but a moral imperative as well.

So we’ve made progress.  I’m ready to move forward; the majority of Democrats are ready to move forward; and I believe the majority of Americans are ready to move forward.  But the fact is, without bipartisan support, as we had just a few years ago, we cannot solve this problem.  Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes.  That is the political and mathematical reality.  The only way to reduce the risk that this effort will again falter because of politics is if members of both parties are willing to take responsibility for solving this problem once and for all.

And, yes, this is an emotional question, and one that lends itself to demagoguery.  Time and again, this issue has been used to divide and inflame -– and to demonize people.  And so the understandable, the natural impulse among those who run for office is to turn away and defer this question for another day, or another year, or another administration.  Despite the courageous leadership in the past shown by many Democrats and some Republicans — including, by the way, my predecessor, President Bush -– this has been the custom.  That is why a broken and dangerous system that offends our most basic American values is still in place.

But I believe we can put politics aside and finally have an immigration system that’s accountable.  I believe we can appeal not to people’s fears but to their hopes, to their highest ideals, because that’s who we are as Americans.  It’s been inscribed on our nation’s seal since we declared our independence.  “E pluribus unum.”  Out of many, one.  That is what has drawn the persecuted and impoverished to our shores.  That’s what led the innovators and risk-takers from around the world to take a chance here in the land of opportunity.  That’s what has led people to endure untold hardships to reach this place called America.

One of the largest waves of immigration in our history took place little more than a century ago.  At the time, Jewish people were being driven out of Eastern Europe, often escaping to the sounds of gunfire and the light from their villages burning to the ground.  The journey could take months, as families crossed rivers in the dead of night, traveled miles by foot, endured a rough and dangerous passage over the North Atlantic.  Once here, many made their homes in a teeming and bustling Lower Manhattan.

It was at this time that a young woman named Emma Lazarus, whose own family fled persecution from Europe generations earlier, took up the cause of these new immigrants.  Although she was a poet, she spent much of her time advocating for better health care and housing for the newcomers.  And inspired by what she saw and heard, she wrote down her thoughts and donated a piece of work to help pay for the construction of a new statue — the Statue of Liberty — which actually was funded in part by small donations from people across America.

Years before the statue was built — years before it would be seen by throngs of immigrants craning their necks skyward at the end of long and brutal voyage, years before it would come to symbolize everything that we cherish — she imagined what it could mean.  She imagined the sight of a giant statue at the entry point of a great nation -– but unlike the great monuments of the past, this would not signal an empire.  Instead, it would signal one’s arrival to a place of opportunity and refuge and freedom.

“Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand,” she wrote,

A mighty woman with a torch…

From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome…

“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!”…

“Give me your tired, and your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to be free…

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Let us remember these words.  For it falls on each generation to ensure that that lamp -– that beacon -– continues to shine as a source of hope around the world, and a source of our prosperity here at home.

Thank you.  God bless you.  And may God bless the United States of America.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

END                11:47 A.M. EDT

What are your thoughts?

One might ask where and who are the Latino national leaders? Indeed at the local level, there are scores of activists, volunteers, politicians, clergy and other admirable folk seeking relief for the Latinos in their communities. Yet rarely if ever do we see Latino political or national civil society leaders on the Sunday TV network talk shows addressing the Hispanic agenda or plight while offering some ideas for consideration or treating these problems. Perhaps the traditional media finds the Latino story or journey uninteresting. Even more disconcerting, if one watches Spanish-language network talk shows like Jorge Ramos‘ Sunday morning hour, the compelling question is: where are the Latino leaders or even more specifically, how often does Ramos interview a Mexican-American (which is the overwhelming majority of Latinos in the country) to comment on the national or international issues at hand affecting the Latino community? It is widely and sadly known that Ramos and his colleagues are most hesitant to interview Mexican-Americans, especially those born here. Perhaps it is the Spanish language competence or is it worse than that: maybe Mexican-Americans are not viewed as telegenic (perhaps these TV personalities feel Mexican-Americans are too dark or not clever enough for their tastes). The spokespersons for Latin American countries and many of the recently arrived well-heeled immigrants do seem to fare better in getting on the Spanish language networks. Another discouraging fact is: where are the US Latino public intellectuals? If they exist, who are they? And why are they not heard or known? Do they publish? Are they pundits? It appears that at high holidays for the Community like the Cinco de Mayo, Hispanic Month and September 16, the only hero consistently quoted is Caesar Chavez, who was truly a saint in many ways yet his anti-illegal immigrant stand is not mentioned. As a labor leader at the time, it was normal for him to take this position since many undocumented immigrants were used as scabs to break up strikes. Yet the Community thirsts to hear and get to know a national political leader and read thoughtful insights from our own public intellectuals and social critics. Perhaps this might explain why the dominant white population has no interest or fear of Latinos in concrete terms: Latinos have no one who rallies them or lack a truly defining issue that brings them all together. Is this valid?

