Hispanics and Latinos are expected to play a decisive role in elections at all levels in 2012. They are a rapidly growing share of the electorate that could have a major influence on future elections as well. This has implications for both major political parties.

Although they comprise 16 percent of the U.S. population, just 43 percent of Hispanics and Latinos are eligible to vote because they have a higher proportion of non-citizens and those under 18-years-of-age. Pew demographic studies show that this is spread among many states and diminishes their impact on elections and the Electoral College. In some states, they would only comprise as little one or two percent of the electorate.

However, in states such as California and Nevada, the demographic effects of the Hispanic and Latino vote can impact the results dramatically. In these states, both political parties will be competing for their votes using the issues that are important to these voters.

Illegal immigration is high among those issues. According to Lincoln Park Strategists statistics, 61 percent of Hispanics and Latinos consider discrimination a major problem. They support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants as long as they pass a background check, pay a fine, and have jobs. Less than 20 percent support the strict immigration laws that were passed in Arizona and other states.

The Hispanic population in Florida is the third-largest in the nation with Latinos representing 13.1% of all votes for the state. As a younger population of voters they too will be concerned about discriminatory regulations and most importantly immigrations laws, as stated by various abogados en Orlando. Candidates will be paying closest attention to the dominant state of New Mexico, that accounting for the largest percentage of Hispanic voters at 39%.

Meanwhile, Hispanics and Latinos place high importance on living a religious life. They are more likely to oppose abortion and are less supportive of gay marriage. However, there are indications that  younger generations, those in the 16 to 25 age group, are more tolerant about these issues than the older generations. There appears to be a more liberal attitude than that of early generations of immigrants. There are implications for both political parties in the differences between these generations.

The impact of this younger generation was reflected in Arizona when curriculum that focused on Mexican-American history was determined by state legislators to be biased against the United States. The Tucson high school in which it was taught was forced to shut it down or lose millions of dollars in funding from the states. This attracted attention of Hispanics and Latinos from across the U.S., some of whom came to the city to join the movement by parents and students that resulted in protests at the school board and marches in the city. It is expected that this could create a larger than usual turnout of younger Hispanics and Latinos, especially in Arizona and the southwestern states, during the 2012 election.

The demographic reality may affect the way both political parties deal with policies that alienate this population and may influence a softening on such issues as that of hard-line, anti-immigration by some politicians. However, whatever demographic advantage Hispanic and Latinos may have, the impact some believe is possible will not occur unless a higher proportion of that population actually turns out and votes in 2012. A larger turnout than has occurred in the past could determine which party controls the presidency and both houses of Congress for the next four years.

So check out this piece, CPAC: Grammys of Hate Speech.

Since the DREAM Act was introduced for the first time in 2001, a decade ago, it has been changed, modified, and altered to something that vaguely resembles our dreams for the mere sake of catering to the Republicans’ needs and wants.

Granted we can’t all get what we want so we, DREAMers, understand the importance of meeting our opposition halfway – some DREAM Act is better than no DREAM Act.

Last year, during the lame duck session in December 2010, our hopes were high, and there was no opposition on our part to the modifications that were made to the original bill even though its new form left out a significant group of DREAMers who have been in the struggle since day one.

This new bill was more specific about the things that would constitute as “good moral standing”, it specified that having fixed status through the DREAM Act, DREAMers would never be able to petition for family members or loved ones, and it lowered the age cap (this amendment being the one affecting the DREAMers mentioned above who unfortunately, aged out of this new version).

Even so, these very DREAMers, the seniors in our movement, urged the passage of the DREAM Act in its new form and us to continue fighting, at this point it had become about the movement as a whole and not an individual interest.

However, our GOP presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney have interesting opinions on the DREAM Act. They say if they become president they will support the DREAM Act, but only for those who join the military. Although there is a group of military DREAMers who would benefit from this form of the DREAM Act, there is a larger group of us who won’t. This suggestion is an insult to our movement, to our struggle, and to our DREAMers who have been fighting for equal education for all. All that Gingrinch and Romney are saying through this is that we are only useful for war, at the forefront, as cannonballs and ammunition, implying that we are not capable of anything else but going to war.

I have friends, both documented and undocumented, who want to join the military or are currently serving, but I don’t want to join the military! I am not cut out for that, I know I am not. All my life, since I could dream and wish, I’ve wanted to teach. Isn’t that profession just as noble as fighting and dying for your country? To wake up every morning and go to school and teach a bunch of kids what the pledge of allegiance means? Isn’t it just as noble to want to educate the future of America?

And not just teachers, but I have friends who want to be doctors, lawyers, architects, you name it. All these things would contribute to American in one way or another which in the end would make America well-rounded, fair, and just as it has always claimed to be. Don’t rob us of our dreams and incarcerate us more by forcing us to take drastic measures to be able to call America our home. Let us serve this country by becoming educated and contributing members of society. Let us choose how to give back, so long as we give back. Gingrich and Romney, please reconsider your stance on the DREAM Act, and think for a second that we are as American as you are, as your children are, and as your children’s children will be.

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.

My initial reaction to the piece was that there was a lack of analysis of what Muñoz has been saying. More specifically, Ms. Muñoz has been telling us that more than half of the people who have been removed are serious criminals when other data suggests that they aren’t. And then there’s the issue of Muñoz addressing DHS’s prioritization of removals when new evidence suggests that the application of deportation prioritization are inconsistently applied. So there’s a disconnect in the policy implementation where the folks on the ground are pursuing a different course of action from what the leadership (people like Muñoz) are publicly saying.

