Within the Latino community, politicians on both the right and the left have engaged in mariachi politics. Senator Ted Kennedy used to sing “Jalisco no te rajes”, and California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman launched her Latino coalition with mariachis in the background. Some politicians come across a bit more sincerely when engaging in mariachi or taco politics, and this has to do with how well they know the community and what kind of credibility they have with the gente. Mariachi style politicking doesn’t really appeal to me, and I believe that for people who more closely follow the issues that it doesn’t make a difference either. But it’s a campaign gimmick — and a tired one at that.

But last Friday, California GOP Senate nominee Carly Fiorina took it to a new level downing a shot of tequila before taking the stage and then patronizingly rolling her r’s, and then GOP gubernatorial Meg Whitman followed her on stage and commented that they should do more events like this. This event comes after Meg Whitman has spent the last few weeks dealing with her undocumented housemaid issue, trying to reconcile her employment of the housekeeper with her get tough on the employers of undocumented immigrants stance. Additionally, Carly Fiorina has expressed support for the controversial Arizona immigration law.

The issue of liquor, mariachis and marketing is one that I have explored on the blog, especially when it comes to 5 de Mayo events and the funding of our issue organizations (often underwritten by Anheuser-Busch or even Miller Coors). Does our community’s relative ease in allowing the alcohol and spirits industry into our non-profits and cultural events give politicians like Fiorina and Whitman an opportunity to pander to us this way? Is this the way that Latino politicking in public should be done with a tequila shot in hand and a mariachi band in the background? What do you think?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Cesar Chavez was an American iconic figure, who could mingle with Hollywood celebrities, the Kennedys, and the working class people he represented. He could get away with wearing whatever he wanted, but the current leadership of the UFW doesn’t have his gravitas.

I was a bit surprised last week when the White House sent out this photo of the current UFW leadership along with Dolores Huerta and members of Cesar Chavez’s family for a signing of a proclamation on what would have been Chavez’s 83rd birthday. Most notably I was taken aback by what current UFW President Arturo Rodriguez decided to wear to the Oval Office for this meeting with President Obama. If you notice, he is wearing a tan colored guayabera. Is this an attempt to alter men’s formal fashions and remind Pat Buchanan that the Reconquista is at hand? Or is this fashion choice Rodriguez’s way of saying “Yo soy muy macho! I’m too sexy for a suit!”? Or is he saying, “Quien es mas macho? Ricardo Montalban o Arturo Rodriguez?”

If Rodriguez is thinking that he’s going to hold court at the Governor’s mansion (especially if Meg Whitman ends up living there) with that getup, he better rethink his fashion choices. We don’t see President Obama wearing dashikis, and I certainly don’t see the leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus or the NAACP wearing traditional African garb to the Oval Office, so what’s with the guayabera?

Finally, the other leaders of the big unions such as Andy Stern and Richard Trumka wear more formal men’s attire. Even Dolores Huerta was wearing a suit in the White House photo showing some style and understanding of public perception. Rodriguez is a public union official seeking political status amongst the elite in the nation’s capitol — he should dress the part.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since 1992 and the fall of the Soviet Union, US policy toward Latin America has been generally ‘insufficient’ or one of ‘benign neglect’.  In fact, many observers have concluded that both the Clinton and W. Bush administrations basically handed the lead on Latin policy to the Cuban American lobby in order to secure Florida, a swing state in the Presidential elections. The Summitry Process began by Clinton which some critics considered an every four year photo op and not much more. It did have two substantive themes: a hemispheric free trade area and strongly endorsing democracy by pointing out that Cuba was the only non-democratic country in the region.

