The U.S. Census Bureau recently began releasing the results of the 2010 Census, and will continue to do so for the next year. On April 1, 2010 the resident population of the United States was 308,745,538. The census results are used to determine reapportionment and redistricting.

Reapportionment can already be determined with the census results recently released. Reapportionment is the allocation of the 435 House of Representative seats. Many states, 32, will remain the same keeping the same amount of Representatives in the House.  10 states will lose seats in the House, and 8 states will gain seats.  The big winners were Texas and Florida, which will gain four and two seats.  New York and Ohio are both losing two seats.

Now that reapportionment is done redistricting can begin.  Redistricting involves dividing the districts through map drawing and affects all levels of government.  Generally, the state legislature is responsible for the Congressional, State House, and State Senate districts and local county and city bodies redraw their own district. In six states redistricting is facilitated through a redistricting commission.

Three civil rights groups, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., Asian American Justice Center, and Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), recently released a guide to redistricting, because redistricting is very much a civil rights issue.  Redistricting must comply with the Voting Rights Act. The courts have interpreted redistricting law to allow for race to be considered when redistricting when it is necessary to satisfy a compelling state interest, but for the most part the districts still need compactness and contiguity.  Involvement in the redistricting process is important to create districts that will ensure diversity in leadership and representation of all residents.  Redistricting can also affect language assistance voters receive at the polls, because laws requiring assistance are based on the make up of the population.

Considering the importance of redistricting it is important for the Latino population to be involved in the process, especially given the rise in Latino population in the nation.   Anyone can participate in the process of redistricting and advocate for where boundaries should be drawn to make sure redistricting plans do not harm the community.  This might seem like an overwhelming and technical process, but there is assistance available to ensure that everyone has a voice in the process.  Map drawing software can be expensive, but by coalition building and working with various community leaders, much can be achieved.  It is important to identify special concerns of each community and present testimony about community concerns to those making redistricting decisions.   Latinos need more representation in government and they must be heard.  Voting power is important, but if there are not enough Latinos in a district to make a difference, then law makers will not listen.  At a time where legislation important to the Latino community continues to be ignored, Latinos cannot afford to not get involved in the redistricting process.

Cristina Villarreal is a guest blogger from Being Latino writing from Chicago, Illinois.

Last week a new coalition, Latinos for Internet Freedom “LIF”, was formed to fight for internet freedom and to support the concept of net neutrality. Over 40 local and national groups comprise this coalition from the National Association of Hispanic Journalists to more local groups like the New Mexico Media Literacy Project and CARECEN. These groups realize that our livelihood depends on an open and free internet that allows us to communicate, organize, and challenge the traditional propaganda machines.

If you notice, some of our community’s most prominent or noted civil rights organizations have not joined the newly formed LIF coalition. Notably absent are NCLR, MALDEF, and LULAC. However, this should not be a big surprise since big telecom companies like AT&T and Verizon tend to be high level donors to these organizations. But since many of the grassroots organizations do work that fits in line with and supports the stated goals of the larger Latino organizations, I would hope that they (the holy trinity of NCLR, MALDEF, and LULAC) will eventually join this fight.

I was able to ask Roberto Lovato of Presente.org about the absence of some of these larger Latino civil rights organizations from the net neutrality fight, and he offered this:

“The response to our launch of the Latinos for Internet Freedom coalition has been overwhelming. Latinos and non-Latinos from across the country have stepped to say they want to keep the internet as open and free from the excessive greed and control of extremely powerful corporations. These same corporations that have, over the past 10 years, spent hundreds of millions of dollars to influence “opinion leaders” and “civil rights” organizations. That so many leaders and organizations have joined our fight despite the attempts to buy Latino opinion speaks well of these leaders and organizations- and of our cause. Other leaders “brillan por su ausencia”, they shine for their absence against the dark cloud of corporate control looming over the internet. The conspicuous silence of some “civil rights leaders” around network neutrality, an issue at the core of the civil and human rights struggles of the present and future, provides, I believe, an opportunity for the courage and conviction of the brave new leaders of the Latino community to shine forth. Digital age activists like LIF members  Amalia Deloney of the Center for Media Justice, Andrea Quijada of the Media Literacy Project and Steven Renderos of the Main Street Project stand to inherit and redefine what were the civil rights struggle of the industrial age civil rights organizations. They are at the heart of Latinos for Internet Freedom.

