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

As of the 2000 Census, a little over three quarters of the town population was white, and there were roughly the same percentage of blacks and Latinos. And in recent years, there has been an influx of Somali immigrants, who are primarily Sunni Muslims. Shelbyville also has a Tyson Foods processing plant. For those who have followed immigration issues, you may remember that Tyson Foods was involved in an immigrant smuggling scheme years ago, but the company ended up being acquitted. The Tyson Foods aspect is important because many immigrants come to work in meat processing plants especially in the south.

I spoke with Welcoming America‘s Executive Director David Lubell about his involvement in Welcome to Shelbyville. And he said that Shelbyville was chosen because his organization had witnessed the changing demographics in the town and that they could more closely measure the impact of collaborations and the community building that his organization works on between U.S. born citizens and newly arrived immigrants in a smaller municipality. I asked if there had been any hate crimes or violent incidents that made this particular place ripe for this kind of organizing, and he did mention a mosque burning in nearby Columbia, Tennessee. Lubell explained, “Progress has been made in Shelbyville. This is not a story of complete success, but progress and community building between the ethnic groups is occurring especially when people make a concerted effort to do it. Welcome to Shelbyville is a hopeful film.”

Check out this clip, and do check your local television listings for tomorrow’s PBS premiere:

And if you can’t catch this on television, you will be able to watch the documentary in it’s entirety via this link. Welcome to Shelbyville is a recipient of a Gucci-Tribeca Documentary Fund grant and was a selection of the U.S. State Department’s 2010 American Documentary Showcase.

If you click here, you will find the audio where Peck speaks about shooting feral hogs as a good way to control illegal immigration.

This is precisely the kind of rhetoric that our community and all Americans need to push back against. The humans who toil in the farms and ranches in Kansas, who clean buildings, and more are not animals. It’s one thing to make a joke amongst friends (and even this sort of joke is sick), but it’s another matter to speak freely in a state house Appropriations Committee Meeting likening humans to hogs. While I completely support free speech, this kind of talk coming from legislators fuels an already toxic and inane discourse on immigration, which some argue lead to tragedies like this and this.

Well today, two young men involved in the beating death of Luis Ramirez were sentenced to nine years in prison. Here is the Department of Justice press release on this case:

TWO SHENANDOAH, PA., MEN SENTENCED

FOR THE FATAL BEATING OF LUIS RAMIREZ

WASHINGTON – Brandon Piekarsky, 19, and Derrick Donchak, 21, both of Shenandoah, Pa., were sentenced today to nine years in prison for the fatal beating of Luis Ramirez, the Justice Department announced.  Piekarsky and Donchak were ordered to serve three years of supervised release and pay $550 to the Pennsylvania victim compensation fund, as well as the special assessments for each count.  Donchak was also sentenced to an additional 30 months for obstruction, which will be served concurrently.

On Oct. 14 2010, a federal jury in the Middle District of Pennsylvania found both defendants guilty of a felony violation of the federal Fair Housing Act for fatally beating Luis Ramirez because he was Latino and because they did not want Latinos living in Shenandoah.  In addition, the jury found that Donchak conspired to, and did in fact, obstruct justice during the investigation of this crime.

According to the evidence presented at trial, on July 12, 2008, the defendants came upon Ramirez in a park after leaving a community festival. The defendants and several of their friends, some of whom testified during the trial, attacked Ramirez. During the course of the beating, the defendants and their friends yelled racial epithets in which they repeatedly referred to Ramirez in derogatory racial terms and told him “This is Shenandoah. This is America. Go back to Mexico.” According to testimony, Donchak beat Ramirez while holding a thick piece of metal identified at trial as a “fist pack.” After another of their friends punched Ramirez in the face, causing him to fall back and hit his head on the ground, Piekarsky kicked Ramirez in the head as he lay unconscious and prone on the ground. After Piekarsky kicked Ramirez, he told a bystander who was married to a Latino man to “tell your Mexican friends to get out of Shenandoah or you will be lying next to him.” After the fight concluded, Ramirez was air-lifted to Geisinger Regional Medical Center, where he died of massive head injuries. The jury also heard evidence that, immediately following the beating, Donchak conspired to obstruct the investigation of the fatal assault.