In the eyes of many immigration policy observers, the administration and Cecilia Muñoz, since she’s part of it, continue to have a credibility problem. As more people shed light on this issue of who is being deported and for what, look for more people to publicly question what has been going on with the Secure Communities program and deportations given the goals of DHS. The scrutiny may even ramp up if more US citizens are caught in the deportation dragnet.

Word is that the White House is considering Cecilia Muñoz to replace Melody Barnes as President Obama’s domestic policy chief. So ultimately, Muñoz will have to decide whether she wants to continue to be part of an administration that some feel is “worse than Bush” on immigration. Because of her previous advocacy in immigration, people will continue to focus on what she says when she’s tasked with discussing immigration on behalf of the President.

On Friday, November 25^th, DREAMers lost a brother in the struggle, Joaquin Luna. Joaquin was a DREAMer from Mission, TX, a border town, where undocumented students are further imprisoned as the multiple checkpoints make it nearly impossible to even get out of the small confines of their town.

Joaquin was born in Miguel Aleman, Tamaulipas, and was brought to the United States at 6 months. He was adopted by his aunt and uncle because his birth mother was not in full capacity to properly take care of him. Unfortunately, they could not fix his legal status, and he was caught in limbo like the rest of us.

On Friday, Joaquin dressed up in a nice suit, kissed his mother and his father goodbye, and then headed straight for the restroom where he shot himself with a small handgun leaving behind his dreams, letting them evaporate into thin air. He wanted to become an engineer. He was going to graduate in May with honors. Just five more months. He had a full ride to many prestigious universities one of them being Texas A&M University, he could’ve been an Aggie, like me, like all my Aggie DREAMer brothers and sisters, and then, he would have found us, we would have found him. But there’s no sense in reminiscing on what could have been. The damage is done, and 2 million other DREAMers have lost a brother and are mourning, all around the country in solidarity with his friends and loved ones.

Maybe it is our fault, for not reaching out to the Valley sooner, for not expanding faster.

“Having a DREAM Act organization in place here in the Valley might’ve helped,” said Marie Mendoza, Joaquin’s cousin. “These kids need a support system, there’s so many of them here, so close to the border.”

Maybe it is the broken immigration system that’s really getting the best of all of us.

“There has to be one president that will do something for undocumented students,” said Mendoza. “One president that can pass the DREAM Act.”

We all feel the way Joaquin did at some point or another, but brothers and sisters in the struggle, this is not the answer. Life for us is pretty sad at times, pretty gray, and uncertain, but something will happen for us. Because no good people ever go unnoticed, because no good fight is ever lost.

Let’s not remember Joaquin for what happened on Friday, let’s remember him for the person he was and for the everlasting impact he has made on all of our lives. As DREAMers let’s remember that the DREAM Act does not define us, and that we are so many other things aside from DREAM. Joaquin was a good person, he was very involved in church, spent a lot of time there, and he was always very respectful. His teachers loved him, he was never any trouble in school or at home, and he was kind-hearted.

“He would take his shirt off his back just to give it to you if you needed it,” his cousin told me.

I didn’t know Joaquin, but I knew his heart, I knew his struggle, I knew his pain. They always tell us that things have to get worse before they get better, but for us, it seems to only get worse. Rest assured, things have to get better. And if this doesn’t soften some hardened hearts, then I don’t know what will. As I’m writing this, it is tough to write it without tearing up.

I didn’t know Joaquin, but I’ve had many late night calls from DREAMers, who are having a total breakdown because they’ve allowed themselves to process in their minds and hearts, what it means to be undocumented in this country. Sometimes, I’ve made those late night calls. As a DREAMer, you can’t let your thoughts wander past hope and belief; past that there’s only uncertainty and emptiness, it’ll drive you mad.

I didn’t know Joaquin, but I am Joaquin.

Two DREAMers Jonathan Perez and Isaac Barrera challenged ICE directly in Mobile, Alabama and have been detained. Check out the clip below:

There are some, who want Ms. Muñoz to set the record straight about the statistics she has been citing about the people who have been deported, and there are some folks in the community who feel that calls on Muñoz to clarify those remarks are unjust. Last night apparently, famed labor activist Dolores Huerta weighed in on this at the LATISM conference saying that the attacks on Muñoz are unjust.

How do you solve a problem like Cecilia?

Activists say Obama aide Cecilia Munoz has ‘turned her back’ on fellow Hispanics

Calling the Question: Why Cecilia Muñoz is not the issue (An interesting rebuttal to the first piece listed “How do you solve…” attacking a writer for being critical of Muñoz.)

Plainly, there is a credibility problem with the immigration issue in the administration.

What are your thoughts? Are the criticisms of Cecilia Muñoz and the administration valid, or should people ignore the messenger and just focus on the bigger picture and problems with the current immigration situation? Does Dolores Huerta’s message to “defend Cecilia Muñoz” resonate with you? Do you think Huerta would be asking people to defend the messenger of the administration’s policies if that person was not Latina or did not have a background in immigration advocacy?

So I found it interesting that today the Obama administration used one of the Latinas working in the White House, Julie Rodriguez, the granddaughter of Cesar Chavez and daughter of UFW President Arturo Rodriguez, to defend its actions on the immigration issue. Ms. Rodriguez, who is currently associate director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, offered a gathering of Latinos at a summit hosted by the administration in California’s Inland Empire this:

“The priority … is we are enforcing our laws and focusing on those who pose a national security threat or public safety threat.”

Apparently, this message and others did not go over well with the Inland Empire crowd according to the Los Angeles Times.

What do you think? Will the message that is coming from Julie Rodriguez and the Obama administration win out and resonate with the community? Or will organizations like the United Farm Workers and Presente.Org, who have been advocating against programs like Secure Communities, have more credibility?