To my knowledge, Janet Murguia and the Natonal Council of La Raza have remained neutral about network neutrality.”

If you want to preserve the free and open internet that allows you to go where you want to when you get online, please take action here and consider voicing your concern to Latino oriented organizations who are not yet taking a stand in the net neutrality fight.

• Randy Parraz, the Latino candidate for the Democratic nomination for Senate in Arizona, finished last. I commend him for trying, but it will be interesting to watch Rodney Glassman challenge John McCain, who ended up winning his primary after facing a tough challenge from a more conservative J.D. Hayworth. I actually met Glassman last month at Netroots Nation, and I must admit that he’s a pretty charming guy. Glassman likes to remind all of the Latinos that Congressman Grijalva and Dolores Huerta have endorsed him. I can’t wait to see him juxtaposed to McCain. Hopefully, they debate just so we can have that visual of the young, energetic Glassman next to the cranky, nearly 74 year old McCain. But Glassman still has an uphill battle.

• A report recently came out by the Center for Responsible Lending that shows in California, Latinos borrowers constitute nearly half of all foreclosures in the state. The Central Valley has the highest concentration of foreclosures. I had blogged about the foreclosure crisis in relation to the Latino community last year in a two part blog post here and here if you are interested.

• Last week, Mario Obledo, one of the founders of MALDEF and then Governor Jerry Brown’s head of the California Health and Welfare Agency during the 1970s died of a heart attack at age 78.

• President Obama is scheduled to be in El Paso, Texas on August 31. Given the President’s increasing deportation rate and militarization of the border, I see how this event could be an opportunity for the community to voice concern.

The Latino community has been impacted by the obesity epidemic, and Hispanic preschool children are at a higher risk of being overweight or obese. Back in 2006, a study published in the American Journal of Public Health found the following:

“Thirty-two percent of the white and black tots were either overweight or obese, vs. 44% of the Hispanics.

Children were particularly at risk if their mothers were obese. So were those who still took a bottle to bed at age 3, as did 14% of the Hispanic youngsters, 6% of the whites and 4% of the blacks.”

So given the state of our community’s fat issues that start hindering us from the get-go, it was a little surprising for me to learn that Latino organizations such as the Hispanic Alliance for Prosperity, the National Hispana Leadership Institute, and the League of United Latin American Citizens, along with the National Hispanic Medical Organization have been recruited by a coalition, Americans Against Food Taxes, to oppose taxes on sugary and fast foods. These organizations are arguing that taxes on these foods would disproportionately affect the poor.

I wasn’t the only one surprised:

“Public health analysts were surprised to find that the list included the National Hispanic Medical Association, which represents 36,000 Latino doctors and focuses on health issues such as obesity-related diabetes that’s hitting Latino youth especially hard.

Nearly all the Hispanic groups, including the Medical Association, had received beverage industry money in the past or have industry representatives on their governing boards.”

Once again, our advocacy groups have been tainted by the money coming from industries that contribute to our health problems. We have seen this with the alcohol industry and their continued sponsorship of organizations like MALDEF and NCLR.

I’m neither for or against a fast food or soft-drink tax, but I do think that it is worth exploring, as a way to offset the costs of health care. The evidence that such a tax would help curb unhealthy habits is not very conclusive, but continuing to accept money from food companies that produce goods that aren’t of much nutritional value muddles the messages of organizations like Hispanic Alliance for Prosperty and LULAC.

My thought is that the food and soft-drink industry is salivating at our growing population and growing hunger and thirst for their products. They want to make sure that we have been effectively bought off so that we will oppose taxes on sodas and convenience foods. Frankly, all of us would be better off eating more unprocessed foods, which can actually be cheaper when purchased at local farmer’s markets and produce stands. I just don’t see a benefit to promoting the “crap food” industry any more than is already done. This issue is particularly timely given First Lady Michelle Obama’s kick off of the “Let’s Move” campaign to conquer childhood obesity. But what are your thoughts?

Every year right before 5 de Mayo, I find that I cannot turn on the radio without hearing about a celebration at a local club or bar, where people will be getting on their drinko for the cinco. Last year, I wrote a blog post about my experiences with this holiday as pertaining to some advocacy work I had been involved in with a group called Cinco de Mayo con Orgullo. Each year, I hope that the holiday will evolve away from the St. Patrick’s Day drunk fest that has become the tradition, but it seems less likely that will be happening, in part because of our community’s ties to the spirits and beer industry.