After 9/11, Latin America was readily served up and all but forgotten so it seemed. At first, the Bush Administration catered to the fiercely anti-Castro sector which had strongly voted for him. In W’s second term, the policy was pretty much given to the bureaucracy to manage and handle. This disappointed many hardliners. The objective evolved to keep the region’s problems from distracting Secretary Rice from more serious and important areas of concern. The designated hitter for Latin Policy became a fourth level bureaucrat, an Assistant Secretary was left to fend for himself without much visible top cover. Obama reached the White House and Hillary Clinton was ensconced as Secretary of State after having successfully blocked Bill Richardson from the job. Admittedly, Gov. Richardson was in the midst of a brewing scandal in New Mexico. Several political and media wags noted that all the key Latin foreign policy slots have been given to Latinos. These included Dan Restrepo at the NSC, Arturo Valenzuela at State, Frank Mora at Defense and Carmen Lomellin as Ambassador to OAS. This has been applauded notably by the Latino constituency groups. The issue has become now one of policy. Does the Obama administration care about the Latin American region? Where does it stack up? The fact is that the region once again finds itself vis-a-vis the US on the back-burner. It is not on the cutting edge of foreign policy. Yet early on Obama found himself in a tussle on two issues: Cuba and Chavez.

When Obama attended the Summit of the Americas meeting in the spring in Trinidad Tobago, he ran into unexpected or unscripted situations: is the US now ready to re-admit Cuba to the OAS? The vast majority of the Hemisphere’s countries were angling to get Cuba back into the OAS. The Obama team seemed surprised and almost unprepared for this challenge. The other one was how to deal with Chavez. Obama showed class and engaged Chavez briefly but certainly in awkward photo ops. The Cuba question dogged Hillary in the June OAS ministerial in Honduras. At the eleventh hour the Obama team was able to scramble and cobble a mutually acceptable communiqué that did not re-admit Cuba but addressed the irregularity of Cuba being absent from the OAS family. Some labeled the new Administration’s performance “Bush Light.” At the same time the US Mexico relationship was steadily moving forward. Obama revealed his support of Plan Merida to enable Mexico to better take on the drug cartels which have created enormous instability. But the funding for Merida was largely held up because of bureaucratic lack of clarity and other requirements. The other US Mexico challenge is undocumented immigration. No political bravery has emanated from the White House to wrangle with this most sensitive political public policy issue. In fact, no one is able now to predict if immigration reform will be an agenda item in the first two years of the Administration. So far it seems like the Democrats have concluded that the immigration reform bill is a lose-lose situation. The post 9/11 anti-terrorist sentiment coupled with the global economic downturn has inflicted pain on the US body politic. The US public has become more reluctant if not hostile to new immigration flows. This has plainly put a crimp into Obama team’s outlook. The continuation of building the border wall and draconian Homeland Security illegal-immigrant raids on job sites have not been seen sympathetically in Latin America and among Latino audiences in this country.

The more defining moment for the Obama Administration has been the on-going Honduras ‘golpe’ or coup crisis. The Obama team initially sided with the ousted President Zelaya and declared that the sacred principles of democracy had to be adhered and respected. Hence, Zelaya’s restoration to power became the battle cry for US interests in the initial months. Five months later the Obama administration is backtracking on the defense of democratic principles. The Administration appears to have tired of the Honduran crisis. The de facto regime in Honduras dug in and used PR and propaganda cleverly. More interesting seemed to be the Administration’s inability to persuade the defacto regime to cede power. Honduras is small with no political influence, no economic power nor military might — only diplomacy is in its arsenal. The US having all these options thinks in exhausting the first three before employing diplomacy. Hence, the Hondurans readily resorted to the old small country approach to concerns: use diplomacy but follow the rules of not speaking first, do not get angry and finally if unable to resolve favorably the problem then tangle it more. In using these tactics, Honduras wore out the US. The Obama administration slowly began to show  impatience and wariness. They saw Honduras as a small pesky country becoming increasingly more annoying and troublesome on the international stage.

