News Review - Page 2 - 2.12.13 - Mike Nova's starred items
Next Steps for Puerto Rico
via Puerto Rico Report by admin on 2/3/13
People all over the country are calling for action on the status of Puerto Rico, citing its clear mandate for statehood.
We are aware that some disagree. Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that there remains some ambiguity. The results for Question 1 are certainly not in doubt, as an article by Ricardo Rosselló Nevares in The Hill’s Congress Blog made clear:
What, then, are the options for Congress?
We are aware that some disagree. Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that there remains some ambiguity. The results for Question 1 are certainly not in doubt, as an article by Ricardo Rosselló Nevares in The Hill’s Congress Blog made clear:
When asked if they “agree that Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of territorial status?” an overwhelming 54 percent voted NO, thus rejecting the current territorial/colonial status. With more than 78 percent of the registered voters casting a ballot, the “NO” won by a margin of 140,000 votes, receiving thousands of votes more than any elected official. It won in all 8 senatorial districts and 39 out of the 40 representative districts.It doesn’t seem possible to question this outcome.
What, then, are the options for Congress?
- Congress could ignore the clearly expressed desire of the people of Puerto Rico to be released from the current territorial relationship. The United Nations already calls upon the U.S. each year to end what they consider a colonial relationship; with the people of Puerto Rico also requesting that the territorial status end, the United States would be in a awkward position if it goes this route. The U.S. would be one of the very few nations in possession of a colony against the will of its people. This would be inconsistent with our position as a leader for freedom throughout the world.
- Congress could accept the vote in favor of statehood, which was the choice of 61% of those answering the second question, and advance legislation to make Puerto Rico a state.
- Congress could enact legislation dictating terms of a new referendum in Puerto Rico, making it explicit that enhanced Commonwealth – which has been incorrectly referred to as an “adequate alternative” to statehood - is simply not part of the Puerto Rico status debate. The argument to pursue this route is that it would bring clarity; the argument against it is that such clarity should already exist, in the form of decades of legal documentation and official statements.
[C]onsistent with the legal conclusions reached by prior Task Force reports, one aspect of some proposals for enhanced Commonwealth remains constitutionally problematic—proposals that would establish a relationship between Puerto Rico and the Federal Government that could not be altered except by mutual consent. This was a focus of past Task Force reports. The Obama Administration has taken a fresh look at the issue of such mutual consent provisions, and it has concluded that such provisions would not be enforceable because a future Congress could choose to alter that relationship unilaterally.As long as Puerto Rico remains a territory of the United States, Congress is theoretically free to do anything it pleases with Puerto Rico, including ceding it back to Spain. In reality, the options are more limited - ultimately bring complete democracy to Puerto Rico or ignore the will of the Puerto Rican people.
Mike Nova's starred items
Mike Nova's starred items
via Puerto Rico Report by admin on 2/4/13
The National Association for Uniformed Services (NAUS) has written an open letter to President Obama asking him to end the second class U.S. citizenship for Puerto Ricans.
The letter begins with a plea:
The letter summarizes the results of the plebescite and suggests that the United States has two honorable courses available:
The letter continues with a discussion of the value of Puerto Rico to the United States, listing the military value, the resources, and the people of Puerto Rico:
“We must stop confusing the people by calling PR a ‘Commonwealth’,” the letter concludes. “Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King (who stood for a government of the People and equality) would be appalled that the US Territory of PR is still an undemocratic dinosaur of our trite colonial past!”
Finally, there is a petition for action on the question of Puerto Rico’s status, and supporting notes. See the PDF file of the letter.
The letter begins with a plea:
Please, join American Patriots [and] help get the Federal Government to end a second class US Citizenship. This complex equal rights quandary that affects millions is not only about a “Group” Vote on the status question, but, more important, it’s about protecting individual civil rights in our representative democracy-where the US citizen should be the epicenter of our Republic, not the undemocratic territorial control of the land… We must end political oppression with truth and fairness!A reminder of the historical context follows, concluding with, “In 1917, Congress erred in imposing on Puerto Rico a statutory “second class US citizenship” (without all rights responsibilities, & benefits) that doesn’t permit loyal US citizens (including fighting US veterans) to vote in Federal elections nor have just representation in the Congress that determines their destiny.”
The letter summarizes the results of the plebescite and suggests that the United States has two honorable courses available:
- [E]nd an undemocratic Federal Territorial Status that goes against the grain of our American democracy; start the transition process (which should not take more than 3-5 years) to admit Puerto Rico as the 51st State of our Union.”
- [P]romptly conduct a federally sanctioned Plebiscite that is non-territorial & self-determined… truthfully define US Constitutional options… which are: 1. Statehood…(or) 2. Independence.
The letter continues with a discussion of the value of Puerto Rico to the United States, listing the military value, the resources, and the people of Puerto Rico:
Our Nation is formed by the union of States [each with its] own State sovereignty, identity, uniqueness, diversity. US citizens in PR, like other states, are a very complex group of people that are legally born US citizens- part of our US multi-ethnic and beautiful “Tapestry” of vibrant colors that is united and bonded together by common values and purpose for the good of all.The letter touches on the idea that Puerto Rico is somehow too foreign or too different from other states to be incorporated successfully into the Union and rejects that claim.
“We must stop confusing the people by calling PR a ‘Commonwealth’,” the letter concludes. “Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King (who stood for a government of the People and equality) would be appalled that the US Territory of PR is still an undemocratic dinosaur of our trite colonial past!”
Finally, there is a petition for action on the question of Puerto Rico’s status, and supporting notes. See the PDF file of the letter.
via Puerto Rico Report by admin on 2/6/13
Puerto Rico Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi announced today that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will soon begin a multi-faceted effort to combat drug-related violence in Puerto Rico. Details from this initiative are expected to include:
In response to news, Pierluisi stated:
“I am pleased to announce that this strategy is now becoming a reality, and that concrete and well-coordinated steps are being implemented to make Puerto Rico a safer place to live and raise a family. Some of these steps can and will be made public, and others must remain confidential for law enforcement purposes. But all of them are designed with a single goal in mind—to reduce the number of murders and other violent crimes on our streets and in our communities. I want to thank Secretary Napolitano for her personal commitment to this issue, for bearing in mind that residents of Puerto Rico are proud U.S. citizens, and for understanding that, as such, they deserve the same protection from their federal government as their fellow citizens in Florida, Texas, New York or any other state,” said Pierluisi.
Read more about drug related violence in Puerto Rico here.
Read more about DHS Secretary Napalitano’s visit to Puerto Rico here.
Puerto Rico is the last of the U.S. borders to receive federal assistance. Would this help have come sooner if Puerto Rico were a state? Read more here.
- Increased personnel from the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement .
- Expansion in the number of maritime and aviation operations to interdict drugs in and around Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
- More frequent inspections at select airports and seaports on the mainland and in Puerto Rico to curb the flow of firearms from the U.S. mainland to Puerto Rico.
- Greater federal inter-agency cooperation among DHS, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Defense, to fight against drug trafficking and related violence in Puerto Rico.
In response to news, Pierluisi stated:
“I am pleased to announce that this strategy is now becoming a reality, and that concrete and well-coordinated steps are being implemented to make Puerto Rico a safer place to live and raise a family. Some of these steps can and will be made public, and others must remain confidential for law enforcement purposes. But all of them are designed with a single goal in mind—to reduce the number of murders and other violent crimes on our streets and in our communities. I want to thank Secretary Napolitano for her personal commitment to this issue, for bearing in mind that residents of Puerto Rico are proud U.S. citizens, and for understanding that, as such, they deserve the same protection from their federal government as their fellow citizens in Florida, Texas, New York or any other state,” said Pierluisi.
Read more about drug related violence in Puerto Rico here.
Read more about DHS Secretary Napalitano’s visit to Puerto Rico here.
Puerto Rico is the last of the U.S. borders to receive federal assistance. Would this help have come sooner if Puerto Rico were a state? Read more here.
via Puerto Rico Report by KG on 2/6/13
As immigration reform moves forward, what will happen to the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico?
By Howard L. Hills*
I. Redeeming the promise of equality in America
As our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico enter the twelfth decade of a quest for self-determination, a new potential setback has emerged, the irony of which would be almost as cruel as Puerto Rican soldiers fighting overseas for democratic rights that they are denied back home as residents of a U.S. possession.
It could be regarded as profoundly unfair and demoralizing if 11 million people who entered the U.S. unlawfully are given a path to full enfranchisement and equal citizenship rights, while the 4 million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico remain disenfranchised in a less than equal citizenship status. How would Puerto Ricans explain that to their children? How would any other American do the same?
How will anyone explain an outcome in which millions of non-citizens who enjoy many of the blessings of our way of life without first complying with our laws are given preferential treatment over law-abiding fellow Americans in Puerto Rico in seeking equality? Who will explain how non-citizens unlawfully present in America will be fully embraced and integrated into American society before the tried, tested and true patriotic American families of Puerto Rico who have lived under the American flag lawfully for 114 years?
II. Allegiance and equality
Along with U.S. citizenship conferred in Puerto Rico by Congress in 1917 came the duty of allegiance that accompanies it. In America, equality is the quid pro quo for allegiance. The denial of equality despite Puerto Rico’s allegiance to America is the corrosive legacy the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Balzac v. Puerto Rico (1922).
In “Puerto Rico’s Status: A Time to Decide,” former U.S. Attorney General Thornburgh called o the Congress and the federal courts to repudiate the obsolete imperialistic doctrine of the 1922 Balzac case and mandate timely self-determination in the form of either statehood or independence for Puerto Rico.
Thornburg has noted that failure to do so will be inconsistent with the very human rights principles regarding universal suffrage and equal rights the U.S. holds up in criticizing undemocratic regimes around the world.
III. The missing link in legal policy on Puerto Rico status
Thornburgh’s thesis is that application of the imperialist legal and political model for territorial governance should have ended once Congress conferred U.S. citizenship in Puerto Rico back in 1917. At least that would have been the result if not for the 1922 ruling by the Supreme Court that deviated from nearly 150 years of anti-colonial American territorial law dating back to the Northwest Ordinance.
Thornburgh demonstrates that the paramount legal and historical significance of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Balzac v. Puerto Rico is that the Court deviated materially from the line of earlier territorial law decisions known as the anachronistic so-called “Insular Cases.” Thornburgh argues that it perversely validates Balzac to simplistically denominate that ruling as one of the Insular Cases, thereby giving the false impression the 1922 ruling cogently and cohesively sustained the jurisprudence of those earlier territorial law cases.
To the contrary, the lead Insular Cases (DeLima v. Bidwell, Downes v. Bidwell, Dorr v. United States), each confirmed the authority of Congress under the Territorial Clause to govern non-citizens under the national protection of America and residing in overseas territories newly acquired from Spain but not incorporated into the union.