Last fall, a study from UT Austin’s School of Education and the University of Florida’s College of Medicine found that Latino students are exposed to more alcoholic beverage advertising than other students. Students attending schools with 20% or more Hispanic students see an average of seven times more alcoholic beverage  ads than students at schools with smaller Hispanic populations.

One of the study’s authors, Dr. Keryn Pasch stated, “According to previous studies, Hispanic youth are at higher risk for alcohol use than either white or African American youth. Exposure to alcohol advertising has been shown to increase alcohol use and intention to use alcohol, and marketers are aggressively capitalizing on the rapidly growing Hispanic population, targeting their marketing efforts at this group.”

Additionally, the study found that alcohol advertising is uniquely catered to specific ethnic groups. Alcohol consumption advertising near schools with 20% or more Hispanic students tends to use the culture of the neighborhood. So with Latino communities, you see more ads incorporating Mexican flags, sports heroes, and celebrities. These carefully crafted ads build brand recognition with young people, putting them at an increased risk for substance abuse from an early age.

According to the US Health and Human Services for people 12 years and older, Hispanics have a 10% rate of substance abuse, which is lower than Native Americans (19%), but higher than the rate for whites (9.2%) and African-Americans (9%). Substance abuse care providers have historically seen more substance abuse in acculturated Latinos than in those who are recent immigrants. However, they are now seeing more immigrants turning to alcohol and substance abuse in coping with difficult immigrant experiences. We have already seen an increase in violent crime targeting Latinos, and often alcohol accompanies these incidences.

So why do Latino civil rights organizations continue to take money from the alcohol industry given these dismal statistics? In large part, organizations like MALDEF, NCLR, and even LULAC are not grassroots in terms of their donor databases. In Los Angeles, the MALDEF office is in a building sponsored by Anheuser-Busch, as is evidenced by its wall signage. NCLR is corporate partner with Coors Brewing Company and Miller Brewing Company. LULAC’s corporate alliance partners include both Anheuser-Busch and Coors. These organizations have been built and bolstered by donations from the very companies who cleverly target our young people. MALDEF, NCLR, and LULAC provide a portal into our community and give tacit approval to sell to our captive and growing market. On its Corporate Relationship Opportunities page, NCLR even boasts of Latino buying power and growing disposable income, citing that we have more than $736 billion in purchasing power, and then explaining how corporations can help ensure the American Dream for Hispanic Americans by partnering with the organization. Oddly enough, NCLR has a health policy section on its website, which deals primarily with obesity and nutrition, but noticeably absent is any information about alcoholism.

While I’m hopeful that with enough awareness, people will start questioning the conventional wisdom of letting spirits and beer companies underwrite so many community events and programs, especially given the prevalence of alcohol advertising in our community. It certainly sends a mixed message to our youth about substance abuse when our civil rights organizations have to utilize ‘liquor loot’. This 5 de Mayo I will pause before I consume any alcoholic beverages or perhaps I won’t have any to more clearly commemorate the Battle of Puebla.

Photo Credit: MALDEF Los Angeles Offices lobby sign, Wendy Carrillo

Yesterday, the AP reported this:

“POTTSVILLE, Pa. (AP) — An all-white jury on Friday acquitted two Pennsylvania teenagers of all serious charges against them stemming from the fatal beating of an illegal Mexican immigrant last summer.

Brandon Piekarsky, 17, was acquitted of third-degree murder and ethnic intimidation, while Derrick Donchak, 19, was acquitted of aggravated assault and ethnic intimidation. Both were convicted of simple assault.”

And on Friday, after the jury verdict came in, MALDEF (note the corporate sponsor under the signage) released the following press release:

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION

May 1, 2009

JUSTICE NOT SERVED:  PENNSYLVANIA HATE CRIME ASSAILANTS FOUND NOT
GUILTY

Latino hate crime trial ends with ‘not guilty’ verdict

POTTSVILLE, PA –  A jury in Schuylkill County found the two
defendants, Brandon Piekarsky and Derrick Donchak, accused of beating
25-year-old Luis Ramirez to death, not guilty.