Finally, the US after having declared itself initially pro-restoration of Zelaya and passing the problem to the OAS and Nobel Laureate President Arias of Costa Rica to resolve saw itself being drawn back into the fray. The contentious process dragged out in the discussion of whether the ouster of the Honduran President was legal or not. It attracted Republican die-hearts who defended the coup (because of the Chavista factor against Zelaya) while the Administration and the whole international community condemned the coup as anti-democratic. Obama’s team began to see themselves politically caught between a rock and a hard place: do we support and restore a Chavista (enemy of the US ) while defending democracy? After five months, Secretary of State Clinton and her Assistant Secretary for Latin America (who was being denied confirmation as Ambassador to Brazil by the Republicans) sought to cut a deal and injected themselves finally into the process to basically extricate themselves from this tar-baby. This required an about face or a betrayal of the previous US position. This has now become most troubling in Latin America to see the young dynamic US Administration as less than gracious in this process. In fact, many pundits in and outside the US are remarking or noting that the Administration not only demonstrated confusion or ineptitude or at best a maladroit approach, but callously left most of the OAS membership holding the bag.

To shore up support and bring someone high-level from the US Administration, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis was chosen to be the senior US participant in a so-called Verification Commission to secure the recent signed accords now being hailed as the final solution. Solis, practically unwitting or unfamiliar with the situation, was carefully choreographed by the State Department to ensure that she would stick to the diplomatic script and not become a freelancer. Hilda had been initially hailed as the most liberal member of the Obama cabinet but by the time she left Tegucigalpa she was seen as apologist for the defacto ‘golpista’ government. She now takes the hit, not Hillary. Rather clever and cynical maneuvering it was indeed. As soon as Tom Shannon, the State Department’s overseer of this whole show announced that the Hondurans no longer had to restore Zelaya to get international recognition of the upcoming elections, the defacto government felt it was off the hook and home free.  The Brazilians, who are housing Zelaya in their Embassy and waiting for his restoration, feel the US has behaved at best negligently and indifferent. The problem could have been avoided or minimize by having initially forceful high-level US leadership on the issue. The OAS  had its Secretary General and all the countries in the region had their Presidents or Prime Minister through their Foreign Ministers decry this US perfidy. The US has had a fourth-rung bureaucrat (the Assistant Secretary) in the lead.  Obama’s team failed to recognized from the beginning the limitations of the State Department if not given top White House cover. Moreover, in handing over the volatile issue in this case to the bureaucracy, it plainly did not understand that ‘diplomats seek the path of least resistance, they believe in nothing and everything to everyone’ and as bureaucrats they adhere to: never get between a bureaucrat and his/her ambitions. They mow you down….the additional factor is that while the US behaved like a world power during the Cold War: it basically ordered everyone except the Soviets to do its bidding. In Spanish it was referred to as the ‘dedazo’…now in the post Cold War-era even the tiny insignificant powers have begun to lose their fear of the US. Yet this muddle and lack of focus produce the image of a Gulliver with Lilliputians throwing ropes over his back to bring him down. The US Latino community regardless of partisan bias will feel that if this is all the Obama Administration can provide in terms of moral leadership and support for democratic ideals and most of all the lack of consistency in policy toward Latin America then a closer  look at the expectations must be undertaken. Disappointment is the only word to describe the first real test of fortitude, skill and determination in dealing with Latin America. Arturo Valenzuela the new Assistant Secretary will now have to rectify, re-define as well as need to provide the real Obama vision of the region.

I was even impressed with how the President referred to the cause of Senator Kennedy’s life in describing the letter he received from the late legislator a few days ago where Kennedy reminded him that health care has become the moral issue that will define the principles of social justice and the character of our country. That Senator Kennedy had the foresight to help frame the health care debate in a moral and social justice paradigm in his last days speaks to his command of the issue and desire that no American should be denied care in a country as resourceful as ours.

Like most people, I was dismayed by the outburst of Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) who shouted, “You lie” to President Obama when he explained that the health care effort would not extend coverage to illegal immigrants. This incident reveals to me how low some members of our society and so called leadership are willing to go at the mere mention of illegal immigrants, even when the point they claim to refute is moot. The larger debate about health care isn’t even about undocumented immigrants, but the reaction that they produce is symptomatic of how many in the Latino community have come to view the GOP.

I believe that the level of dialogue and debate in the US about issues like health care, illegal immigration, and even education has diminished to the point of shouting matches, screaming and lie proliferation. And now, Rep. Wilson has become the poster boy for that kind of behavior.