IV. A forgotten phrase is smoking gun proving Balzac case flaws
The most pronounced effect of non-incorporation is that residents of the territory are for the most part beyond the reach of the Constitution, except as provided by Congress under statutory territorial policy concocted on an ad hoc basis.
Thus, in Downes v. Bidwell the U.S. Supreme Court stated that unincorporated territory status was a temporary arrangement enabling the U.S. to govern the territory under the Territorial Clause until Congress conferred citizenship. Specifically, the court stated that, “… in the case of Porto Rico and the Philippines…the civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants . . . shall be determined by Congress. In all these cases there is an implied denial of the right of the inhabitants to American citizenship until Congress by further action shall signify its assent thereto.”
In contrast, the court’s rulings in the Rasmussen case (Alaska) and the Mankichi case (Hawaii) held that upon coming under U.S. sovereignty a territory populated by U.S. citizens is incorporated, which ushers in application of those parts of the Constitution not applicable only to states, and integrates the body politic of the territory into the nation until full equal rights and duties of citizenship are achieved through admission to statehood.
Thornburgh was the first to argue that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1922 case of Balzac v. Puerto Rico was a radical departure from both the unincorporated territory doctrine of the Insular Cases as applied to non-citizens and the citizenship based incorporation doctrine of the Alaska and Hawaii cases.
Thus, Thornburgh was able to sustain his thesis that Balzac misappropriated the unincorporated territory doctrine of the Insular Cases, as it applied to non-citizens “until Congress…shall signify its assent” to citizenship. The Balzac court then wrongly applied that pre-naturalization doctrine of non-incorporation to Puerto Rico after Congress had naturalized the population and conferred citizenship on all persons born there in 1917.
The term “metaphysical purgatory” was recently used to describe Puerto Rico’s current status, but it is an understatement. Thornburgh has at times been more stark, calling territorial status under Balzac a “constitutional nowhere land.” But Ronald Reagan beat them both to the punch when he noted that as a territory Puerto Rico “…is neither a state nor independent, and therefore has an historically unnatural status.”
* Formerly lead Counsel for White House National Security Council on territorial political status affairs and U.N. decolonization proceedings; Former lead Counsel for political status treaty negotiations and economic development programs, U.S. Department of State. Views expressed are those of the author and no other party.
By Howard L. Hills*
I. Redeeming the promise of equality in America
As our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico enter the twelfth decade of a quest for self-determination, a new potential setback has emerged, the irony of which would be almost as cruel as Puerto Rican soldiers fighting overseas for democratic rights that they are denied back home as residents of a U.S. possession.
It could be regarded as profoundly unfair and demoralizing if 11 million people who entered the U.S. unlawfully are given a path to full enfranchisement and equal citizenship rights, while the 4 million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico remain disenfranchised in a less than equal citizenship status. How would Puerto Ricans explain that to their children? How would any other American do the same?
How will anyone explain an outcome in which millions of non-citizens who enjoy many of the blessings of our way of life without first complying with our laws are given preferential treatment over law-abiding fellow Americans in Puerto Rico in seeking equality? Who will explain how non-citizens unlawfully present in America will be fully embraced and integrated into American society before the tried, tested and true patriotic American families of Puerto Rico who have lived under the American flag lawfully for 114 years?
II. Allegiance and equality
Along with U.S. citizenship conferred in Puerto Rico by Congress in 1917 came the duty of allegiance that accompanies it. In America, equality is the quid pro quo for allegiance. The denial of equality despite Puerto Rico’s allegiance to America is the corrosive legacy the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Balzac v. Puerto Rico (1922).
In “Puerto Rico’s Status: A Time to Decide,” former U.S. Attorney General Thornburgh called o the Congress and the federal courts to repudiate the obsolete imperialistic doctrine of the 1922 Balzac case and mandate timely self-determination in the form of either statehood or independence for Puerto Rico.
Thornburg has noted that failure to do so will be inconsistent with the very human rights principles regarding universal suffrage and equal rights the U.S. holds up in criticizing undemocratic regimes around the world.
III. The missing link in legal policy on Puerto Rico status
Thornburgh’s thesis is that application of the imperialist legal and political model for territorial governance should have ended once Congress conferred U.S. citizenship in Puerto Rico back in 1917. At least that would have been the result if not for the 1922 ruling by the Supreme Court that deviated from nearly 150 years of anti-colonial American territorial law dating back to the Northwest Ordinance.
Thornburgh demonstrates that the paramount legal and historical significance of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Balzac v. Puerto Rico is that the Court deviated materially from the line of earlier territorial law decisions known as the anachronistic so-called “Insular Cases.” Thornburgh argues that it perversely validates Balzac to simplistically denominate that ruling as one of the Insular Cases, thereby giving the false impression the 1922 ruling cogently and cohesively sustained the jurisprudence of those earlier territorial law cases.
To the contrary, the lead Insular Cases (DeLima v. Bidwell, Downes v. Bidwell, Dorr v. United States), each confirmed the authority of Congress under the Territorial Clause to govern non-citizens under the national protection of America and residing in overseas territories newly acquired from Spain but not incorporated into the union.
IV. A forgotten phrase is smoking gun proving Balzac case flaws
The most pronounced effect of non-incorporation is that residents of the territory are for the most part beyond the reach of the Constitution, except as provided by Congress under statutory territorial policy concocted on an ad hoc basis.
Thus, in Downes v. Bidwell the U.S. Supreme Court stated that unincorporated territory status was a temporary arrangement enabling the U.S. to govern the territory under the Territorial Clause until Congress conferred citizenship. Specifically, the court stated that, “… in the case of Porto Rico and the Philippines…the civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants . . . shall be determined by Congress. In all these cases there is an implied denial of the right of the inhabitants to American citizenship until Congress by further action shall signify its assent thereto.”
In contrast, the court’s rulings in the Rasmussen case (Alaska) and the Mankichi case (Hawaii) held that upon coming under U.S. sovereignty a territory populated by U.S. citizens is incorporated, which ushers in application of those parts of the Constitution not applicable only to states, and integrates the body politic of the territory into the nation until full equal rights and duties of citizenship are achieved through admission to statehood.
Thornburgh was the first to argue that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1922 case of Balzac v. Puerto Rico was a radical departure from both the unincorporated territory doctrine of the Insular Cases as applied to non-citizens and the citizenship based incorporation doctrine of the Alaska and Hawaii cases.
Thus, Thornburgh was able to sustain his thesis that Balzac misappropriated the unincorporated territory doctrine of the Insular Cases, as it applied to non-citizens “until Congress…shall signify its assent” to citizenship. The Balzac court then wrongly applied that pre-naturalization doctrine of non-incorporation to Puerto Rico after Congress had naturalized the population and conferred citizenship on all persons born there in 1917.
The term “metaphysical purgatory” was recently used to describe Puerto Rico’s current status, but it is an understatement. Thornburgh has at times been more stark, calling territorial status under Balzac a “constitutional nowhere land.” But Ronald Reagan beat them both to the punch when he noted that as a territory Puerto Rico “…is neither a state nor independent, and therefore has an historically unnatural status.”
* Formerly lead Counsel for White House National Security Council on territorial political status affairs and U.N. decolonization proceedings; Former lead Counsel for political status treaty negotiations and economic development programs, U.S. Department of State. Views expressed are those of the author and no other party.
via Puerto Rico Report by admin on 2/10/13
National Public Radio has featured two stories on the migration of Puerto Ricans to the mainland recently: “Don’t Give Up on Us: Puerto Ricans Wrestle with High Crime” details the crime rate in Puerto Rico, which is higher than any state of the Union; “One Way Ticket to Florida: Puerto Ricans Escape Island Woes” shares the stories of Floridians who came to the state from Puerto Rico in the face of economic troubles.
For Puerto Ricans, who are U.S. citizens and can travel freely from Puerto Rico to the mainland and back, an escape to the mainland can seem like the best solution to economic or social problems. It may indeed be a solution for an individual, but the loss of population is not a solution for Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico has lost half a million residents in the past decade, leaving it with a net loss in population. (Michigan is the only state which has suffered such a loss in this century.)
The majority of those who leave Puerto Rico for the mainland are employed, often in professional positions. The crime rate is cited by many as the reason for leaving, but the unemployment rate is also the highest in the country. Puerto Rico has an educated population, with 20% of Puerto Ricans holding college degrees. Companies from the U. S. mainland, struggling to find qualified nurses and engineers in their home states, come to Puerto Rico to recruit new grads.
So Puerto Rico loses qualified workers and young professionals, and the economy suffers further.
For the mainland United States, Puerto Rico may be a good source of workers to close the skills gap, but is in the country’s best interests for Puerto Ricans to see escape from the island as the best solution to problems of violent crime, drug trafficking, and economic struggles?
The history of other territories that have become states makes it clear that becoming a state tends to improve a territory’s economic position. Equal federal support, full representation in government, and complete citizenship rights allow new states to use their resources to their fullest potential. Perhaps statehood would allow Puerto Rico to be a place other Americans will choose to move to, rather than a place to escape.
For Puerto Ricans, who are U.S. citizens and can travel freely from Puerto Rico to the mainland and back, an escape to the mainland can seem like the best solution to economic or social problems. It may indeed be a solution for an individual, but the loss of population is not a solution for Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico has lost half a million residents in the past decade, leaving it with a net loss in population. (Michigan is the only state which has suffered such a loss in this century.)
The majority of those who leave Puerto Rico for the mainland are employed, often in professional positions. The crime rate is cited by many as the reason for leaving, but the unemployment rate is also the highest in the country. Puerto Rico has an educated population, with 20% of Puerto Ricans holding college degrees. Companies from the U. S. mainland, struggling to find qualified nurses and engineers in their home states, come to Puerto Rico to recruit new grads.
So Puerto Rico loses qualified workers and young professionals, and the economy suffers further.
For the mainland United States, Puerto Rico may be a good source of workers to close the skills gap, but is in the country’s best interests for Puerto Ricans to see escape from the island as the best solution to problems of violent crime, drug trafficking, and economic struggles?
The history of other territories that have become states makes it clear that becoming a state tends to improve a territory’s economic position. Equal federal support, full representation in government, and complete citizenship rights allow new states to use their resources to their fullest potential. Perhaps statehood would allow Puerto Rico to be a place other Americans will choose to move to, rather than a place to escape.
via FOX News on 2/11/13
As tempting as it might to continue the string of electing non-Italian popes, there will be a powerful wind in the chamber pushing cardinals back toward a safe, noncontroversial choice.
via FOX News on 2/11/13
Latinos shouldn't expect to see any significant health care coverage changes from the Affordable Care Act until 2014.
via Latest News by VOXXI on 2/11/13
President Barack Obama is expected to outline education plans for his next term in tomorrow evening’s State of the Union address. In the Latino community, there is plenty of hope regarding education reform.