“Acts of violence, like the beating of Luis Ramirez, have no place in this country,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. “As this case illustrates, the Civil Rights Division is committed to vigorously protecting the civil rights of every person who lives in this country.”

This case was investigated by special agents from the FBI’s Philadelphia Division and was prosecuted by Myesha Braden and Gerard V. Hogan of the Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section with assistance from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

I facetiously wrote in a previous piece that Arizona was making a daily case for exile from the union, which I now find myself entertaining as an intriguing notion. Birthright citizenship, something no one thought would ever be an issue, is currently being broached because of supposed, “anchor babies”. On top of that, ethnic studies have been banned in the state, racial profiling has been legalized, an assassination attempt of a state politician took place, and Sheriff Joe still has a job. Am I the only one wondering what the hell happened to Arizona? While we shouldn’t be naïve enough to think these issues popped up overnight, I find it fascinating that this once irrelevant state has found its place in national political discourse largely because of tensions between Latinos and Whites. It’s as if we’re being brought back to before the Civil Rights movement, only it’s 2011 and what’s going on is as deplorable as it is embarrassing. So, how did we get here?

On the surface, we can guess it’s the age-old perfect storm of minorities move in, Whites move out, and the older generation that refuses to leave freaks out at what’s different, like the inconvenience of ‘Spanish’ being an ATM option. Now, we need to remember that Xenophobia is as much a part of the American fabric as anything else, and this phenomenon did not start with Latinos, nor will it end with them. More importantly, as always the onus is on legislators to respond, because God forbid American legislators ever pass anything proactive these days (yes US House of Representatives, I’m talking about you and your recent vote to slash Planned Parenthood funding).

In responding to the Arizona crisis, the reactionary policies we’ve seen have been ones aimed at furthering divides and inequity across the board, only to be averted by years-long litigation (if it’s in our favor) or future open-minded generations. Unfortunately, the wait associated with both is horrifically long, meaning all we can do is “vote for change”. As such, your guess is as good as mine in terms of where we go from here. We’ll probably hear every remedy imaginable, starting with the usual suspects. Fix the education system, fix the immigration system, fix healthcare, make sure American workers get priority over non-immigrant workers, and yawn. A whole lot of rhetoric, with barely any substance, and beyond that more of the same band-aid attempts at change.

We know we’ve got issues, and we know they need to be fixed. But what country doesn’t have problems? What country doesn’t have inequity? (For those responding Finland, my response is that’s an outlier and please be quiet). The reality is everyone has problems, and the discussion is always on government or the courts or agencies fixing them. But before we ask our government to fix it, we need to ask ourselves how we can help. It’s entirely unfair to look at what’s happening, play the blame game, and not see where we fit into the equation. And where we fit into the equation is simple: misinformation, inability to compromise, and apathy.

They’re the time bombs that keep American evolution from continuing, and are the reason progress takes forever. Misinformation manifests itself in the arguments that detract from what the discussion should be about. The result is an inability to compromise that leaves constituents supporting the partisan politics that legitimately creates debates surrounding deprivation of a chance to contribute to America for undocumented students. Combine that with apathy and you’ve got the community that mobilizes for five minutes and follows that up with avoiding the polls. On cue, someone right now is probably responding that these problems are beyond our control, the media sucks, Election Day logistics are not conducive to Latino turnout, and yawn. It’s the blame game again; only it’s being played without a look inside. Do those responses contribute to the problem? Yes! But they don’t cause them.