Earlier this week, we heard the protests and efforts of some who did not want school children to listen to President Obama’s address about personal responsibility and education for fears that he was “indoctrinating” young people with a socialist agenda. I actually wonder how many of the people who were protesting this “boot straps” pep talk have actually been to a socialist country or read anything in depth about it to really understand the terms that they fling around. And even for those who disagree with the President’s policy agenda, how can you refine your arguments and refute your points if you are unwilling to even listen?

I recently finished a book by Mark Bauerlein, The Dumbest Generation, which describes how digital distractions have dumbed our society down. Reading for leisure has declined, and with the younger generations, the proliferation of myspace, facebook, texting, and other social media have made some people look more inward instead of outward. As this dumbing down has occurred even in light of technological advances that could bring access to educational materials to a larger audience, the public’s ability to process information and engage thoughtfully has diminished. My thought is that the screams of those like Rep. Wilson do not set an example or the tone for a more intelligent conversation and instead play into the fears and anger of those who chose to look inward instead of viewing themselves as members of an increasingly complex, global society. Unfortunately, the mere mention of terms like “illegal immigrants,” “socialism,” or dare we even say “responsibility” produce the kind of reactions in some that are so ugly that more thoughtful dialogue is discouraged.

In terms of the Latino community and how it can affect change and influence the debate, I think that we need to start processing information more through reading and engaging with each other about current events like health care and immigration so that we can distinguish ourselves from the likes of Wilson. We have an opportunity to do better and to elevate our own message during these times.

Photo Credit: Rep. Joe Wilson (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

“Whereas, as UFW co-founder Dolores Huerta once said, Robert and Ted Kennedy “didn’t come to us and tell us what was good for us. All they said was, ‘What do you want? And how can I help?’ That’s why we love them””

I would like to show a clip of Senator Kennedy sharing why he fought so hard for health care reform and access for all Americans from last year right before he had been diagnosed with the brain cancer that took his life.

Thank you for your service Senator Kennedy. May you find eternal rest and peace, and may your family’s legacy of service continue to inspire people everywhere.

Que Viva Ted Kennedy!

Photo Credit: (Win McNamee/Getty Images) Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) before President Bush’s State of the Union speech on Jan. 28, 2008.

Recent commentary in the aftermath of the recent Obama victory and the 2006 Democratic Congressional win suggests that the country once again has moved noticeably to the Democrats. This stems from the Iraq War and the Katrina debacle coupled with the economic crisis which appear to have firmly routed George W. Bush’s party, the Grand Old Party of Lincoln. The undeclared and unwinnable war in Iraq took its toll, as it became a war of political attrition as most ‘undeclared’ wars have; like Korea and Vietnam. The leadership disaster during Hurricane Katrina was plainly lethal to Bush 43′s second term.

In 2004, it was reported that Bush won up to 44% of the Latino vote…some challenged these figures but it does seem that at least 40% of the nation’s Hispanic vote went to the GOP in that election. Not even the more popular Ronald Reagan was ever able to garner this percentage among Latinos. With George Bush, the GOP achieved the highest percentage or portion of the Latino vote that it had ever won in any national election. Making it more significant was the tightness of the election in several key states like Ohio. Yet, even as the GOP appeared to be confronting it nadir in the 2008 elections, it is safe to say that just over 30% of the voting Latinos stayed with the GOP. This is a remarkable figure given the circumstances. Hence, this political behavior certainly requires deeper examination.

First, it should be noted that historically (beginning with FDR) the Hispanic vote, which was mostly Mexican-American, tended to go massively with the Democrats. The slow political empowerment of Latinos began as FDR and Truman lifted them out of the Great Depression. These defining moments were not as dramatic as Lincoln beating the Slavocracy of the South and emancipating the African-American from the shackles of slavery. As this feat made all Black-Americans overwhelmingly Republican, there was a prevailing GOP ascendancy for the next seven decades. Yet, FDR’s leadership role in the Great Depression and his wife, Eleanor’s continuous efforts to bring social justice to the African-Americans began a slow movement to attract voting Blacks to the Democratic Party, especially in urban areas.