The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) Executive Director Brent Wilkes is optimistic the President’s education reform moves forward with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
The LULAC National Educational Service Centers (NESC) offers counseling services to more than 18,000 Hispanic students per year at fifteen regional centers, as well as more than half a million dollars in scholarships to Latino students annually.
“We want to make sure we take the lessons learned from No Child Left Behind in our communities and alter the language so the tool is more refined and we have a better success rate,” Wilkes said.
Hopes for a comprehensive education reform
Wilkes feels No Child Left Behind upped the education ante in the country with high accountability standards. More so, it required schools to disaggregate Latino and African-American scores. The fact that individual ethnicities were part of the discussion meant no minority would be left behind.
As far as adding to ESEA, Wilkes hopes as part of the education reform, the Obama Administration will implement extended-day learning and wrap around services. The latter is a defined planning process used to build constructive relationships and support networks among students and youth with emotional or behavioral disabilities.
There is also a feeling in the education community that the Common Core Standard movement will crystallize. While not a federal issue, the initiative hopes to align the standards in various states so there’s basically a national test with very little variance.
“There are a lot of the benefits that can be realized, and I think that’s where you’re going to see a lot of action this year,” Wilkes said. “From our perspective, we’re saying don’t forget about the limited English proficient students because a lot of the states have been pining for years to try to say, ‘We shouldn’t test them because they’re not going to know the subject matter. So they should be exempted from testing.’
“I encourage them to perhaps unveil another Race to the Top style education initiative during the State of the Union,” Wilkes said. “They need something new along those lines but I haven’t heard anything about announcing that. We’ll see on Tuesday whether that transpires.”
Originally published on VOXXI as Latino community optimistic about what’s next in education reform
The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) Executive Director Brent Wilkes is optimistic the President’s education reform moves forward with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
“No Child Left Behind has gotten really old and the successor to that, ESEA, has been waiting for years to get reauthorized by Congress,” Wilkes told VOXXI. “That really has to be done because we learned a lot from No Child Left Behind, which was an experiment. That’s over and we have to go back and refine the tool to make it more effective. So we in essence kind of need Congress to break its log jam and take up the ESEA.”Wilkes said the recent finance debate din out of Washington has drowned out any discussion about ESEA, which he characterizes as a bi-partisan effort. Not only does he feel it has a good shot at being reauthorized this year, but he’s hoping LULAC plays an important role in its implementation.
The LULAC National Educational Service Centers (NESC) offers counseling services to more than 18,000 Hispanic students per year at fifteen regional centers, as well as more than half a million dollars in scholarships to Latino students annually.
“We want to make sure we take the lessons learned from No Child Left Behind in our communities and alter the language so the tool is more refined and we have a better success rate,” Wilkes said.
Hopes for a comprehensive education reform
Wilkes feels No Child Left Behind upped the education ante in the country with high accountability standards. More so, it required schools to disaggregate Latino and African-American scores. The fact that individual ethnicities were part of the discussion meant no minority would be left behind.
As far as adding to ESEA, Wilkes hopes as part of the education reform, the Obama Administration will implement extended-day learning and wrap around services. The latter is a defined planning process used to build constructive relationships and support networks among students and youth with emotional or behavioral disabilities.
There is also a feeling in the education community that the Common Core Standard movement will crystallize. While not a federal issue, the initiative hopes to align the standards in various states so there’s basically a national test with very little variance.
“There are a lot of the benefits that can be realized, and I think that’s where you’re going to see a lot of action this year,” Wilkes said. “From our perspective, we’re saying don’t forget about the limited English proficient students because a lot of the states have been pining for years to try to say, ‘We shouldn’t test them because they’re not going to know the subject matter. So they should be exempted from testing.’
“We’re arguing, ‘No. Let’s create separate assessments.’ But I think the concern is if you exempt, then you’ll take the pressure off the schools to perform with that group of students and they’ll focus of course on the group of students they are being assessed on. So that’s really a major area where a lot of education reform groups, including us, are focused.”Finally, Wilkes is optimistic President Obama’s next term will find his administration revisiting the Race to the Top program, which sought education reforms in adopting standards, measuring student growth, rewarding effective teachers and principals and turning around our lowest-achieving schools.
“I encourage them to perhaps unveil another Race to the Top style education initiative during the State of the Union,” Wilkes said. “They need something new along those lines but I haven’t heard anything about announcing that. We’ll see on Tuesday whether that transpires.”
Originally published on VOXXI as Latino community optimistic about what’s next in education reform
via Latino Voices on HuffingtonPost.com by NBC Latino on 2/11/13
What do Evangelicals, Catholics, and Mormons all have in common? And no, this is not the beginning of a joke.
The growth of all three faiths is being fueled by the Latino population. Latinos are not just the fastest growing population but as a group they are more religious. Latinos are the fastest growing segments of the Evangelical movement, the Catholic Church, and the Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS). Coincidentally, these religious groups are also supportive of a more open immigration policy.
The growth of all three faiths is being fueled by the Latino population. Latinos are not just the fastest growing population but as a group they are more religious. Latinos are the fastest growing segments of the Evangelical movement, the Catholic Church, and the Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS). Coincidentally, these religious groups are also supportive of a more open immigration policy.
via Latino Voices on HuffingtonPost.com by VOXXI on 2/11/13
Poor health literacy among Latinos, especially in the realm of antibiotic therapy, may be linked to an increase in antimicrobial resistance among their population and poorer decision making regarding important health matters.
According to research from Columbia University School of Nursing, 1 in 3 Latino study participants had what was considered to be low health literacy, and having such, were more likely to misuse antibiotics and use them without a prescription. Misusing antibiotics – like taking them without really needing them – increases resistance, which can lead to antibiotics having no or low effect on an individual when they are indeed needed.
“Health literacy is the ability to understand health information and then act based on this understanding,” study author Ann-Margaret Dunn-Navarra, PhD, CPNP-BC, told VOXXI. “An individual’s health literacy level may be described as a dynamic process that includes the association of demographic, psychosocial and cultural variables that shape and guide health-related beliefs, behaviors and access to health care.”
Without proper health literacy, Latinos are often unaware, for example, of the dangers that accompany the nonprescription use of medications.
Dunn-Navarra explains health literacy is complex because although it is impacted by certain cognitive skills including literacy skills, it is not limited to such factors. Individual heath literacy levels are influenced by individual and cultural beliefs, family and friends, health status, and experience with the health care system. Health related information via the internet also influences individual health literacy and health choices.
Latinos in the United States are particularly influenced by their level of health literacy due to language and cultural barriers which result in a self-treating mentality among the population. The issue is further complicated by the presence of unregulated health “bodegas” in many large cities where Latinos can have access to an often unlimited supply of inexpensive antibiotics.
Health literacy influences decision making
Not only does the indiscriminate use of antibiotics raise the risk for antimicrobial resistance among Latinos—and the U.S. population in general—it indicates a lack of understanding regarding health risks and medication usage. This, explain the researchers, is why health literacy is so important to proper medical care and access to quality care.
“Improved health literacy levels among Latinos may certainly increase their access to medical care,” Dunn-Navarra told VOXXI.
“Knowledge and beliefs are factors involved in health related decision making and behaviors, and access to medical care is a health related choice. Therefore if knowledge is increased on the importance of regular medical care and misconceptions are corrected, the health outcome of improved access to medical care is more likely to occur.”
She added, it is also equally important for healthcare providers to recognize cultural and language barriers may preclude access to medical care among Latinos, and culturally sensitive care is important to promote access to medical care and optimal health literacy.
“Health literacy is important to the Latino community and essentially to any community. Optimal health literacy is empowering for an individual because it entails active involvement in health care decision making,” stated Dunn-Navarra.
According to Navarra, the current health care system demands a high level of participation for any patient seeking care. Latinos with higher health literacy skills could be likened to individuals with more tools in their tool box to improve self-health and contribute to community health.
Originally published in VOXXI as Poor health literacy among Latinos puts them at increased risks
According to research from Columbia University School of Nursing, 1 in 3 Latino study participants had what was considered to be low health literacy, and having such, were more likely to misuse antibiotics and use them without a prescription. Misusing antibiotics – like taking them without really needing them – increases resistance, which can lead to antibiotics having no or low effect on an individual when they are indeed needed.
“Health literacy is the ability to understand health information and then act based on this understanding,” study author Ann-Margaret Dunn-Navarra, PhD, CPNP-BC, told VOXXI. “An individual’s health literacy level may be described as a dynamic process that includes the association of demographic, psychosocial and cultural variables that shape and guide health-related beliefs, behaviors and access to health care.”
Without proper health literacy, Latinos are often unaware, for example, of the dangers that accompany the nonprescription use of medications.
Dunn-Navarra explains health literacy is complex because although it is impacted by certain cognitive skills including literacy skills, it is not limited to such factors. Individual heath literacy levels are influenced by individual and cultural beliefs, family and friends, health status, and experience with the health care system. Health related information via the internet also influences individual health literacy and health choices.
Latinos in the United States are particularly influenced by their level of health literacy due to language and cultural barriers which result in a self-treating mentality among the population. The issue is further complicated by the presence of unregulated health “bodegas” in many large cities where Latinos can have access to an often unlimited supply of inexpensive antibiotics.
Health literacy influences decision making
Not only does the indiscriminate use of antibiotics raise the risk for antimicrobial resistance among Latinos—and the U.S. population in general—it indicates a lack of understanding regarding health risks and medication usage. This, explain the researchers, is why health literacy is so important to proper medical care and access to quality care.
“Improved health literacy levels among Latinos may certainly increase their access to medical care,” Dunn-Navarra told VOXXI.
“Knowledge and beliefs are factors involved in health related decision making and behaviors, and access to medical care is a health related choice. Therefore if knowledge is increased on the importance of regular medical care and misconceptions are corrected, the health outcome of improved access to medical care is more likely to occur.”
She added, it is also equally important for healthcare providers to recognize cultural and language barriers may preclude access to medical care among Latinos, and culturally sensitive care is important to promote access to medical care and optimal health literacy.
“Health literacy is important to the Latino community and essentially to any community. Optimal health literacy is empowering for an individual because it entails active involvement in health care decision making,” stated Dunn-Navarra.
According to Navarra, the current health care system demands a high level of participation for any patient seeking care. Latinos with higher health literacy skills could be likened to individuals with more tools in their tool box to improve self-health and contribute to community health.
Originally published in VOXXI as Poor health literacy among Latinos puts them at increased risks
Mike Nova's starred items
via Latino Voices on HuffingtonPost.com by The Huffington Post on 2/11/13
With Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation, it may be Latin America’s turn to take control of the papacy, and some point to Brazilian Archbishop Odilo Scherer as the leading candidate.