The current discernible white backlash against immigrants is fast becoming plainly anti-Latino: legal or illegal or native born. This is serving ironically in many instances to further divide us: the native born Latinos from the immigrants and the legal from the undocumented; the white versus non-white Latinos; the wealthy from the have-nots and separate one Hispanic nationality from another.The sad fact is that Latino community is disunited, scattered, divided and often frustrated. But the yearning and hope for real and effective leadership remains among the community. But be certain that to be accepted as the real leaders, he or she must be sprung from the loins of the community. They cannot just be ‘designated hitters’ chosen by the dominant white mandarin class. These higher circles seek Latino leaders who have punched his and her ticket in all the white dominant institutions like the Ivy league, hallowed law firms, the correct political appointments, passed muster by the bankers and the real estate developers, be a media darling fabricated or cultivated by the white liberal or conservative establishment to be virtually a Latino Manchurian Candidate. The Latino community is consistently being underestimated in many ways. Yet, the community must begin to understand that political unity which implies being politically monolithic, possessing social cohesion, expressing one big vision leadership, attempting to cobble together a forceful amalgamated national group will all be largely illusive. We will continue to be a defused and diverse group to be certain but the label Hispanic or Latino which stems from being linked to the Iberian peninsula’s language or culture does have a real effect of making us part of a great and rich heritage as Hispanics/Latinos. But as Americans we are loyal and patriotic and earnest believers in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and justice and fairness. The Latino Community merely seeks genuine national leaders who will guide, steer and comfort them through these troubled waters. Just where are the Hispanic Congressional Caucus members, the Latino Academicians, the pundits, the artists, the Hispanic captains of industry and banking, the Latino clergy and high Churchman like the soon to be the first Latino Cardinal of the Catholic Church? These are the voices that need to be heard and become pathfinders to this awakening giant.

To lessen Salazar’s credibility in holding BP accountable, people are beginning to ask questions about Sylvia Baca, who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management. Prior to being offered this job by Secretary Salazar, Baca was general manager for Social Investment Programs and Strategic Partnerships at BP America Inc. in Houston. She had served in several management positions since 2001. In addition, Baca served in the Clinton administration as the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management in the Department of Interior. So essentially, Baca took a detour through the revolving door and ended up back at Interior with a job offer from Ken Salazar.

When President Obama began his term in January 2009, he issued an executive order to limit lobbyist involvement in government. Much was made of this ban because it made filling appointments a bit more difficult. Of course, some people who may have technically not been ‘registered lobbyists’ were able to work their way back into government circumventing the order. But the spirit and intent of this move was to prevent the collusive nature of government and business. Putting someone like Baca back in the Department of Interior (although she may have not been a registered lobbyist in any capacity at BP) gives one reason to pause considering the new policy President Obama was attempting to sell to the public. What was Ken Salazar thinking?

Baca has already been involved in a controversial program to remove wild horses off of public land and onto private land purchased on the tax payer’s dime. The Desert Independent reports the following:

“Six months after beginning her second stint at DOI, Baca attended the December 2009 BLM Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board Meeting in Reno, representing the “Salazar Plan” to the Board. The Plan would move 26,000 wild horses from the West to preserves in the East and Midwest, on private land purchased with taxpayer dollars. “The Plan requires hundreds of millions of dollars for land acquisitions, yet it’s being sold as an eco-tourism opportunity. People are thrilled by the sight of mustangs running free, by battling stallions and long-legged foals,” states Phantom Stallion series author Terri Farley who attended the meeting. “But this Plan takes our wild horses off public lands, castrates all stallions and sends segregated, non-reproducing animals to pastures back East. It’s expensive, unnecessary and cruel. And for what? Most tax-payers would choose the once-in-a-lifetime experience of seeing mustangs in the wild, over funding more grazing cows and more oil and gas installations pounding away.”

During a break in the meeting in Reno, Cloud Foundation Director Ginger Kathrens, used the opportunity to say hello to Secretary Baca and show her pictures of the Calico horses of northwestern Nevada. The horses were slated for a dead of winter removal because, BLM contended, they might starve if left on their half-million acre home range. “Craig Downer had taken wonderful pictures of the wild horses and then enlarged them for the Board to see,” said Kathrens. “When I showed her the pictures and called her attention to the health and beauty of the horses, she stated it didn’t look like they had anything to eat and walked away.”