But it must be recalled that before the Civil War to the 1960′s, the Democratic Party was solidly based in the Jim Crow segregated Southern States; these Bourbon or Moss Back Democrats were in coalition with big city party machines in the North; like Tammany Hall. If one looks back at the record we find that, Pres. Woodrow Wilson was an avowed racist. FDR, though he fully backed his wife’s commitment, was not particularly concerned with the plight of the American ethnic minorities. Yet, President Truman did integrate the Armed Forces after WWII. The record also reflects that during the post war Hispanics, as they became more politically active, tilted toward the Democrats. It should be noted that Eisenhower did draw many Latino votes, but not in significant numbers.

It was the 1960 election of JFK that became the baptism of fire politically for Latino voters nationally. For the first time, the largely Roman Catholic identification of the Latinos with the Democratic candidate was a driving force. Latino elected officials were minimal during the period leading up to the Kennedy-Johnson period. Only New Mexico had elected Hispanics to federal office (US Senator Chavez and Congressman Montoya both Democrats) prior to this. Henry Gonzalez of Texas and Ed Roybal of California were elected in the wake of the JFK-LBJ victory. Subsequently, the assassination of Kennedy, the ascendancy of Lyndon Johnson and his successful accomplishments in civil and voting rights, Martin Luther King’s unspeakable murder and Bobby Kennedy’s assassination solidified both Latinos and Blacks within the Democratic Party.

The first Republican national candidates who truly sought to reach out to Latinos were Nixon and Rockefeller in 1968. The former who came from southern California (and recognized the closeness of his loss to JFK in 1960) acknowledged the potential of the growing Latino vote. Rockefeller, as Governor of New York, had a sizable Puerto Rican constituency which he had courted in his race for governor. He had made several minor appointments within the Puerto Rican community while in state office. Nixon’s awareness of the Latino vote, during his second attempt to become President in 1968, motivated him to make modest efforts to court Latinos in order to avoid all of them going for the Democratic candidate, Hubert Humphrey. Once elected, Nixon began immediately to prepare for his 1972 presidential re-election bid. He made certain that there were Latino groups advocating his re-election. He made high profile appointments and formally created a political position in the White House (although Johnson had done so but not as formally) to have an outreach to the Spanish-speaking groups (as we were referred to before Hispanic became fashionable). Nixon, in his Southern strategy, was focused in winning-over the formerly Democratic South. When President Johnson’s 1965 Civil Rights Public Accommodations Bill was passed into law, he is quoted as saying: “…there goes the South…”  He was referring to the reaction of the southern white Democrats to the empowerment of Blacks and protection of their voting rights. LBJ correctly predicted that the whites in the South would abandon wholesale the Democratic Party. Nixon strategically laid out the plans to permanently capture the South, which had previously hated the GOP for beating the South in the Civil War and imposing Re-Construction.

To be continued…

The NY Times had a decent opinion piece from a few days ago about the labor agenda in the next administration. Essentially, Hilda Solis will have a unique opportunity to make good on some of President-Elect Obama’s promises to working families. The Employee Free Choice Act is one piece of legislation that Solis has been supportive of, which would allow workers to more easily unionize.  

This particular part of the editorial struck me:

“The argument against unions — that they unduly burden employers with unreasonable demands — is one that corporate America makes in good times and bad, so the recession by itself is not an excuse to avoid pushing the bill next year. The real issue is whether enhanced unionizing would worsen the recession, and there is no evidence that it would.

There is a strong argument that the slack labor market of a recession actually makes unions all the more important. Without a united front, workers will have even less bargaining power in the recession than they had during the growth years of this decade, when they largely failed to get raises even as productivity and profits soared. If pay continues to lag, it will only prolong the downturn by inhibiting spending.”

Blogger Ezra Klein also referenced this part of the article, and further expounded the following:

“I’d only add that the last great leap forward for unions was during World War II, and the last great expansion of the American middle class followed in its aftermath. In contrast, the most recent expansions — which have largely occurred in the absence of unions — have benefited America’s rich.”