Though the Vatican has been led by an unbroken chain of Europeans, demographics make a compelling case to look to Latin America to fill the vacancy. Some 42 percent of the world’s Catholics now live in Latin America, making the region home to the largest group of Catholics on the planet, according to Reuters. Europe is home to just 25 percent of the world’s Catholics.
Darci Nicioli, Auxiliary Bishop of Aparecida, told Brazil’s G1 that Scherer is one of five Brazilian cardinals in the running for the Papacy.
“All Cardinals less than 80 years old are candidates and can vote to choose the new Pope, but we know that depends on the Holy Spirit,” Nicioli told Brazil’s G1. “So we’re going to prey hard so that the best Cardinal is selected.”
Reuters considers Scherer the strongest Latin American candidate to replace Pope Benedict, yet Joao Braz de Aviz is also viewed as a strong candidate.
Born in the Southeastern state of Rio Grande do Sul, Scherer is descended from German immigrants. The 63-year-old Archbishop of São Paulo holds a doctorate in theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome.
In 2007, Scherer took over the Archdiocese of São Paulo -- Brazil’s largest, with 6 million Catholics, according to the BBC.
Though considered conservative within Brazil, Scherer professes more centrist political views than the outgoing Pope Benedict XVI, who opposed the leftwing political movement within the Church in Latin America known as “liberation theology” in the 1980s, according to The New York Times.
Followers of liberation theology, which remains popular in Brazil, believe the Church should ally itself politically with the poor based on their interpretation of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Opponents within the Church condemned the movement’s affinity with Marxism.
Pope Benedict called liberation theology “a singular heresy” in 1984, according to The New York Times. Scherer, by contrast, walked a more moderate line, applauding the movement’s social mission, while criticizing its Marxist leanings.
Five Brazilians will participate in the vote for the new Pope, according to Brazilian daily A Folha de São Paulo.
Pope Benedict announced on Monday that he will resign due to old age, effective Feb. 28. He is the first Pope to resign from the office since 1415. He visited Brazil in 2007.
Though the Vatican has been led by an unbroken chain of Europeans, demographics make a compelling case to look to Latin America to fill the vacancy. Some 42 percent of the world’s Catholics now live in Latin America, making the region home to the largest group of Catholics on the planet, according to Reuters. Europe is home to just 25 percent of the world’s Catholics.
Darci Nicioli, Auxiliary Bishop of Aparecida, told Brazil’s G1 that Scherer is one of five Brazilian cardinals in the running for the Papacy.
“All Cardinals less than 80 years old are candidates and can vote to choose the new Pope, but we know that depends on the Holy Spirit,” Nicioli told Brazil’s G1. “So we’re going to prey hard so that the best Cardinal is selected.”
Reuters considers Scherer the strongest Latin American candidate to replace Pope Benedict, yet Joao Braz de Aviz is also viewed as a strong candidate.
Born in the Southeastern state of Rio Grande do Sul, Scherer is descended from German immigrants. The 63-year-old Archbishop of São Paulo holds a doctorate in theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome.
In 2007, Scherer took over the Archdiocese of São Paulo -- Brazil’s largest, with 6 million Catholics, according to the BBC.
Though considered conservative within Brazil, Scherer professes more centrist political views than the outgoing Pope Benedict XVI, who opposed the leftwing political movement within the Church in Latin America known as “liberation theology” in the 1980s, according to The New York Times.
Followers of liberation theology, which remains popular in Brazil, believe the Church should ally itself politically with the poor based on their interpretation of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Opponents within the Church condemned the movement’s affinity with Marxism.
Pope Benedict called liberation theology “a singular heresy” in 1984, according to The New York Times. Scherer, by contrast, walked a more moderate line, applauding the movement’s social mission, while criticizing its Marxist leanings.
Five Brazilians will participate in the vote for the new Pope, according to Brazilian daily A Folha de São Paulo.
Pope Benedict announced on Monday that he will resign due to old age, effective Feb. 28. He is the first Pope to resign from the office since 1415. He visited Brazil in 2007.
via Latino Voices on HuffingtonPost.com by ABC/Univision on 2/11/13
A recently released report on everything from the economic to cultural health of Silicon Valley paints an encouraging picture. In this region, the economy is improving, employment is up and students are doing better than their peers in the rest of California.
But the report also tackles the Valley's distinct challenges. A major one is that African-American and Hispanic students are performing worse in school than their white and Asian peers, and minority entrepreneurs face widening wage gaps among other obstacles.
"A large and growing education deficit keeps too many residents from sharing in the new prosperity," wrote Joint Venture Silicon Valley President and Chief Executive Officer Dr. Russell Hancock in the report's introduction. "Incomes continue to slip for our Hispanic and African American populations, while rising for other groups."
Silicon Valley represents a broad geographic section of the Bay Area that shifts along with the tech industry. While it typically excludes San Francisco, the build-up of tech companies such as Google and Twitter in the city have led more people to include the region's hub in the definition. The 2013 report acknowledges the growing role San Francisco plays in the tech industry, but defines Silicon Valley as ranging from just south of the city in Brisbane, down the peninsula to San Jose, and up the lower part of the East Bay to Union City.
But the report also tackles the Valley's distinct challenges. A major one is that African-American and Hispanic students are performing worse in school than their white and Asian peers, and minority entrepreneurs face widening wage gaps among other obstacles.
"A large and growing education deficit keeps too many residents from sharing in the new prosperity," wrote Joint Venture Silicon Valley President and Chief Executive Officer Dr. Russell Hancock in the report's introduction. "Incomes continue to slip for our Hispanic and African American populations, while rising for other groups."
Silicon Valley represents a broad geographic section of the Bay Area that shifts along with the tech industry. While it typically excludes San Francisco, the build-up of tech companies such as Google and Twitter in the city have led more people to include the region's hub in the definition. The 2013 report acknowledges the growing role San Francisco plays in the tech industry, but defines Silicon Valley as ranging from just south of the city in Brisbane, down the peninsula to San Jose, and up the lower part of the East Bay to Union City.
via Latino Voices on HuffingtonPost.com by Elise Foley on 2/11/13
WASHINGTON -- A new bipartisan task force on immigration reform led by Republicans Condoleezza Rice and Haley Barbour and Democrats Henry Cisneros and Ed Rendell still has a number of issues to resolve, including what may be the most challenging: whether undocumented immigrants currently in the country should be given a pathway to citizenship.
"I come in with an open mind on this," Rice, former secretary of state to President George W. Bush, told reporters on Monday. "I don't actually have an exact answer at this point because I think this is actually the hardest and most vexing issue. So I look forward to sharing views with other members of the task force."
Members' lack of consensus on certain immigration issues is precisely what makes the group important, according to organizers from the Bipartisan Policy Center. Barbour is a former Republican governor of Mississippi; Cisneros was a Housing and Urban Development secretary under President Bill Clinton; and Ed Rendell is a former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania. They will join with about a dozen other members, yet to be announced, to advocate for immigration reform.
The group plans to hold events, meet with lawmakers and come up with its own policy proposals. As it stands now, the four former officials said they agree that reform should address worker visas, border security, internal enforcement and the undocumented immigrants already in the United States.
Barbour said he supports a pathway to citizenship so long as it includes provisions such as fines and taxes.
"I don't know where this task force will come out, but for myself, I think it would be productive if there is a path to citizenship that is separate from a green card, separate from a guest worker but is a much more strenuous path that requires more than just allowing guest workers to come here and work legally," Barbour said on the same call with reporters.
He added the group is open to a number of options, including a piecemeal approach. "We are not going to say it has to be an across-the-board comprehensive bill or nothing else, because we want to get the most done that we can get done," Barbour said.
Rice said she does not believe a piece-by-piece approach must mean border security first, then further reforms later, but thinks the two could work well hand in hand.
"I think there's a tendency to think that the border security problem has to be completely and totally solved first -- you're not going to get there," she said. "But if you have sound immigration policies, it's actually easier to have border enforcement. So I'm a fan of doing both together."
The group's members said they are hopeful that this new push for immigration reform will be more successful than the last try, which fell apart in 2007. Rice was part of the Bush administration during that time, and the president was a major player in that effort, along with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), now former Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).
"There are many things that I wish we had gotten done, but comprehensive immigration reform is really right at the top of the list for me," Rice said.
"To my mind, when you have John McCain and Jon Kyl and Ted Kennedy and George Bush all together, it's hard to believe you can't get something done," Rice added later. "I think it just shows the difficulty of this issue."
"I come in with an open mind on this," Rice, former secretary of state to President George W. Bush, told reporters on Monday. "I don't actually have an exact answer at this point because I think this is actually the hardest and most vexing issue. So I look forward to sharing views with other members of the task force."
Members' lack of consensus on certain immigration issues is precisely what makes the group important, according to organizers from the Bipartisan Policy Center. Barbour is a former Republican governor of Mississippi; Cisneros was a Housing and Urban Development secretary under President Bill Clinton; and Ed Rendell is a former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania. They will join with about a dozen other members, yet to be announced, to advocate for immigration reform.
The group plans to hold events, meet with lawmakers and come up with its own policy proposals. As it stands now, the four former officials said they agree that reform should address worker visas, border security, internal enforcement and the undocumented immigrants already in the United States.
Barbour said he supports a pathway to citizenship so long as it includes provisions such as fines and taxes.
"I don't know where this task force will come out, but for myself, I think it would be productive if there is a path to citizenship that is separate from a green card, separate from a guest worker but is a much more strenuous path that requires more than just allowing guest workers to come here and work legally," Barbour said on the same call with reporters.
He added the group is open to a number of options, including a piecemeal approach. "We are not going to say it has to be an across-the-board comprehensive bill or nothing else, because we want to get the most done that we can get done," Barbour said.
Rice said she does not believe a piece-by-piece approach must mean border security first, then further reforms later, but thinks the two could work well hand in hand.
"I think there's a tendency to think that the border security problem has to be completely and totally solved first -- you're not going to get there," she said. "But if you have sound immigration policies, it's actually easier to have border enforcement. So I'm a fan of doing both together."
The group's members said they are hopeful that this new push for immigration reform will be more successful than the last try, which fell apart in 2007. Rice was part of the Bush administration during that time, and the president was a major player in that effort, along with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), now former Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).
"There are many things that I wish we had gotten done, but comprehensive immigration reform is really right at the top of the list for me," Rice said.
"To my mind, when you have John McCain and Jon Kyl and Ted Kennedy and George Bush all together, it's hard to believe you can't get something done," Rice added later. "I think it just shows the difficulty of this issue."
via Latino Voices on HuffingtonPost.com by The Huffington Post on 2/11/13
White House drug czar Gil Kerlikowske recently gave an interview with Canada's Maclean's Magazine and appeared to candidly criticize President Barack Obama's administration for falling short in its effort to address marijuana policy.