Our egregious voter registration rate is on us, and so is our level of apathy. Before we blame a government that doesn’t emphasize registering people to vote or classrooms that don’t hype it up, how about we blame people for not intuitively seeing its value. When we call for compromise, we need to fight for the kind where both sides make concessions, not the Obama-style of only Democrats making concessions. And while misinformation is strongly correlated to the Internet and media, we need to be accountable in that as well. Sorry, but taking chismes and Perez Hilton for news is definitely on the idiots who do that.

In closing, I asked before why Arizona has issues. The immigration system, racism, and education are part of it. But Arizona also has issues because people are misinformed, apathetic, and refuse to compromise. Case in point: the US government couldn’t agree on an immigration remedy, leaving states to pass reactionary policies that deprive civil rights because they can’t handle the federal government’s mess. The response was a hell of a lot of people who don’t care. Subsequently you get the nation where barely anyone knows their congressmen, but everyone knows that Blake Griffin dunked over a car.

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

What would conversations be like if we were all completely candid with our words and were able to bravely face reality?

Have you ever heard people talk about the “the community” or “inner city” and use these words as euphemisms for low-income individuals or people of color? What images come to mind when words such as “ghetto” or “urban” are used in order to describe a certain demographic?

I hear these descriptors constantly, and frankly, it makes me so irritated. Many times, when overhearing individuals discussing the “inner city” or the like, I feel like saying, “You mean Blacks or Latinos?”

It can be frustrating when I know others are talking about people of color, but don’t have the courage to directly say it out loud.

Of course, there is a reason why some people choose to talk around the issue of race, rather than directly referencing the group that they are discussing. Overall, people don’t want to bring up race. Acknowledging race would mean that individuals would need to recognize that one’s race truly can shape someone’s circumstances.

If people would acknowledge that race is an issue though, a very extensive conversation would need to be held, and past wrongs would need to be fleshed out. This conversation would consist of acknowledging racial differences, as well as recognizing that Whites are in fact beneficiaries of these very differences that can be detrimental to people of color. (These ideas are further expressed in The Racial Contract by Charles Mills).

Let’s talk about how it wasn’t until 1954 that a desegregation of schools was enacted. Let’s discuss how the Civil Rights Era marked a time in which African Americans gained “rights” on paper, yet this has never fully been the case in reality. We should also explore how race “doesn’t matter” and that we live in a “post-racial society,” yet many think it is okay to stop people who look “illegal” based on the color of their skin and ask for documentation.

People may not necessarily want to face the implications that a conversation about race would entail—avoiding the actual acknowledgment of race when discussing people from the “inner city” allows others to remain comfortable. Yet, if this were to be acknowledged and discussed in a candid manner, then this would validate that racism and discrimination do in fact exist.

We would then be forced to face the reality of the significance of race in issues such as housing, education, poverty, food insecurity, job discrimination, etc. With that, we would need to engage in a painful discourse as a society, perhaps ultimately changing our mindsets for the better.

Let’s be honest, all groups face poverty. Yet, when people discuss the “ghetto,” they are most likely referring to Blacks and Latinos. It would be much more effective to acknowledge that what we really mean when we say “the community” is people of color. If anything, it makes the issue worse when some individuals disguise what they are really thinking with loaded euphemisms. The tension can be sensed when individuals try hard to avoid bringing light to the role race plays in their daily interactions. Yet, race is often fundamentally underlying their thoughts surrounding discussions about the “inner city.”

I urge individuals to be more candid with their language. It is when people do not own up to what they are really thinking that miscommunication and negative undertones spark. Instead of tiptoeing around the issue of race, let’s directly put it out there and say what we mean.

Melissa Beatriz Skolnick is currently a graduate student attaining her Master’s in Social Work in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She strives to merge social work and journalism together in order to bring more awareness to various underrepresented communities, as well as to bring light to societal inconsistencies. In addition, she hopes to one day impact society through endeavors such as policy-making, writing through a widespread medium, and speaking to those who are willing to listen.