Then in April 2010, the Cloud Foundation scheduled a meeting with BLM Director Bob Abbey in an attempt to find solutions to the management difficulties within the Wild Horse and Burro Program and to work collaboratively with the BLM. Deputy Secretary Baca attended that meeting “and we were met with open hostility from her,” states Kathrens. “At one point she indicated we should thank them (the BLM) for not euthanizing the wild horses held in holding corrals, intimating that they had the legal authority to do so.””

Baca’s response to the public is troubling, especially since she is supposed to be a steward of the land and environment.

Because people are questioning oil industry insiders who are serving in administration, the Department of Interior has issued the following statement:

“Salazar spokesperson Kendra Barkoff issued a statement noting that Baca, under federal government ethics standards, “has been and is recused from participating personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which BP is or represents a party, for a period of two years following her appointment.” She also noted that Baca is not working on offshore drilling at the agency (her post deals with on-shore drilling).”

Whether its on or offshore drilling, the appointment of Baca, who spent years at BP, undermines the credibility of the Department of Interior and their efforts to hold BP accountable. The Baca appointment shows that Latinos can also spin through the revolving door, much like any other political appointee. Salazar was supposed to clean up the corruption in the Department of Interior, but placing foxes in the hen house creates the impression of a conflict of interest and does little to inspire the public’s faith in this agency.

With the BP oil spill dominating the news and the growing frustration with the Obama administration and its handle on this disaster, I felt compelled to comment about Secretary of Interior Salazar. Back in December of 2008, I had blogged about Secretary Salazar shortly after he accepted the cabinet position to head up the Department of Interior pretty much stating that I thought he was a mixed bag, a moderate Democrat from Colorado with decent, but not stellar environmental credentials. Many people in the environmental movement were hoping that Obama would have given this job to Congressman Grijalva, whose conservation record was stronger than Salazar’s.

When Salazar was tapped to head up the Department of Interior, Kieran Suckling, executive director of Center for Biological Diversity, offered this statement, “He is a right-of-center Democrat who often favors industry and big agriculture in battles over global warming, fuel efficiency and endangered species. He is very unlikely to bring significant change to the scandal-plagued Department of Interior. It’s a very disappointing choice for a presidency which promised visionary change.”

Fast forward a year and a half, and we are already a month into the one of the worst environmental disasters in history, and Secretary Salazar has been on the hot seat. Environmental groups are already signing letters to the President asking for Salazar to be replaced.

Last week, the director of the Minerals Management Service Elizabeth Birnbaum resigned/was fired. Salazar is being compared to “Heckuva Job” Brown, who ended up resigning from FEMA after the horrendous Hurricane Katrina response in the previous administration. And since Salazar has been a proponent of off-shore oil drilling, questions are being raised about his ability to regulate it.

I don’t think that Salazar has a handle on this oil spill, but nobody seems to. BP is spinning new stories as the oil seeps out into the ocean. And Salazar doesn’t inspire much confidence, as he tap danced around the questions from Senator Sanders (I-VT) about whether the drilling for oil off shore is worth the risks to the environment, the coastal economies, etc:

In the end, I think that it is likely that Salazar will weather this storm for the reasons outlined by Alan Pendergrast of Westword Denver. If Obama fires Salazar, all kinds of questions and investigations will begin, and it could be more politically damaging to the president. Going into the midterm elections facing more scrutiny is probably something that the administration would like to avoid. But I hope that Salazar is being kept on a tight leash and that he seizes this opportunity to turn things around. Tragedies like this can produce heroes. If Salazar is allowed to stay on the job, he has this unique opportunity to turn things around. However, based upon his performance thus far, if I held the fate of Salazar’s job in my own hands, I would do ‘the Donald’ and say, ‘You’re fired.’

Come on Salazar, step up your game. With so few Latinos serving at the cabinet level, we cannot afford to have you hemming and hawing on camera. Channel your inner cowboy, and take charge!

Even Roll Call reports that Pence himself did not know why he was receiving the award. Pence hasn’t been involved in any of the bi-partisan immigration efforts.

So I checked out the On the Issues page for Mike Pence to learn more about what he has done for the Hispanic community. I was particularly interested in his civil rights record:

• Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)
• Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
• Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
• Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
• Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
• Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
• Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
• Require “Privacy Impact Statement” on new federal rules. (Apr 2002)
• Rated 7% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
• Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
• Rated 22% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
• Amend Constitution to define traditional marriage. (Jun 2008)

On Immigration, On the Issues shows the following:

• Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
• Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
• Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)
• Rated 92% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance. (Dec 2006)
• Declare English as the official language of the US. (Feb 2007)

Finally, I found The Americano interview of Congressman Pence.

What do you think? Is Congressman Pence worthy of a leadership award for his contributions to our community? Or is the Congressional Hispanic Leadership Institute so stupid that it just wants to give an award to anybody who breathes?