"The administration has not done a particularly good job of, one, talking about marijuana as a public health issue, and number two, talking about what can be done and where we should be headed on our drug policy," he told the magazine. "There are significant health concerns around marijuana from all the science, not ideology. I don’t see the legalization of drugs and making them widely available as a good thing, and I don’t think locking everyone up is a good thing either."
Kerlikowske, who has said the nation is "in the midst of a serious national conversation about marijuana," also spoke out against legalization efforts on a state-by-state basic, arguing that a "patchwork of policies" was not the best approach. State legalization efforts passed in Colorado and Washington last November.
As director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the tasks of underscoring the public health issue and providing direction on drug policy would appear to fall at least partially under Kerlikowske's purview. As the ONDCP puts it, the drug czar's department is tasked with using "community-based prevention programs, early intervention programs in healthcare settings, aligning criminal justice policies and public health systems to divert non-violent drug offenders into treatment instead of jail, funding scientific research on drug use, and, through the Affordable Care Act, expanding access to substance abuse treatment."
But while Kerlikowske may be expected to have some influence over these areas -- at least on paper -- he is largely beholden to Obama and the Justice Department, which is still figuring out how to handle the patchwork of marijuana laws that has already emerged, contravening federal laws that prohibit the substance.
Kerlikowske's comments suggest that he believes the administration's current approach to handling the emerging "national conversation" leaves something to be desired.
Tom Angell, chairman of pot policy reform group the Marjiuana Majority, agreed with Kerlikowske's assessment and suggested that the drug czar use his position to pressure Obama on the policy changes he claims to want.
"It seems like the drug czar is frustrated that people higher up in the White House aren't putting more effort into actually shifting drug policies to be more health-focused instead of just giving lip service to the idea that we can't arrest our way out of this problem," he said. "Kerlikowske may be sincere in his stated desire to policy shift in that direction, but his boss, the president, keeps submitting drug control budgets to Congress that continue the emphasis on funding punishment and interdiction programs over treatment and prevention programs. It's about time someone at ONDCP publicly agitated for the administration to match its policies to its rhetoric about the need to have a 'balanced approach' to drugs."
Read Kerlikowske's entire interview with Maclean's here.
"The administration has not done a particularly good job of, one, talking about marijuana as a public health issue, and number two, talking about what can be done and where we should be headed on our drug policy," he told the magazine. "There are significant health concerns around marijuana from all the science, not ideology. I don’t see the legalization of drugs and making them widely available as a good thing, and I don’t think locking everyone up is a good thing either."
Kerlikowske, who has said the nation is "in the midst of a serious national conversation about marijuana," also spoke out against legalization efforts on a state-by-state basic, arguing that a "patchwork of policies" was not the best approach. State legalization efforts passed in Colorado and Washington last November.
As director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the tasks of underscoring the public health issue and providing direction on drug policy would appear to fall at least partially under Kerlikowske's purview. As the ONDCP puts it, the drug czar's department is tasked with using "community-based prevention programs, early intervention programs in healthcare settings, aligning criminal justice policies and public health systems to divert non-violent drug offenders into treatment instead of jail, funding scientific research on drug use, and, through the Affordable Care Act, expanding access to substance abuse treatment."
But while Kerlikowske may be expected to have some influence over these areas -- at least on paper -- he is largely beholden to Obama and the Justice Department, which is still figuring out how to handle the patchwork of marijuana laws that has already emerged, contravening federal laws that prohibit the substance.
Kerlikowske's comments suggest that he believes the administration's current approach to handling the emerging "national conversation" leaves something to be desired.
Tom Angell, chairman of pot policy reform group the Marjiuana Majority, agreed with Kerlikowske's assessment and suggested that the drug czar use his position to pressure Obama on the policy changes he claims to want.
"It seems like the drug czar is frustrated that people higher up in the White House aren't putting more effort into actually shifting drug policies to be more health-focused instead of just giving lip service to the idea that we can't arrest our way out of this problem," he said. "Kerlikowske may be sincere in his stated desire to policy shift in that direction, but his boss, the president, keeps submitting drug control budgets to Congress that continue the emphasis on funding punishment and interdiction programs over treatment and prevention programs. It's about time someone at ONDCP publicly agitated for the administration to match its policies to its rhetoric about the need to have a 'balanced approach' to drugs."
Read Kerlikowske's entire interview with Maclean's here.
via Latino Voices on HuffingtonPost.com by Donald Kerwin on 2/11/13
The immigration detention system does not seem to be on any legislator's short-list of immigration reforms, but it should be. To its credit, the Obama administration made detention reform one of its early, administrative priorities, and with cause. For years, human rights and government oversight agencies had documented detention conditions as diverse and disturbing as sexual abuse, persons lost in the system, intimidation by attack dogs, women forced to deliver babies in restraints, the treatment of serious illnesses with Tylenol, transfers away from loved ones and support systems, suicides and preventable deaths. The litany of scandals did not move the hard men of Congress. Instead, appropriations for detention increased to the point that 429,000 persons passed through this system in FY 2011.
Meanwhile, detainees, their families, spiritual advisors and legal counsel experienced a distorted universe of casual cruelty and abuse. One notorious facility held the mentally ill in a cell with improperly installed, one-way mirrors: the detainees could see the guards, but nobody could see the detainees, even the suicidal. Another facility enforced a strict no-smoking policy which applied to the prison grounds, but not to its living areas. Still another mixed and baked the previous day's leftovers, and served the resulting "loaf" to detainees. Dental personnel in several facilities extracted teeth because they could not fill cavities.
Since 2009, the administration's reform initiative has achieved notable successes. It created a secure, "civil" detention facility in Karnes County, Texas; expanded alternative-to-detention (ATD) programs; created a risk assessment tool to guide placement decisions; strengthened standards governing conditions of custody; and significantly reduced the number of detention facility contracts. Yet immigrant detainees -- none of whom are serving prison sentences -- continue to be held in jails and jail-like facilities, and remain subject to standards for pre-trial, criminal detainees. Moreover, the spirit of reform has apparently not spread to certain jailers. More than two years into the reform initiative, one detention administrator shared his uncertainty with a visiting delegation over whether reform would take place at all. During another delegation visit, a private administrator claimed there was no "space" between him and ICE oversight officials. Yet detention reform depends on meaningful oversight of private contractors.
Enduring change in this area will require at least three reforms. First, Congress should codify civil detention standards into law. In August 2012, the American Bar Association's (ABA's) House of Delegates approved model standards to guide the government's reform efforts. The standards provide that any restrictions or conditions placed on non-citizens should be the least restrictive, non-punitive means necessary to further the goals of detention, which are to ensure court appearances, removal, and (in limited cases) public safety. These goals can be realized through a combination of release on parole or bond, alternative programs with various levels of supervision, home detention with strict conditions, and (as a last resort) detention. Moreover, civil detainees should not be held in jails, but in facilities that more closely approximate normal living conditions. To policymakers, jailers and the public alike, the appearance of shackled immigrants in prison garb feeds the misconception that most detainees threaten public safety and national security. The overwhelming majority do not.
Second, broad mandatory detention rules limit the discretion of immigration officials and judges to make the best decisions on release, custody, and access to alternative programs. Congress should restore discretion in most cases. Moreover, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) should treat its restrictive ATD programs as an alternative form of detention and, thus, open them to mandatory detainees.
Third, ICE invests only modestly in alternative programs ($72 million a year) relative to its total detention budget (nearly $2 billion) and to the number of persons in these programs (roughly 18,000 a night and 42,000 per year). It costs anywhere from 10 and 20 times more per night to detain an immigrant than to supervise them in a more humane ATD program. Congress should appropriate more funding for these programs.
Some time ago, my agency received a letter alleging the sexual abuse of detained women by guards in a contract facility. Although we regularly visited the jail in question, we did not realize that it held women. However, we knew that in interceding on the women's behalf we could lose access to the facility entirely: we had been barred from another jail for informing the press of conditions there. Detention reform would be cost-effective, but more importantly it would reduce the vulnerability of men and women who are cut off, alone, and exposed to perhaps the most historically troubled feature of our nation's immigration regime. To be truly comprehensive, reform legislation must address the immigration detention system.
Meanwhile, detainees, their families, spiritual advisors and legal counsel experienced a distorted universe of casual cruelty and abuse. One notorious facility held the mentally ill in a cell with improperly installed, one-way mirrors: the detainees could see the guards, but nobody could see the detainees, even the suicidal. Another facility enforced a strict no-smoking policy which applied to the prison grounds, but not to its living areas. Still another mixed and baked the previous day's leftovers, and served the resulting "loaf" to detainees. Dental personnel in several facilities extracted teeth because they could not fill cavities.
Since 2009, the administration's reform initiative has achieved notable successes. It created a secure, "civil" detention facility in Karnes County, Texas; expanded alternative-to-detention (ATD) programs; created a risk assessment tool to guide placement decisions; strengthened standards governing conditions of custody; and significantly reduced the number of detention facility contracts. Yet immigrant detainees -- none of whom are serving prison sentences -- continue to be held in jails and jail-like facilities, and remain subject to standards for pre-trial, criminal detainees. Moreover, the spirit of reform has apparently not spread to certain jailers. More than two years into the reform initiative, one detention administrator shared his uncertainty with a visiting delegation over whether reform would take place at all. During another delegation visit, a private administrator claimed there was no "space" between him and ICE oversight officials. Yet detention reform depends on meaningful oversight of private contractors.
Enduring change in this area will require at least three reforms. First, Congress should codify civil detention standards into law. In August 2012, the American Bar Association's (ABA's) House of Delegates approved model standards to guide the government's reform efforts. The standards provide that any restrictions or conditions placed on non-citizens should be the least restrictive, non-punitive means necessary to further the goals of detention, which are to ensure court appearances, removal, and (in limited cases) public safety. These goals can be realized through a combination of release on parole or bond, alternative programs with various levels of supervision, home detention with strict conditions, and (as a last resort) detention. Moreover, civil detainees should not be held in jails, but in facilities that more closely approximate normal living conditions. To policymakers, jailers and the public alike, the appearance of shackled immigrants in prison garb feeds the misconception that most detainees threaten public safety and national security. The overwhelming majority do not.
Second, broad mandatory detention rules limit the discretion of immigration officials and judges to make the best decisions on release, custody, and access to alternative programs. Congress should restore discretion in most cases. Moreover, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) should treat its restrictive ATD programs as an alternative form of detention and, thus, open them to mandatory detainees.