By Melissa Beatriz Skolnick

To some, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day may be nothing more than a day off from the hectic life of school, work, and the like.  Yet, it is important to remember the true meaning of MLK Day, which it is not only a tribute to Dr. King himself, but also a day dedicated to service.

This year was the first time I personally truly grasped this concept of engaging in a day of service.  Along with some fellow classmates, I attended a discussion entitled “The Conversations of Kings: From Dream to Sacrifice Toward a More Perfect Union,” held at South Philadelphia High School.

At this event, the Penn Project for Civic Engagement, which focuses on “Turning Talk into Action,” opened with a snippet from Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.  The speaker then drew somewhat of a parallel from this speech to President Obama’s more recent “A More Perfect Union” speech.

Soon after, the attendees all broke up into smaller groups, mostly comprised of high school students.  A majority of these students were with a group called Education Works, which “supports children and youth in urban schools and neighborhoods.” Some of the students seemed drained, even borderline apathetic, because they had been attending activities all day.

After some prompting questions though, the students began to open up and see the meaning behind a discussion on King’s message.  One of these questions included if people thought Dr. King’s dream had been achieved, or if it was still far fetched.  Many shared personal stories and opinions, and although I feel as though an educational aspect was missing in the conversation, even embarking on a discussion about race in today’s society and Dr. King’s message was pivotal.  In my own high school, these themes were never discussed, and this special day was not attributed as a day of service.

As previously mentioned, additional educational aspects to this particular discussion would have been helpful, such as defining key terms (i.e. discrimination, racism, etc.).  Also, more direct questions would have been beneficial, especially in trying to guide younger individuals in discussing more complex concepts such as racism, race relations, and stereotyping.  Nonetheless, it was important that these students were able to use their voices in order to begin to articulate their experiences.

Events such as these strengthen the day of service and reflection that Martin Luther King, Jr. Day consists of.  Looking ahead, we must not forget Reverend King’s message, and we must continue to think about him and his vision beyond the designated day of service.

Melissa Beatriz Skolnick is currently a graduate student attaining her Master’s in Social Work in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She strives to merge social work and journalism together in order to bring more awareness to various underrepresented communities, as well as to bring light to societal inconsistencies. In addition, she hopes to one day impact society through endeavors such as policy-making, writing through a widespread medium, and speaking to those who are willing to listen.

When the 112th Congress convenes on January 3, 2011, eight Latino Republicans will join the eighteen Latino Democrats on Capitol Hill. Raul Labrador, the first Latino Congressman elected from the State of Idaho, Jaime Herrera, the first Latina Congresswoman elected from the State of Washington, and newly elected Bill Flores from the State of Texas, in the House of Representatives, and Marco Rubio from the State of Florida in the Senate, will work to rebrand the GOP inside the beltway. Fresh from hard won campaign victories, Brian Sandoval, the first Latino elected Governor of Nevada, and Susana Martinez, the first Latina elected Governor of New Mexico, both also Republicans, will find themselves placed on the fast track to starring roles in 2012.

According to Latino Decisions, and Pew Hispanic, with the exception of Rubio, none of these Latinos candidates won the majority of the Latino vote. Rubio carried 55% of Latinos who cast ballots—a number that can be unpacked into two very different statistics: 78% of Cuban-Americans backed Rubio, only 40% of all other Latinos in Florida felt compelled to vote for him. And yet, the bottom line is that nearly one-third of the Latinos in Congress, and these two Latino Swing State Governors, will be members of a political party whose National Convention Platform on immigration and the rule of law reads as follows:

“In an age of terrorism, drug cartels, and criminal gangs, allowing millions of unidentified persons to enter and remain in this country poses grave risks to the sovereignty of the United States and the security of its people… The rule of law means guaranteeing to law enforcement the tools and coordination to deport criminal aliens without delay—and correcting court decisions that have made deportation so difficult. It means enforcing the law against those who overstay their visas, rather than letting millions flout the generosity that gave them temporary entry. It means imposing maximum penalties on those who smuggle illegal aliens into the US… real consequences, including the denial of federal funds, for self-described sanctuary cities… It does not mean driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, nor does it mean that states should be allowed to flout the federal law barring them from giving in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens, nor does it mean that illegal aliens should receive social security benefits, or other public benefits… We oppose amnesty. The rule of law suffers if government policies encourage or reward illegal activity. The American people’s rejection of en masse legalizations is especially appropriate given the federal government’s past failures to enforce the law.”