Increased worker productivity since the Reagan years has not corresponded with increased worker’s wages, while CEO and executive pay has gone through the roof. Unionization also balances corporate power. Solis, coming from a union family, which enabled her to earn a college education understands this.

I should also note that Senator Kennedy, who has honored Rep. Solis with a Profile in Courage Award in 2000, has already schedule the confirmation hearing for the Secretary of Labor nominee. Senator Kennedy also released the following statement regarding Hilda Solis today:

“She’s a tireless champion for working families. She understands the struggles that millions of Americans are facing, and she’ll be an invaluable asset to President Obama in protecting workers’ rights and restoring economic opportunity. I look forward very much to working with her on these critical issues in her new position.”

Due to their immigration status, thousands (in excess of 60,000) of high school graduates across the country have not been able to take advantage of the opportunities that make a higher education a possibility. In-state tuition rates, private scholarships, state and federal grants and loans, the ability to work in order to support themselves and pay for college are all denied to these young people, who came to our country as children and have been living here and attending school without immigration status.

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, also called the DREAM Act, is a proposal for federal legislation that attempts to address the federal barriers to both education and work for undocumented young immigrant students. The House version (HR 1275) was introduced on March 2007 by Howard Berman (D-CA). As of 2007,  it is cosponsored by  Rep. Rubén Hinojosa (D-TX), Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL), Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-TX), Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA), Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-CA), Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), Rep. José Serrano (D-NY), Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA), Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ), Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL), Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) plus 67 other Democrats and 1 more Republican. The question raised is:  Will these same sponsors, especially the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, in the House stay the course in carrying the bill to final approval?

The Senate version was introduced earlier this year by Richard Durbin (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Richard Lugar (R-IN). The legislation would restore states’ rights to offer in-state tuition to immigrant students residing in their state and ultimately provide a path to citizenship for those who qualify. The students must be of sound moral character, have graduated from a school in the US or have obtained a GED, have been here continuously for at least five years and be 12-30 years old prior to the bill’s enactment. The students would obtain temporary residency for a period of six years, during which they must attend college, earn a two year degree or complete two years of a four year college career, or serve in the military for two years. The immigrant students could not receive federal higher education grants, but they would be able to apply for student loans and work study. Once the six year temporary period was over, the student who has completed one of the educational or military service requirements would be eligible to apply for permanent residency, if he/she does not meet the requirements, their temporary residence would be revoked and they would be subject to deportation. Several versions of the bill have been introduced in both houses of Congress, although the House has never brought it to the floor alone. In order to bring forth the DREAM Act for debate in the Senate, a vote was scheduled on October 24 that would require a “filibuster proof” count of 60 yes votes. That day on the floor of the Senate, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) , who previously opposes consideration of the DREAM Act, announced that she and Sen. Durbin would work to make changes that she felt were necessary to gain Republican support for the proposed legislation. It was announced that if the debate of the DREAM Act was allowed, the bill would be rewritten in favor of Sen. Hutchison’s suggestions, which included that students should be allowed to hold a temporary student visa with a renewable work permit instead of conditional permanent residency. By a very small number of votes, the Senate rejected an attempt to begin the debate on The DREAM Act proposal, which would have offered an opportunity to the thousands of young undocumented immigrant students an opportunity to pursue higher education and an option to resolve their current lack of immigration status. The DREAM Act obtained 52 votes in favor, falling eight votes short of the 60 needed. Senate rules require a super majority of 60 votes to advance most bills. President-Elect Obama  released the following statement on the Senate’s failure to move forward to consider the DREAM Act (S.2205):

“We need comprehensive immigration reform in this country – reform that promotes our national and economic security and creates a pathway to earned citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country. We should not punish undocumented children who were brought to this country illegally through no choice of their own by keeping them in the shadows. The DREAM Act would have given these young people the opportunity to earn a degree or serve in our military, and eventually become legalized citizens. Failing to pass the DREAM Act only compounds the immigration crisis by continuing to drive thousands of young people every year into hiding.