Third, ICE invests only modestly in alternative programs ($72 million a year) relative to its total detention budget (nearly $2 billion) and to the number of persons in these programs (roughly 18,000 a night and 42,000 per year). It costs anywhere from 10 and 20 times more per night to detain an immigrant than to supervise them in a more humane ATD program. Congress should appropriate more funding for these programs.
Some time ago, my agency received a letter alleging the sexual abuse of detained women by guards in a contract facility. Although we regularly visited the jail in question, we did not realize that it held women. However, we knew that in interceding on the women's behalf we could lose access to the facility entirely: we had been barred from another jail for informing the press of conditions there. Detention reform would be cost-effective, but more importantly it would reduce the vulnerability of men and women who are cut off, alone, and exposed to perhaps the most historically troubled feature of our nation's immigration regime. To be truly comprehensive, reform legislation must address the immigration detention system.
via Latino Voices on HuffingtonPost.com by David Leopold on 2/11/13
Senator Marco Rubio (R-FLA) will make history Tuesday night. For the first time in the nation's history, he will deliver a response to the president's State of the Union address in two languages, English and Spanish. He is the son of Cuban immigrants and, no pressure here, considered by some to be the GOP's greatest hope to repair its shattered image. His bottom line political objective will be to reach out to Latino voters who, quite frankly, have been repelled by the GOP's embrace of extremist anti-immigrant policy proposals, such as "self-deportation" and opposition to the DREAM Act. The GOP is betting that Rubio, recently dubbed the party's "savior" by Time Magazine, will put a young, dynamic, Latino face on a Republican party whose brand remains badly tarnished.
But Rubio has an opportunity to do much more than mend fences for the Republicans. He has an historic chance to show he is not a merely a politician tasked by party elders to reach out to a disgruntled constituency, but a statesman. He can embody the bipartisan leadership in Congress that our nation needs: senators and representatives who are willing to put politics aside and partner with President Obama in an effort to fix the dysfunctional mess of an immigration system that plagues America, tearing families apart and stifling the economy. He can be the courageous leader the GOP needs, one with the guts to wrench his party out of the dark corner of the anti-immigrant fringe and into an enlightened national conversation on immigration reform.
How can he meet all these expectations? First, he should answer President Obama's address by embracing immigration reform proposals which cry out for bipartisan support -- maintaining border security, cracking down on unscrupulous employers who game the system and exploit undocumented workers, and revamping the immigration system so that it creates legal avenues to come to America which reflect our nation's values and economic needs.
But he'll also need to take it a step further. Since the November election, we've seen many GOP leaders publicly recognize the need to create a functional immigration system. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), for example, recently came out in support of the DREAM Act, a measure he had previously opposed. Yet Cantor and other GOP leaders, including Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), have stopped short of supporting a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the shadows. Some, such as Rep. Raul Labrador (R-UT), have even opposed giving the undocumented a chance to earn citizenship, a political position which appears calculated to appease the hardcore right.
The extra step Rubio will need to take is one that should resonate for a son of immigrant parents who later became U.S. citizens. He has a unique opportunity to lead his party by courageously endorsing a pathway to earned citizenship. More importantly, he can use the post-State of the Union spotlight to remind the nation, and the world, that America will not tolerate a permanent second class status for any human being.
Rubio has an unprecedented chance to forge bipartisan consensus on immigration reform by endorsing, in a loud and clear voice, the creation of a safe, orderly and just immigration policy which keeps America's borders secure and safe, protects American families, gives American business the tools it needs to maintain its competitive edge, attracts the best and brightest to our shores, respects the rule of law, and offers the undocumented a road map to full inclusion in the American family.
To my mind, there is no issue that impassions people more than immigration. That's because it's about our essence as a people, as a culture, and as a nation. Immigration reminds us where we have been and shows us where we are going as a country. Do we want to be a welcoming nation that opens its arms to people from all over the world, and from all walks of life, or do we want to turn our backs on those in need, and restrict -- out of ignorance and xenophobia -- immigration reform that will help build our economy? Do we want to be a fair and compassionate people, or do we want to punish those who dream of a better life for their children?
On Tuesday night, Senator Marco Rubio has an extraordinary opportunity to give the country his answer. I look forward to hearing it.
But Rubio has an opportunity to do much more than mend fences for the Republicans. He has an historic chance to show he is not a merely a politician tasked by party elders to reach out to a disgruntled constituency, but a statesman. He can embody the bipartisan leadership in Congress that our nation needs: senators and representatives who are willing to put politics aside and partner with President Obama in an effort to fix the dysfunctional mess of an immigration system that plagues America, tearing families apart and stifling the economy. He can be the courageous leader the GOP needs, one with the guts to wrench his party out of the dark corner of the anti-immigrant fringe and into an enlightened national conversation on immigration reform.
How can he meet all these expectations? First, he should answer President Obama's address by embracing immigration reform proposals which cry out for bipartisan support -- maintaining border security, cracking down on unscrupulous employers who game the system and exploit undocumented workers, and revamping the immigration system so that it creates legal avenues to come to America which reflect our nation's values and economic needs.
But he'll also need to take it a step further. Since the November election, we've seen many GOP leaders publicly recognize the need to create a functional immigration system. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), for example, recently came out in support of the DREAM Act, a measure he had previously opposed. Yet Cantor and other GOP leaders, including Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), have stopped short of supporting a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the shadows. Some, such as Rep. Raul Labrador (R-UT), have even opposed giving the undocumented a chance to earn citizenship, a political position which appears calculated to appease the hardcore right.
The extra step Rubio will need to take is one that should resonate for a son of immigrant parents who later became U.S. citizens. He has a unique opportunity to lead his party by courageously endorsing a pathway to earned citizenship. More importantly, he can use the post-State of the Union spotlight to remind the nation, and the world, that America will not tolerate a permanent second class status for any human being.
Rubio has an unprecedented chance to forge bipartisan consensus on immigration reform by endorsing, in a loud and clear voice, the creation of a safe, orderly and just immigration policy which keeps America's borders secure and safe, protects American families, gives American business the tools it needs to maintain its competitive edge, attracts the best and brightest to our shores, respects the rule of law, and offers the undocumented a road map to full inclusion in the American family.
To my mind, there is no issue that impassions people more than immigration. That's because it's about our essence as a people, as a culture, and as a nation. Immigration reminds us where we have been and shows us where we are going as a country. Do we want to be a welcoming nation that opens its arms to people from all over the world, and from all walks of life, or do we want to turn our backs on those in need, and restrict -- out of ignorance and xenophobia -- immigration reform that will help build our economy? Do we want to be a fair and compassionate people, or do we want to punish those who dream of a better life for their children?
On Tuesday night, Senator Marco Rubio has an extraordinary opportunity to give the country his answer. I look forward to hearing it.
via Latino Voices on HuffingtonPost.com by Elise Foley on 2/11/13
WASHINGTON -- When President Barack Obama stands before Congress on Tuesday for his State of the Union address, three undocumented immigrants will be in the audience: Julieta Garibay, Alan Aleman and Gabino Sanchez.
"It feels really surreal, like I can't believe it's going to happen," said Garibay, a founder of the United We Dream advocacy group, who was invited by Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas). "It's an exciting moment overall, it's just very historic, because there's going to be undocumented immigrants at the State of the Union, because we're in such a critical moment in our lives. We really feel like this is our year."
Aleman, whom the president highlighted in a speech on Jan. 29, will attend as a guest of first lady Michelle Obama, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported Monday. Sanchez will be a guest of Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who has traveled to South and North Carolina to attend Sanchez's deportation hearings.
All three immigrants are "Dreamers" -- named for the proposed Dream Act that would help them become citizens -- who came to the United States as children.
Garibay was born in Mexico City and moved to Texas at the age of 12. At age 32 now, she is slightly too old to apply to stay in the U.S. under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which Obama announced last year, but she is a longtime advocate for the Dream Act.
Sanchez has lived in the U.S. since he was 15 years old and is married with two U.S.-citizen children, but faced deportation proceedings after multiple misdemeanors for driving without a license. He was granted a yearlong continuance last May and is able to work legally and apply for a driver's license. Now in his late 20s, Sanchez is also applying for deferred action.
"I am taking Gabino Sanchez to the President's speech because he represents young people, the fathers and mothers and immediate families of U.S. citizens we deport every day," Gutierrez said in a statement. "Congress needs to know the cost of inaction."
Aleman, 20, filed for deferred action on day one and was among the first Dreamers to be granted the opportunity to work and stay in the United States for two years. After the president spent a portion of his speech last month telling Aleman's story, the Dreamer said he appreciated those words and now wanted action.
"We need to know what is going to happen," Aleman said at the time. "Is he going to stop deportations during this debate? Is he going to do something? That's what we need to know."
Garibay made a similar point about the State of the Union speech.
"We're hoping that he will reiterate his commitment," she said. "But what we're looking for more is his actions after."
This story has been updated with a statement from Rep. Luis Gutierrez.
"It feels really surreal, like I can't believe it's going to happen," said Garibay, a founder of the United We Dream advocacy group, who was invited by Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas). "It's an exciting moment overall, it's just very historic, because there's going to be undocumented immigrants at the State of the Union, because we're in such a critical moment in our lives. We really feel like this is our year."
Aleman, whom the president highlighted in a speech on Jan. 29, will attend as a guest of first lady Michelle Obama, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported Monday. Sanchez will be a guest of Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who has traveled to South and North Carolina to attend Sanchez's deportation hearings.
All three immigrants are "Dreamers" -- named for the proposed Dream Act that would help them become citizens -- who came to the United States as children.
Garibay was born in Mexico City and moved to Texas at the age of 12. At age 32 now, she is slightly too old to apply to stay in the U.S. under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which Obama announced last year, but she is a longtime advocate for the Dream Act.
Sanchez has lived in the U.S. since he was 15 years old and is married with two U.S.-citizen children, but faced deportation proceedings after multiple misdemeanors for driving without a license. He was granted a yearlong continuance last May and is able to work legally and apply for a driver's license. Now in his late 20s, Sanchez is also applying for deferred action.
"I am taking Gabino Sanchez to the President's speech because he represents young people, the fathers and mothers and immediate families of U.S. citizens we deport every day," Gutierrez said in a statement. "Congress needs to know the cost of inaction."
Aleman, 20, filed for deferred action on day one and was among the first Dreamers to be granted the opportunity to work and stay in the United States for two years. After the president spent a portion of his speech last month telling Aleman's story, the Dreamer said he appreciated those words and now wanted action.
"We need to know what is going to happen," Aleman said at the time. "Is he going to stop deportations during this debate? Is he going to do something? That's what we need to know."
Garibay made a similar point about the State of the Union speech.
"We're hoping that he will reiterate his commitment," she said. "But what we're looking for more is his actions after."