“Tonight there is no justice in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania.  The jury’s
conclusion is an outrage.  Luis Ramirez was brutally murdered.
Witnesses testified that it was racially motivated as a result of hate
and intolerance.  In the week when Congress passed the Hate Crimes
Act, this verdict underscores the importance of the passage of this
Act.  It is time for the Department of Justice to step in and bring
justice to the Ramirez family and send a strong message that violence
targeting immigrants will not be tolerated and will be prosecuted to
the full extent of the law,” stated Henry Solano, MALDEF interim
president and general counsel.

In July 2008, Ramirez lost his life after he was knocked unconscious
and kicked in the head by a group of Shenandoah teenagers who yelled
racial epithets before and during the brutal beating. Witnesses
overheard anti-Mexican and ethnic epithets shouted by his
assailants.   At trial one of the witnesses testified that one of
Ramirez’s friends tried to stop the beating but one of the assailants
said, “Tell your Mexican friends to get out of town, or you’ll be
laying next to him.”   Ramirez leaves behind his fiancée and their two
young children.

Brandon Piekarsky was charged with third-degree murder and Derrick
Donchak was charged with aggravated assault. Both were charged with
ethnic intimidation.

“Luis’s death reflects a steady increase of hate crimes targeting
Latinos. Since 2002, the FBI has documented a 40 percent increase in
hate crimes committed against Latinos,” said Gladys Limón, MALDEF
staff attorney.  “This drastic rise of hate crimes against Latinos
must be addressed by the new Administration and Congress.”

Earlier this week, the U.S. House of Representatives took a historic
step forward and passed H.R. 1913, “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crime
Prevention Act” by a vote of 249 to 175.  The bill strengthens
existing federal hate crime laws by authorizing the Department of
Justice to assist local authorities in investigating and prosecuting
certain bias-motivated crimes.  MALDEF urges the Senate to act quickly
and pass the bill.