Given the fact that the plurality of conservative incumbents and Grand Old Party faithful throughout the American political landscape credit the rise of the Tea Party with the electoral victories that led to Republican control of the House of Representatives and the gain of 680 State Legislature seats—elected offices that will allow unilateral control in the process of drawing boundaries for 190 Congressional Districts across the USA—it is unlikely that the rise of Latino Republicans to levels of prominence in the Party, will lead to less Draconian measures. On the contrary, anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy proposals will run rampant like wildfire. Figures pouring kerosene will likely include Kentucky’s Rand Paul, Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey, Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson, Utah’s Mike Lee, and Massachusetts’ Scott Brown in the Senate, all of whom publicly thanked Tea Party activists for their volunteer efforts and financial contributions, heaping praise on the Tea Party’s “grassroots leadership,” despite endless evidence of behind-the-curtain, grasstops manipulation by front groups funded by the billionaire Koch brothers.

The first elephant in the room for Latinos who are concerned about keeping families together, and preserving the human dignity and rights of all immigrants is that the rise of Latino Republicans might just mean worse outcomes for Latino immigrants and their families. There are 6.6 million families in which a head of household and/or spouse migrated without authorization. 3.1 million American-born children live in households headed by undocumented immigrants. These mixed-status families live in constant danger of being torn apart under existing law. In order to stay with their family members, American citizens—those born and raised in the United States—are forced to relocate to a foreign country they have never known, because current immigration policies allow them no other viable option. What’s worse, these statistics only include mixed-status families that include citizens, they do not take into account mixed-status families comprised of households where undocumented migrants live with Permanent Residents, those with work permits, and foreign-born students invited to enroll in American academic institutions or professional development programs. According to Frank Sharry of America’s Voice, two-thirds of all mixed-status families, including those whose members belong to subpopulations just named, have been in the US for ten years or more.

This reality of a GOP, whose rhetoric and actions are hostile to migrants, is not just one impacting the viability of Comprehensive Immigration Reform proposals, and the chances of vital, urgent legislation such as the DREAM Act of receiving an up or down vote in 2011, if they fail to make it to the floor during the “lame duck” session of Congress convening during the brief window of time between now and the holiday season. This reality is one so dire that it even involves Latinos in powerful positions openly waging a war on immigrants in the most vulnerable positions. If you don’t believe this, please take a moment to look up newly elected Congressman Allen West’s Chief of Staff, Spanish-speaking Latina, Joyce Kaufman, on the search engine of your choosing. The Huffington Post highlights her saying, “We should hang you [illegal immigrants] and send your body back to where you came from, and your family should pay for it.” That’s just the tip of the iceberg. In fact, the wealth of egregious and incendiary material Kaufman is responsible for found on YouTube alone is too extensive to succinctly summarize.