This story has been updated with a statement from Rep. Luis Gutierrez.
via Latino Voices on HuffingtonPost.com by AP on 2/11/13
ACAPULCO, Mexico -- Mexican authorities announced Sunday that several people had been detained for investigation in connection with last week's rape of six Spanish tourists in Acapulco, a crime that further blemished the reputation of this troubled Pacific resort.
Guerrero state officials declined to say how many suspects were in custody.
Gov. Angel Aguirre said two of those detained were also were being investigated in connection with another rape case. He said the two had been identified by victims in that case, but he added that no identifications had been made by victims in the rape of the Spanish women.
About 40 people who briefly blocked the road to Acapulco's airport said five of their relatives had been detained in the case. They charged that the men were wrongly arrested and were being made scapegoats.
"It's been 48 hours that our family hasn't seen them. We know nothing about them. One is a nephew and one is my brother," said one of the protesters, who gave her name as Flor Silva.
Authorities declined to comment on whether the protesters' relatives were among those detained in the tourist rape case. The state public safety secretary, Guillermo Jimenez, persuaded the protesters to end the road blockade in return for being allowed to meet with their relatives.
State government spokesman Pedro Julio Velez said the suspects in the rape of the Spaniards were detained by the federal Attorney General's Office and taken to Mexico City for interrogation. Spokesmen for the federal prosecutor did not answer calls seeking comment.
The governor said victims in a separate rape case had identified two of the detainees as being their attackers
The Feb. 4 attack on the Spaniards began when a band of masked gunmen broke into a beachfront home before dawn. The attackers tied up the six men at the house, and then raped the six Spanish women there. A seventh woman, a Mexican national, was not harmed during the hours-long assault.
The incident shocked people across Mexico and beyond, and was a new blow for Acapulco, which has been the scene of violence in recent years attributed to fighting among rival drug gangs. Tourism industry executives have worried that the attack could hurt business in other Mexican resorts.
___
Associated Press writer Bertha Ramos reported this story in Acapulco and Galia Garcia-Palafox reported from Mexico City.
Guerrero state officials declined to say how many suspects were in custody.
Gov. Angel Aguirre said two of those detained were also were being investigated in connection with another rape case. He said the two had been identified by victims in that case, but he added that no identifications had been made by victims in the rape of the Spanish women.
About 40 people who briefly blocked the road to Acapulco's airport said five of their relatives had been detained in the case. They charged that the men were wrongly arrested and were being made scapegoats.
"It's been 48 hours that our family hasn't seen them. We know nothing about them. One is a nephew and one is my brother," said one of the protesters, who gave her name as Flor Silva.
Authorities declined to comment on whether the protesters' relatives were among those detained in the tourist rape case. The state public safety secretary, Guillermo Jimenez, persuaded the protesters to end the road blockade in return for being allowed to meet with their relatives.
State government spokesman Pedro Julio Velez said the suspects in the rape of the Spaniards were detained by the federal Attorney General's Office and taken to Mexico City for interrogation. Spokesmen for the federal prosecutor did not answer calls seeking comment.
The governor said victims in a separate rape case had identified two of the detainees as being their attackers
The Feb. 4 attack on the Spaniards began when a band of masked gunmen broke into a beachfront home before dawn. The attackers tied up the six men at the house, and then raped the six Spanish women there. A seventh woman, a Mexican national, was not harmed during the hours-long assault.
The incident shocked people across Mexico and beyond, and was a new blow for Acapulco, which has been the scene of violence in recent years attributed to fighting among rival drug gangs. Tourism industry executives have worried that the attack could hurt business in other Mexican resorts.
___
Associated Press writer Bertha Ramos reported this story in Acapulco and Galia Garcia-Palafox reported from Mexico City.
via Latino Voices on HuffingtonPost.com by The Huffington Post on 2/11/13
Did Collier County (Fla.) Sheriff's officers go too far in subduing high-speed motorcyclist Mateo Falconi?
The 22-year-old released police video of the incident to the News-Press through his lawyers. The clip, which is now gaining attention on the Internet , appears to show the Fort Myers, Fla., resident surrendering to officers, and then getting punched, shocked and sworn at as he lays on the ground.
Falconi held a press conference Monday (watch below), claiming police used "excessive force." He announced that he planned to file a civil suit, WFTX reports. He has hired separate attorneys to handle the suit and to provide defense for his charges, which include fleeing the law, marijuana possession and resisting arrest without violence, according to the Fox affiliate.
According to the police report filed by arresting officer Robert Lewis III, Falconi reached speeds of 110 mph after Lewis spotted him going 65 mph in a 45 mph zone on Oct. 18. Falconi ran red lights in leading a five-minute chase, in which Lewis determined the traffic was light enough to pursue, the report states.
The edited video shows an unarmed Falconi stopping and putting his hands in the air before the confrontation started. He sustained bruises to most of his upper-body and had a head injury, the News-Press notes.
Collier County Sheriff’s Office declined comment to media outlets, but ABC-7 did publish a police statement that asks why Falconi was traveling at 110 mph and points out, in part: "Law enforcement officers are permitted to respond to resistance, whether it be verbal, passive, active or aggressive, for the safety of the public, the officer and the subject." (Visit ABC-7 to read the full statement.)
The 22-year-old released police video of the incident to the News-Press through his lawyers. The clip, which is now gaining attention on the Internet , appears to show the Fort Myers, Fla., resident surrendering to officers, and then getting punched, shocked and sworn at as he lays on the ground.
Falconi held a press conference Monday (watch below), claiming police used "excessive force." He announced that he planned to file a civil suit, WFTX reports. He has hired separate attorneys to handle the suit and to provide defense for his charges, which include fleeing the law, marijuana possession and resisting arrest without violence, according to the Fox affiliate.
According to the police report filed by arresting officer Robert Lewis III, Falconi reached speeds of 110 mph after Lewis spotted him going 65 mph in a 45 mph zone on Oct. 18. Falconi ran red lights in leading a five-minute chase, in which Lewis determined the traffic was light enough to pursue, the report states.
The edited video shows an unarmed Falconi stopping and putting his hands in the air before the confrontation started. He sustained bruises to most of his upper-body and had a head injury, the News-Press notes.
Collier County Sheriff’s Office declined comment to media outlets, but ABC-7 did publish a police statement that asks why Falconi was traveling at 110 mph and points out, in part: "Law enforcement officers are permitted to respond to resistance, whether it be verbal, passive, active or aggressive, for the safety of the public, the officer and the subject." (Visit ABC-7 to read the full statement.)
Mike Nova's starred items
via Latino Voices on HuffingtonPost.com by David Brock on 2/11/13
President Obama is "busy trying to get everybody to hate each other." That's the conclusion Fox News CEO Roger Ailes describes in a provocative new interview with The New Republic. It's an ironic claim coming from a man whose network has profited for years from promoting racial discord, only to see that very animosity torpedo his political party and ensnare their media megaphone.
Immigration reform has trapped Fox and the rest of the right-wing media between their ideological audience and their political leaders, with no way to emerge from the debate while maintaining their relationships with both. They must either divorce themselves from the Republican Party, or abandon the people whose regard pays their salaries, a stark choice that has resulted in the straddling and ideological contortions we've seen of late. It's still unclear which way their opportunism will take them.
It is in this environment that Ailes recently told The New Republic that his network will begin to "articulate" that Republicans "have a lot more opportunity" to offer Latinos than Democrats and declared, "I don't have any problem with a path to citizenship." It's a calculated risk that the political gain that could accrue to the Republican Party if they are credited with helping to pass reform and the potential new viewership among Latinos outweighs the hit Fox might take to its ratings if the shift in tone offends its right-wing audience.
Ailes certainly has a long way to go if he hopes a change in tone will bring in a Latino audience and convince them to support the GOP.
Conservative talkers on radio and TV have spent years spewing invective against undocumented immigrants, with dramatic impact both in Washington and on their audiences. The right-wing media was widely credited with defeating efforts for bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform during the Bush administration. Listeners and viewers received a daily dose of invective from Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, and others, all declaring the legislation amnesty and calling for its defeat. As the 2007 bill sank, then-Senate Majority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS) decried how "talk radio is running America" and complained that senators were "being pounded by these talk-radio people who don't even know what's in the bill."
The revolt against legislation that had been endorsed by President Bush and the Republican congressional leadership was a substantial shift for a community of right-wing pundits who had served as lapdogs to the GOP for years. And with the bill's defeat, comprehensive immigration reform was pushed off the agenda for half a decade, as GOP leaders backpedaled furiously to realign their position on the issue with that of their base.
But the party paid a heavy price for that shift, both losing support among Latinos and stirring up their base in a manner difficult to walk back. The GOP presidential candidates' share of the Latino vote has plummeted from 44 percent in 2004 to only 27 percent in 2012. And the years of vicious anti-immigrant hate has led to broader prejudice among the right-wing media audience -- a recent National Hispanic Media Coalition survey found "a consistent pattern whereby Fox News audiences are indeed more likely to hold negative stereotypes about Latinos."
This collapse in support for Republicans among Latinos has led to a panicked reassessment in the Republican Party, with party elders determined to find a way to recapture the votes of a group that at one point was splitting almost evenly between the parties. And in the days after Romney's defeat, several right-wing media leaders joined them, led by News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch, who wrote on Twitter that "Republicans have to ignore 5 per cent nativists and embrace Hispanics."
Murdoch was joined by, among others, Hannity, who declared that [w]e've got to get rid of the immigration issue altogether," saying he had "evolved" on immigration and calling for a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented; Laura Ingraham, who said that in the wake of the election "the language of dealing with Latinos has to be changed"; and Bill O'Reilly, who said that the GOP "has to figure out what message in their philosophy is going to be accepted by black and Latino voters." All had records of anti-immigrant rhetoric, but shifted their tone to boost the GOP.
Others on the right refused to back down and vehemently pushed back against the notion that a shift on immigration was necessary. Rush Limbaugh made clear that any immigration proposal would have to go through him. "I don't know that there's any stopping this," said the prominent host. "It's up to me and Fox News, and I don't think Fox News is that invested in this." Meanwhile, Levin accused Republicans of "race pandering."
But the GOP establishment players worried about their party's ability to attract Latinos had an ace in the hole: Sen. Marco Rubio, who has emerged as the GOP's champion on immigration reform in the days since the election. Rubio brings with him a unique shield from right-wing criticism. Rather than being a supposed maverick like Sen. John McCain, Rubio is a staunch Tea Party conservative who has spent years building up his bona fides, and is regarded as a rising star by that movement. Conservative media figures like him and want him to succeed. And that has led to an odd dynamic on the right.