MALDEF will continue to work with the Ramirez family and the U.S.
Department of Justice to ensure that the actions of the defendants and
the death of Luis Ramirez is fully investigate as a hate crime.

~~~

Now as I have read about this case, the victim certainly wasn’t free of his own issues. It was revealed that he had an underage girlfriend in addition to the fiancee Crystal Dillman, and there were allegations of drug use on his end. However, I still cannot believe that the perpetrators were convicted of simple assault and nothing more. I think that this won’t do anything to ease the already high tensions in this small town. I do agree with MALDEF that justice was not served, but what do you think? I encourage you to share your thoughts in this blog post.

If you want to learn more about this trial, you can read a live blog from The Republican Herald. My colleague Megan, who works for The Republican Herald, was kind enough to send me the link.

Photo Credit: MALDEF Los Angeles Offices lobby sign, Wendy Carrillo

My observation is: this sort of distressing report can only help to solidify an increasing perception that the Latinos who make up well over 65% of the undocumented or illegal foreign population in the US are a class of scofflaws. This is most disturbing. The report additionally becomes somewhat confusing when it suggests and states that a good number have been incarcerated for violating immigration law. The convictions broke down largely along citizenship lines. Among sentenced non-citizen Latino immigration offenders, more than eight-in-ten (81%) were convicted of entering unlawfully or residing in the U.S. without authorization. In contrast, more than nine-in-ten (91%) U.S. citizen Latino immigration offenders were convicted of smuggling, transporting or harboring an unlawful alien. Hispanics who were convicted of any federal offense were more likely than non-Hispanics to be sentenced to prison. If the Homeland Security Department has decreed that every illegal entering the US will be not only detained but convicted of a felony to serve time, this is truly an abuse of immigration law.

Ted Alden, former London Financial Times correspondent in Washington, recently wrote a book, The Closing of the American Border. Alden concludes in his book that after 9/11, the Justice Department developed the Patriot Act to control and monitor the American public. This Act appears to have added to the body of law in dealing with subversion or sedition. In terms of dealing with foreigners or non-US citizens or non-US residents, the existing immigration legal framework was instrumental to protect the US from any terrorist or similar threats. Hence, the draconian process in the application of issuing visas (no longer just trying to prevent economic refugees from entering the US, but real threats like terrorists), arduous port of entry immigration inspections, closer customs monitoring of cargo containers, advanced passenger inventory lists for aircraft scheduled to fly to the US and the Passenger Name Registration on aircraft in flight to the US. The publication of ‘no-fly lists’ (contain the names of suspected or known terrorists) created increased vigilance. But if you had the misfortune to have the same name as someone on the list or near the same name as crossed checked with the Advance Passenger and Passenger name lists, you are automatically denied access to the aircraft. These lists can further complicate travel into the US. This has made it imperative for governments to improve travel documentation such as internationally agreeing to include digital photos, special paper, digital fingerprints or iris scan or voice recognition chips.

It should be noted that out of over six billion people on the planet, over two billion have no real authentic documentation. That means that no birth certificates, baptismal notices, drivers licenses, passports or national ID cards are held by these individuals. Alden basically describes how immigration law became the preferred instrument to prevent, root out or capture any suspected terrorist or threat, but the importance of this determination to use the anti-terrorist cry to go after any undesirable quickly became apparent. Obtaining legal entry into the US is a monumental effort for most foreigners, subjected to high cost of visa applications, then comes the almost insulting if not contemptuous ordeal by the interviewing official at the US consulates. And then if you get the visa, there is no guarantee that the port of entry inspector will agree to allow one to enter the US. Ultimately, these Homeland Security immigration inspectors have the final word.

It is interesting to note that about 40% or more of the so-called illegals in the US come in legally with a visa or permission of sorts. The other 55% came in illegally. In practical terms, the stereotypical image of the undocumented is someone in tatters jumping a fence, swimming a river, or hiding in the floor board of a vehicle. It would be interesting for the Pew researchers to distinguish those Latinos in jail as to how many entered illegally or entered legally and overstayed their visas and became illegal. I would guess that the poor, downtrodden illegal who paid a coyote to enter the US is the one being incarcerated. The better clothed and educated ‘overstayers’ probably do not see this treatment as often. 

Portraying the Latino population as a horde of lawless undesirables is most misleading if in fact this draconian application of immigration law is yielding this result. MALDEF, along with the Pew Hispanic Center, should seek a foundation grant to thoroughly address this situation. Of course, many historians will readily point out that on the eve of the Civil War in 1860, the prison population was approximately 80% Irish. It appears as one wanders through US social history that in the 1700s, the prison population was small and mostly Scots-Irish. Small because most jurisdictions had no resources to build and house prisoners. Hence, stealing a horse or twice convicted of a crime could result in a rope around your neck and publicly executed. In the 1800s, the Irish were the scofflaws, and in the 1900s the African-Americans became the leading presence in the federal prisons and local jails. Now it appears that the Latino community will soon be seen as the new avant-guard in populating prison facilities, and this may be another indication of the underclass the Latino community is about to become. It certainly is not the case yet and should not be, but reports like these are alarming and distressing, but should be managed in a way that gives us solutions to the problem and points the way forward. Again, this Pew Report is most disconcerting. Its findings are certainly of great concern. The overall conclusion is that Latinos tend to be the most numerous group violating immigration law. That is not only illegal entry but includes aiding and abetting illegal entry. This serves to re-enforce negative stereotypes. Our community needs to attend this situation to disabuse the notion that we are all not law abiding.