Democrats had a nearly two-to-one advantage (64% versus 34%) over Republicans in 2010 House races among Latino voters. Moreover, with the exception of Florida, Democratic candidates won the Latino vote in all contests for which exit poll data exists. In Colorado, Tom Tancredo, the former Republican Congressman known for his especially polarizing immigration stance, joined the Governor’s race against Denver Mayor, Democrat John Hickenlooper. But Hickenlooper and Democratic Senate candidate Michael Bennett won the Latino vote by wide margins. They owe their victory to the electoral performance of low to mid propensity Latino voters mobilized via Get Out The Vote campaigns effectuated online by groups like Cuéntame, and on the ground by groups like Mi Familia Vota. In Arizona, although Democrat Terry Goddard lost the overall race to Republican Jan Brewer, he received 71% of the Latino vote. Latinos are solely responsible for saving Congressman Raul Grijalva from early retirement. And the fact that California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer won 65% of the Latino vote, California Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown won 64% of the Latino vote, and Nevada Democratic Senator Harry Reid won 68% of the Latino vote, serves to explain their victories as well. Latinos represented 8% of all voters in 2010, the same share as they did in 2006 when Democrats “took back” Congress from Republican control. In 2006, 69% of Latinos voted for Democratic candidates in Congressional district races, 30% voted for Republicans. In 2008, 67% of Latinos voted for Democrat Barack Obama, 31% cast ballots for Republican John McCain. More than 19 million Latinos were eligible to vote in the 2010 Midterms, more than at any other time—9% of all eligible voters nationwide in 2010 were Latinos, up from 8.6% in 2006.

Print press pundits and talking heads on cable news have largely focused their attention on the role Arizona’s SB 1070 racial profiling legislation played in solidifying Latino support for Democratic candidates in 2010. An Univision-AP poll published in May demonstrated that 67% of Latinos vehemently opposed the bill. Republican Governor Jan Brewer who signed it into law, and Republican State Senator Russell Pearce who wrote it, became symbols of GOP animus against the Latino community—proponents of racial profiling disguised as “reasonable suspicion,” enemies of Ethnic Studies courses in Arizona’s universities, and proponents of arbitrarily policing the “accents” of K-12 teachers, including monolingual English-speaking Latinos who, didn’t “sound American.” Pearce was named head of the State Senate despite his direct and undeniable connections to white supremacists; in spite of his pledge to defy the 14th Amendment, and cancel automatic citizenship for children born to undocumented mothers. Brewer won reelection despite incontrovertible evidence that she and 30 of SB 1070’s 36 cosponsors received campaign contributions from the for-profit prison industry that co-authored the bill and lobbied legislators to pass it. Make no mistake about it, SB 1070, was a vicious attack on Latinos without an ounce of redemption. The billboard Cuéntame erected in Phoenix reading “Get your papers out: Racial profiling ahead,” was spot on.

And yet, the second elephant in the room is that Latinos who are concerned about keeping families together, and preserving the human dignity and rights of all immigrants have not been rewarded for their overwhelming support of Democratic candidates. Instead of pursuing filibuster-proof Comprehensive Immigration Reform, and vital, urgent legislation such as the DREAM Act with the same all-encompassing zeal it employed in pursuit of Health Insurance Reform, this White House has instead focused on stopping undocumented immigrants from entering the United States and removing undocumented residents already in residence here. The idea that the Obama Administration is unquestionably pro-immigrant is erroneous. Claims made by Republicans, the Tea Party faithful, talk radio hosts, cable news personalities, conservative periodicals, and right-wing bloggers that the Obama Administration has neglected and underfunded border enforcement, in order to gain approval from the pro-amnesty crowd, are bold-faced lies:

The Obama Administration has thrown more drones and security personnel at the border than ever before. It made the E-Verify system, used to determine the immigration status of any part-time or fulltime employee, mandatory for all companies seeking federal contracts. It extended two aggressive enforcement programs: “Secure Communities,” making it mandatory for police to forward the identifying information of anyone they arrest to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and every county along the Southwest border, and “Operation Streamline,” allowing judges to engage in mass sentencing of immigrants caught crossing the border without authorization, instead of treating each migrant as an individual case. And instead of simply relying on Bush-era worksite raids, ICE under this White House has promoted a policy of “Silent Raids,” forcing employers to take action against workers whose Social Security number does not match up with a federal database. In the first half of the decade, (between 2000 and 2005) an average of 850,000 per year entered the US without authorization, by the end of 2009, that number had been reduced by nearly two-thirds, to 300,000. According to Douglas Massey, a Princeton University professor whose research focuses on migration, “Life’s gotten pretty miserable for immigrants in the United States,” noting that even for legal immigrants, whether or not they have relatives who are undocumented, the increased scrutiny has been highly stressful. ICE has deported more undocumented immigrants per year under the administration of President Barack Obama than under that of his predecessor, George W. Bush. ICE will deport more than 400,000 people this year alone, 25% more than the Bush Administration deported in 2007. ICE Director, John Morton, stated unequivocally that 400,000 deportations per year represent the absolute maximum number the processing, detention and immigration court system can handle.