Today is another missed opportunity in the battle to solve the immigration crisis in this country. The immigration debate has been wrought with the politics of division and fear, and been exploited by some politicians, blocking the real reform we need. Today’s vote proves that we need to do more to transcend these divisions – especially to provide solutions to help the most vulnerable in our society. I will continue to work with Senators Durbin, Hagel, Lugar and Kennedy on this issue, and will fight to bring this legislation back for another vote as soon as possible.”

Clearly, plenty will be on the new President’s agenda this coming year. But one hopes that this important legislation is not jettisoned for budgetary reasons or biased rejection of granting immigrant youth any chance for educational improvement or the lassitude of our Latino congressional members.  

Note: You can exercise your on-line activism by voting to make The DREAM Act one of the top priorities for the next administration at Change.org. You can also get involved at DreamACTivist.org.

Bill Richardson appears to have committed a big blooper. In a recorded video being bicycled around the internet, he states in Spanish that President Elect Obama is “un inmigrante.” Plainly, this feeds the anti-Obama bloggers, pundits, critics, bigots and other enemies of the newly elected President that want to believe he is ‘ineligible’ to become President because he is not “native born.” Of course, Richardson may have merely committed a gaffe (note the Supreme Court will not review Obama’s citizenship, as the Hawaii Health Department Director has confirmed that he was born in Hawaii).

It became clear that Obama will have so far at least two Asian Americans on Cabinet. Shinseki at Veterans Affairs and Chu at Energy, two African Americans: Holder at Justice as AG and Susan Rice at the UN, three white males Daschle at HHS, Geithner at Treasury and Gates remains at Defense, and one Latino to Commerce – Richardson. Still being speculated for Interior is Grijalva and Manny Diaz for HUD or Transportation. Talk of Xavier Becerra to USTR (the Trade Representative) died down this week, but no other name has surfaced and talk is that Becerra wants to stay in the House to be the third or fourth ranking Dem. Still the trade establishment is trying to recover from the shock of learning that Becerra is a serious contender for the USTR job. Becerra is not  regarded as a genuine friend of trade agreements unless they address blue/green issues (labor/environmental) — both anathema to the corporate and trade mandarins. Frank Sanchez is still being toted as probably the new Presidential Envoy to Latin America. He will probably need to get Hillary Clinton, the new Secretary of State, designee’s buy in.

The NSC Director for Latin America appears to be on track for Colombian American Dan Restrepo. Luis Lauredo (Cuban American), former Clinton Ambassador to the OAS, is promoting himself as the possible new Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America as is Arturo Valenzuela (Chilean American), a Georgetown Professor who was Clinton’s last NSC Director for Latin America. Both have keen competition from Mark Schneider, a former Senator Ted Kennedy confidante and former Clinton Asst Administrator of AID for Latin America and Julia Schweig, a leading Latin expert on Cuba at the white bread Council on Foreign Relations.

Joe Garcia, the Dems’ recent unsuccessful challenger to Congressman Mario Diaz Balart, is being talked about as a possible and most viable candidate for the of the powerful FCC or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Garcia (Cuban American) was formerly head of the Florida Public Utilities Board under the late Gov Lawton Chiles. Another Washington bagatelle has it that Henry Cisneros is strongly plugging for the recently defeated Texas Dems’ candidate for the US Senate, Rick Noriega to be the head of FEMA, which is not a job most people are rushing to embrace or seek. Word from Europe is that former Clinton Ambassador to Spain Ed Romero was seen visiting Madrid with Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez in tow. It seems that Romero is openly and brazenly supporting Chavez’ candidacy for Obama’s envoy to King Juan Carlos. Romero, along with Chavez, was assumed to be measuring the curtains at the sumptuous Ambassadorial digs. The question remains: Is Richardson also standing tall for Chavez? Being ambassador to Spain opens plenty of business opportunities after you leave office, and Romero knows this well. Next we might see a Latino measuring the drapes at the Ambassador’s abode in Mexico City…