For Latinos, Comprehensive Immigration Reform has been bandied around as the primordial theme in the Latino agenda as noted in the Latino State of the Union yesterday, which is expected to be positively addressed by President Obama. The fact remains that during the rugged campaign, immigration was patently avoided by both candidates. Hence, there is no electoral mandate to obtain comprehensive immigration reform legislation. However, among some Latino advocacy circles like the National Council of La Raza, the LULAC and MALDEF, immigration reform is being pronounced as a top priority and signaling the Obama team that they must resolve or seek legislation to alleviate the undocumented peoples’ plight . It should be pointed out that the two other significant and somewhat empowered groups of Latinos: the Puerto Ricans and the Cuban-Americans do not have an immigration issue as such. Both groups view immigration not an immediate concern: the Puerto Ricans are born U.S. citizens and the Cubans are paroled into the U.S. once they touch dry land. Hence, both have no employment issue for their newly arrived migrants or exiles. Mexican nationals in the US, along with numerous Central Americans, are the most anxious to see some movement on the immigration reform front. Mexican-Americans also are sensitive to the issue, but no overwhelming consensus on immigration exists among these Mexican Americans. They, along with other Latinos, often fret over the immigration debate becoming an anti-immigrant and ultimately anti-Latino. The California Latinos saw this happen in 1994 with the propositions to limit or deny services to the undocumented. Thus, it can be readily concluded that the Latino community as a whole may hold different views and priorities in the Latino agenda.

Most voting Latinos appear to be more interested in Obama tackling the current economic crisis, as evidenced by the most recent Pew Hispanic Center survey. It is considered the most menacing crisis since the Great Depression. Jobs, housing, education and health services are all being affected significantly by the crisis. The immigration reform goal is also on the radar, but according to several surveys, it is not the primary issue that is viewed as indispensable for immediate consideration. There is in fact a reasonable national consensus among all sectors of American society that immigration reform must be addressed and resolved. No one who is rational in thinking about or discussing the issue can seek to ignore or obstruct reform, but it is most difficult to see it as a top national priority in the first year of the new Administration. Obama, who during the transition period after the election, has amply demonstrated his pragmatic and middle of the road approach to national problem solving will not commit the same error the Clintons did in attempting early on to pass health reform. Health care, like immigration, is indeed a fundamental goal for this administration. But both involve and require enormous political capital, which will have to be safe guarded to ensure that it is available for addressing the burgeoning budget, massive economic infrastructure programs, jobs creation, and bailing out the automotive and banking sectors. Immigration, as vividly demonstrated almost three years ago in the last round of attempts to get legislation passed, evoked a glandular reaction from the ‘racist nativists’ and an enormous discomfort in many other areas of the economy. Now with the dire economic conditions of the country it suggests that any reform effort to address effectively the almost 12 million undocumented residents in the U.S will provoke a boisterous, sectarian, anti-immigrant backlash in the country. Regularizing (granting permission to work and reside in the US) these hopeful would-be-immigrants will be tantamount to some perceptions of amnesty. Admittedly, to introduce or officially recognize several million new workers under the circumstances would be politically harrowing. This involves officially welcoming several million new workers into an economy which at best is ailing. Therefore, one would require extraordinary political bravery or recklessness if it means jeopardizing other priorities on the Obama agenda.

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Latino Advocacy groups like LULAC, MALDEF and NCLR must quickly strategize and meet with the Congressional and administrative leadership to determine the timelines, evaluate the political costs, the horse-trading involved, and be certain that before launching an all out national political effort there is a preliminary nose-count to ascertain the viability of legislative approval of any reform proposal. The Obama Administration will correctly address the economic priority, simultaneously the burning foreign policy issues like extricating ourselves from Iraq and continuing the efforts in Afghanistan will require enormous blood, sweat, tears and toil. In sum, Obama and his team will be most circumspect on when and how to introduce the immigration reform proposals. It will behoove the Latino leadership to assess and gauge the immigration reform efforts. Other items in the Latino agenda like housing, education, health, job opportunity and basic human needs will be included in the overall treatment of the economy. Latin America, as a foreign policy issue and a Latino priority, does not appear to be evident. Opportunities for Latinos in federal employment (civilan or military) also are not readily perceived. It remains to be seen who among the Latinos in Congress who will bear the torch on these issues. Luis Gutierrez, a Puerto Rican legislator from Illinois, has been the standard bearer on immigration. Senator Bob Menendez (a Cuban-American Democrat) has invariably sought to ensure that the State Department recruits and promotes Latinos.