In looking ahead to the role the Latino Vote will likely play in Presidential campaign of 2012, it is important for both Democrats and Republicans to reflect upon what occurred on November 2, 2010 in the Swing State of Nevada: 12% of registered voters in Nevada were Latino. Yet Latinos made up 16% of voters taking part in this election, a 13% increase since the last midterm. In the vast majority of states, the deadline to register to vote for this election was during the first week of October. By the time Pew Hispanic’s poll became public on October 5, declaring that 50% of Latino registered voters were planning on skipping out on the midterm election, the voter registration deadline had passed most everywhere. But not in Nevada: Thousands and thousands of voters registered in Nevada before the October 12 deadline thanks to Cuéntame’s online efforts, and a ground game executed by groups like the Hispanic Institute that registered 10,223 Latino voters in Clark County alone. 50% of Latino voters took advantage of early voting opportunities in Nevada, thus making shorter Election Day lines at polling places possible, and the likelihood of rapid responses to the vast majority of election protection issues probable. Nevada Latino voters rejected racist, anti-immigrant, anti-Latino political messages delivered by non-Hispanic whites. Nevada Latino voters rejected campaigns championing abstention from political participation, offered by Hispanic political strategists who wrongly believed Latinos could be manipulated by hypocrites, wolves in sheep’s clothing, and convinced to stay home on the basis of frustration with one political issue alone. Nevada Latino voters showed up in record numbers, and outperformed other voters when it counted.

Cuéntame and its partners will not allow the GOP to scapegoat Latinos, and use members of our community as political punching bags in their effort to win control of the White House in 2012. Regardless of whether or not the Republicans delivering the blows have Hispanic surnames, or Latino heritage. By the same token, we will not simply take Democrats at their word. While immigration is not the only issue that matters to Latinos, and it would be foolish to ignore the fact that millions of Latinos will benefit from policies championed by this White House, the Obama Administration’s reluctance to go all-in on legislative proposals such as the DREAM Act, that once boasted bipartisan support, has eroded the credibility and trust he earned on the campaign trail. Candidate Obama’s pledge to mend the broken immigration system stands in sharp contrast to President Obama’s hyper border enforcement and mass deportation policies.

In order to hold both Democratic and Republican feet to the fire, and win the war currently being waged on immigrants—the most vulnerable members of our community—we need to legal residents who are eligible to begin the process of naturalization, and those who are citizens to register to vote long before 2012: 52,000 Latino youth turn 18 every month. 8.5 million Latinos in Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Florida, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Texas alone, are already eligible to vote, but have yet to register. We have the power to more than double the Latino Vote by 2050. By introducing new voices into the political process, we will never again find ourselves forced to choose between candidates who demonize us with their rhetoric while demoralizing us with their policies, and those who make bold pronouncements while dragging their feet on our priorities until the final weeks before Election Day.

This piece was inspired by a comment on my last blog post about abolishing Chicano Studies departments because “they doom aspiring minorities to a lifetime of poverty.” It reminded of the time-honored American tradition of emphasizing the necessity and superiority of certain fields over others. You’ll be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn’t slam the sciences or business while the line frowning upon ethnic studies goes down the street and around the corner. This often times is exemplified by employers who see a resume come across their desk with Women’s Studies or Latino Studies at the top, causing the following Q&A: “What exactly did this person learn? What did they do? I bet they learned to hate men (Women’s Studies) or white people (ethnic studies).”

These questions come up because a good number of people don’t know the content of these fields and subsequently disregard them. But those answers couldn’t be farther from the truth. When it comes to practical applicability, ignoring certain fields should only be acceptable when applying for a job that requires a particular specialization (such as nursing, engineering, a Master’s degree, etc). Otherwise, you can acquire the same skills in Chicano Studies that you can in almost any other field. The key is what you do out of the classroom through internships, research, and extracurricular pursuits, not one’s major. Thus, the importance of fields such as Chicano Studies lies in challenging how we think, not in being a gateway to employment.

Now, we can all agree that “minority issues,” throughout time, have been relegated to the doldrums of academia. American students get one version of history, and it’s not the one that includes the contributions of Latinos dating back to the Revolutionary War. For example, readings for a class I took this semester touched on the Bracero Program, shockingly revealing that my colleagues didn’t know about it, or its economic significance to American agriculture during and immediately after World War 2. And they certainly didn’t know its effect on US-Mexico policy to this day. Most of my colleagues taking the class were not Latino, meaning they were (on the surface) immersing themselves in a curriculum that was not personally relevant. The class shed light on issues relating to race, immigration law, labor relations, foreign policy, and employment discrimination. Broad topics, in a broad field, that got everyone to reflect on the legal and political mechanisms that promulgate Latino disempowerment.

Enter my definition of an effective field of study: one that causes people to spend time in thought, to question what they read, and ultimately be independent thinkers. In my experience, fields such as Latino Studies are among the best at creating such ability.  At their core, these departments offer exposure to areas such as law, history, policy, race relations, and politics. They’re fully capable of fostering independent analysis and are highly effective at challenging the preconceived notions of students. As our country increasingly grows fixated with taking information at face value, they’re needed now more than ever.

Let us use the death of investigative reporting to illustrate this point. The news has become stories on polls, causing a race to the bottom for some in political awareness, and necessitating the need for critical thought. This past election we saw campaign ads in New Orleans with a fence of illegal aliens crossing the border cause people to actually think New Orleans has such a fence, and subsequently feel it’s acceptable to ignore constitutional civil liberties, stop minorities in the street, and ask for identification. People don’t know how to interpret the news, specifically how to differentiate between current events, opinion, and garbage. When someone can’t take a principled stance on an issue, question different ideologies, and challenge their own belief systems, it’s a crisis. If people could do that, then they wouldn’t be surprised to learn Lou Dobbs, like countless other Americans, slammed illegal immigration while depending on it. I’m not saying ethnic studies departments solve any of this, they simply aid in fostering the ability to think critically, which this country desperately needs.

In closing, I would be remiss if I didn’t include a conversation I had with my Father before attending college. It went something like this: “Matt, you can study anything you want. As long as it leads to gainful employment.” My response was choosing a field I felt could segue into multiple professions: Communication. And as I near completion of my Master’s degree in Public Administration from Cornell, I am in a cohort with students whose undergraduate backgrounds include everything from Political Science to Women’s Studies to Philosophy. Our common link is the undergraduate research we conducted, fellowships we held, and leadership roles we took that enriched our academic experience. They highlight what a college degree really is: a piece of paper on the wall. As long as one pursues courses that teach them how to think critically while pursuing opportunities that maximize professional growth, they won’t be doomed to a life of poverty. That makes Chicano Studies OK in my book.

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

Please share this message with your friends and family, and don’t forget to vote on Tuesday.

When I asked Presente about why they crafted this GOTV message, Favianna Rodriguez, co-founder of Presente.org, stated, “When we make our voices heard at the polling booth, it allows us to be more forceful advocates for the issues we care about once the elections are over.”