Will someone like Silvestre Reyes, Loretta Sanchez or Solomon Ortiz, all senior members of the House Armed Services Committee, seek to lead the efforts to have more Latino general officers selected and promoted? Does Nydia Velazquez, as Chairwoman of the Small Business Committee, become an all encompassing and forceful factor in driving or leading Latino efforts to guide Latino small businessmen to more attractive government help in grants and loans? Also will Nydia Velazquez, as head of the Hispanic Caucus, organize and strategize the Hispanic/Latino Agenda with other Congresspersons to ensure that the Administration does not forsake its Latino constituency? Perhaps more interesting does Congressman Jose Serrano from his perch as Chair of the Subcommittee on Financial Services of the Appropriations Committee lookout for the Latino agenda in terms of lending or mortgages? Does Loretta Sanchez, as second ranking majority member of the Homeland Security Committee, oversee and moderate the heavy-handed behavior of DHS/ICE’s persecution of illegal foreign workers in job-sites? Will Joe Baca, as chair of the Agriculture Committee’s Sub-committee on Oversight and Nutrition, use his position to advance the Latino agenda’s possible concern with adequate nutrition? Do Hinojosa, Grijalva and Linda Sanchez all members of the Committee on Education and Labor dwell on the pending Latino concerns on education and perhaps take the lead on the Dream Act? And will they regularly meet with new Labor Secretary Hilda Solis to advance Latino labor issues? Perhaps Representative Nydia Velazquez can set up periodic (monthly) meetings with both Labor Secretary Solis and Interior Secretary Salazar to review the bidding on the Latino Agenda and help identify up-and-coming young Latinos among the political and career ranks of the federal bureaucracy. Does the Congressional Hispanic Caucus schedule quarterly meetings with the Latin American diplomatic corps to learn about the region’s problems, needs and desires? Does the Caucus get an initial meeting with Secretary of State Clinton and DoD Secretary Bob Gates to raise issues of policy concern not just in Latin America? Personnel issues should be on the agenda in these meetings. Formulating talking points ahead of time by the appropriate staffers for these meetings would demonstrate seriousness of purpose. Perhaps in the spirit of bi-partisanship, the Caucus should invite and meet with the Republican Latino members like Illeana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking minority member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Lincoln Diaz-Balart, the ranking minority member on Rules Committee. Moving the over-all Latino Agenda will be challenging but focus, unity of purpose and excellent organization are imperative to success. The focus of this and several other blogs is to keep tabs and make our elected representatives more accountable.

I’m glad that NCLR is teaming up with other ethnic rights organizations, as part of a larger strategy to combat hate crimes against our people and the hateful immigration rhetoric that has helped fuel the violence. A blogger colleague of mine, XP, has also suggested that the Latino issue organizations team up with other civil rights groups to build winning coalitions. Seneca, the D.C. contributor on this blog, has recommended that Latino issue organizations would be wise to come together with other issue organizations that have common goals, especially those with more name recognition and respect within the Washington establishment. I’m happy to see this cooperation. This is definitely a step in the right direction. You can read more about this here, and listen to the press briefing in the video clip below. And thank you NCLR for utilizing technology to allow the New Media to report this. We were just wondering when we would have more video clips available to share with the blogsphere a week ago.

Only Manny Diaz, Mayor of Miami and Mayor Villaraigosa of L.A. have been mentioned in passing as possible candidates for HUD. When one digs deeply into the Transition Teams, it becomes quite clear that it is not promising for Latinos. There is a smidgen of a smattering of a handful of names. On National Security and International Economics, virtually none. On social and domestic economics issues, less than a half dozen appear to be Hispanic out of the list of scores of senior and working level transition team members already named.

The speculation is that the Obama Latin American team for foreign policy, security, and trade will include the long-expected Latino list. Then you will have the usual grousing from Latin America that in appointing Latinos to ‘handle’ Latin American, it is supposed to focus on assuaging the Latin Americans on US policy ramifications in the region…perhaps…but the challenge facing any US policy-maker for Latin America is that ‘benign neglect’ is the coin of the realm at best or merely any effort to combat illicit drugs or illegal immigration must be fought in the lands south of the border. Hence the DEA, Border Patrol, and border enforcement personnel are replete with Latinos. It seems Latinos are seen as the ideal handlers for applying US law to these Latin masses trying to reach the US border. It’s page from the colonial Spanish playbook on overseeing indigenous people has been borrowed: always place as an overseer ‘one of  them’ to handle or manage these ‘menacing’ masses. Therefore, it should not surprise us when appointments come for Latinos they appear to be geared to dealing exclusively with Latinos… especially law enforcement …a brazen example of pigeon-holing us.

Then again it may be easy to blame the White and the African-American establishments for not including us in the upper echelons of appointments, but alas! — the fault lies primarily with the Latino community for not providing  ’top cover’ for its possible appointees under any administration. This ‘top cover’ comes from Latino Congressional members (CHC), the Latino civil society groups like NCLR, MALDEF, Cuban American National Council, LULAC, Cuban American National Foundation and the various Puerto Rican groups.  Add to this mix the increasing emergence of Central American associations seeking a ‘regularization’ or ‘legalization’ of its diaspora. Lastly, the ultimate realization that the Latino agenda may be jettisoned is that a ‘Comprehensive Immigration Reform‘ will continue to elude us in the coming years. The recent election plainly did not provide a mandate for it. Since it was never or barely discussed in the campaign, we can expect it to to go nowhere.