Rubio has made a whirlwind tour among the top right-wing talkers to promote the Senate plan he supports, which includes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, a policy anathema on the right. Listeners and viewers were treated to quite a spectacle: right-wing hosts who had made their bones on rants against amnesty praising Rubio as a "very, very impressive man" looking to do something "admirable" with his "fascinating" plan. Rubio's office was quick to blast out the talkers' praise to reporters.
But while the talkers have been happy to praise Rubio, they've stopped short of fully endorsing his plan. The reason seems clear: it remains toxic with their audience. According to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, those who identify themselves as "very conservative" oppose a path to citizenship by a 37-61 margin.
One area where everyone on the right can agree, however, is that they despise President Obama. Thus we see Sean Hannity using his Fox platform to castigate the president for supporting a path to citizenship, which Hannity termed "amnesty," while praising Rubio for his own plan, which also includes a path to citizenship.
A right-wing media united in their hatred of the president has little direction to go other than outright rejection of whatever Obama calls for, regardless of what that is. Thus Obama's plan becomes "amnesty" even though, while there remain some key differences, its details are quite similar to the plan created by the Group of Eight, which itself closely resembles the defeated bipartisan plans of the last decade.
This is nothing new. Obama was met with near-universal Republican opposition when he backed a health care reform bill featuring proposals gleaned from legislation Mitt Romney passed in Massachusetts. Climate legislation based on the sorts of cap and trade ideas that had circulated in Republican circles for years and had been backed by McCain before the 2008 election was suddenly anathema once it had Obama's support. Conservatives have noted for generations that tax cuts provide economic stimulus - except the ones Obama put forth in his 2009 stimulus bill, which they lined up to falsely claim had created no jobs.
And so the legal status of 11 million immigrants hangs in the balance, held hostage by a right-wing media searching desperately for a way to hold on to their audience without driving their party to political Armageddon.
Immigration reform has trapped Fox and the rest of the right-wing media between their ideological audience and their political leaders, with no way to emerge from the debate while maintaining their relationships with both. They must either divorce themselves from the Republican Party, or abandon the people whose regard pays their salaries, a stark choice that has resulted in the straddling and ideological contortions we've seen of late. It's still unclear which way their opportunism will take them.
It is in this environment that Ailes recently told The New Republic that his network will begin to "articulate" that Republicans "have a lot more opportunity" to offer Latinos than Democrats and declared, "I don't have any problem with a path to citizenship." It's a calculated risk that the political gain that could accrue to the Republican Party if they are credited with helping to pass reform and the potential new viewership among Latinos outweighs the hit Fox might take to its ratings if the shift in tone offends its right-wing audience.
Ailes certainly has a long way to go if he hopes a change in tone will bring in a Latino audience and convince them to support the GOP.
Conservative talkers on radio and TV have spent years spewing invective against undocumented immigrants, with dramatic impact both in Washington and on their audiences. The right-wing media was widely credited with defeating efforts for bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform during the Bush administration. Listeners and viewers received a daily dose of invective from Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, and others, all declaring the legislation amnesty and calling for its defeat. As the 2007 bill sank, then-Senate Majority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS) decried how "talk radio is running America" and complained that senators were "being pounded by these talk-radio people who don't even know what's in the bill."
The revolt against legislation that had been endorsed by President Bush and the Republican congressional leadership was a substantial shift for a community of right-wing pundits who had served as lapdogs to the GOP for years. And with the bill's defeat, comprehensive immigration reform was pushed off the agenda for half a decade, as GOP leaders backpedaled furiously to realign their position on the issue with that of their base.
But the party paid a heavy price for that shift, both losing support among Latinos and stirring up their base in a manner difficult to walk back. The GOP presidential candidates' share of the Latino vote has plummeted from 44 percent in 2004 to only 27 percent in 2012. And the years of vicious anti-immigrant hate has led to broader prejudice among the right-wing media audience -- a recent National Hispanic Media Coalition survey found "a consistent pattern whereby Fox News audiences are indeed more likely to hold negative stereotypes about Latinos."
This collapse in support for Republicans among Latinos has led to a panicked reassessment in the Republican Party, with party elders determined to find a way to recapture the votes of a group that at one point was splitting almost evenly between the parties. And in the days after Romney's defeat, several right-wing media leaders joined them, led by News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch, who wrote on Twitter that "Republicans have to ignore 5 per cent nativists and embrace Hispanics."
Murdoch was joined by, among others, Hannity, who declared that [w]e've got to get rid of the immigration issue altogether," saying he had "evolved" on immigration and calling for a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented; Laura Ingraham, who said that in the wake of the election "the language of dealing with Latinos has to be changed"; and Bill O'Reilly, who said that the GOP "has to figure out what message in their philosophy is going to be accepted by black and Latino voters." All had records of anti-immigrant rhetoric, but shifted their tone to boost the GOP.
Others on the right refused to back down and vehemently pushed back against the notion that a shift on immigration was necessary. Rush Limbaugh made clear that any immigration proposal would have to go through him. "I don't know that there's any stopping this," said the prominent host. "It's up to me and Fox News, and I don't think Fox News is that invested in this." Meanwhile, Levin accused Republicans of "race pandering."
But the GOP establishment players worried about their party's ability to attract Latinos had an ace in the hole: Sen. Marco Rubio, who has emerged as the GOP's champion on immigration reform in the days since the election. Rubio brings with him a unique shield from right-wing criticism. Rather than being a supposed maverick like Sen. John McCain, Rubio is a staunch Tea Party conservative who has spent years building up his bona fides, and is regarded as a rising star by that movement. Conservative media figures like him and want him to succeed. And that has led to an odd dynamic on the right.
Rubio has made a whirlwind tour among the top right-wing talkers to promote the Senate plan he supports, which includes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, a policy anathema on the right. Listeners and viewers were treated to quite a spectacle: right-wing hosts who had made their bones on rants against amnesty praising Rubio as a "very, very impressive man" looking to do something "admirable" with his "fascinating" plan. Rubio's office was quick to blast out the talkers' praise to reporters.
But while the talkers have been happy to praise Rubio, they've stopped short of fully endorsing his plan. The reason seems clear: it remains toxic with their audience. According to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, those who identify themselves as "very conservative" oppose a path to citizenship by a 37-61 margin.
One area where everyone on the right can agree, however, is that they despise President Obama. Thus we see Sean Hannity using his Fox platform to castigate the president for supporting a path to citizenship, which Hannity termed "amnesty," while praising Rubio for his own plan, which also includes a path to citizenship.
A right-wing media united in their hatred of the president has little direction to go other than outright rejection of whatever Obama calls for, regardless of what that is. Thus Obama's plan becomes "amnesty" even though, while there remain some key differences, its details are quite similar to the plan created by the Group of Eight, which itself closely resembles the defeated bipartisan plans of the last decade.
This is nothing new. Obama was met with near-universal Republican opposition when he backed a health care reform bill featuring proposals gleaned from legislation Mitt Romney passed in Massachusetts. Climate legislation based on the sorts of cap and trade ideas that had circulated in Republican circles for years and had been backed by McCain before the 2008 election was suddenly anathema once it had Obama's support. Conservatives have noted for generations that tax cuts provide economic stimulus - except the ones Obama put forth in his 2009 stimulus bill, which they lined up to falsely claim had created no jobs.
And so the legal status of 11 million immigrants hangs in the balance, held hostage by a right-wing media searching desperately for a way to hold on to their audience without driving their party to political Armageddon.
via latino - Google News on 2/11/13
 Latina Lista: The Smart News Source |
American Latino Heritage Fund's new website and Twitter townhalls share ...
Latina Lista: The Smart News Source …assist the National Park Service and communities across the country to ensure that our national parks and historic sites preserve, reflect and engage the diverse stories and communities of American Latinos throughout American History and for future ... |
via Latest News by Joy Resmovits on 2/12/13
President Barack Obama made K-12 education a major component of his 2012 State of the Union Address -- so much so that the topic garnered the most traffic on sites like Twitter. But this year, education advocates are expecting something entirely different.
The White House mostly has been tight-lipped about its State of the Union plans, but to the extent that the administration is saying anything, they're looking at Tuesday night's speech as an opportunity to "bookend" their K-12 plans, sources say. Instead of focusing on the compulsive, public kindergarten through high school school system, advocates are expecting the president to offer more of a focus on early education, with a little bit of higher education thrown in.
That might be because the Education Department is already in implementation mode on K-12. Obama campaigned in 2008 on rewriting the No Child Left Behind Act, the 2002 law that expired in 2007. Since Congress failed to revamp it, upon Obama's urging, the administration offered states a way to sidestep the law's punitive regulations: They could get waivers in exchange for agreeing to parts of Obama's education reform agenda. Now, more than 30 states have had their waiver applications approved, and the administration is busy making sure states don't renege on their promises -- hardly the bold rhetorical fodder for speeches like the State of the Union.
In January, The Huffington Post first reported that the White House was weighing a major, long-term plan to boost early education slots for low and middle-income families. At the time, a senior official told HuffPost that she didn't want to get out in front of Obama on the issue. But since then, Education Secretary Arne Duncan has said new investments in early education will be a second-term priority -- and many expect this new emphasis to feature in the State of the Union address.
"We're expecting to hear that one of the areas he's hoping to do some investment in will be in early learning," said Kris Perry, who heads the First Five Years Fund, an early education advocacy group. The Obama administration previously had states compete in an early education version of its Race to the Top challenge, which Perry said helped states develop the capacity to serve more students. She hopes any new program would build on that growth.
"I hope he [Obama] connects economic growth and jobs to the importance of investing in early learning for families that are low-income and have very young children," Perry said. "There are many two-parent working families that would benefit immensely from having support for their young children."
Steering away from K-12 also would be a smart political choice -- the administration has sparred with its key constituents, the teachers unions, on education reform in that realm.
Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association, the nation's largest such union, said he would be "elated if he [Obama] talked about early education," adding that pre-school is an important support to any learning that happens later in a student's life.
But even the administration's best-laid plans for early childhood education might not come to fruition. As sequestration looms, the government isn't exactly handing out money for expensive new programs. And a quick look at the fate of Obama's 2012 State of the Union education proposals casts doubt on the feasibility of implementation.
Last year, Obama proposed things like a Race to the Top competition for higher education funding and an increase in Perkins college aid that would connect funding levels to outcomes. But Congress didn't fund either of these initiatives, and Obama has done little for them since last year's speech.
"Some things they moved quite boldly on, and others haven't gotten the same focus," said Kate Tromble, legislative director of the Education Trust. "Presidents can't get funding for everything they want, but it's still incumbent upon them to push the policy envelope."
Tromble added that on the higher education front, she expects to hear more about college affordability, and "some endorsement of MOOCs," or massive open online courses. "We're hoping he talks about the importance of affordability for lower- and middle-income families," she said. But one question remains: "How is the administration going to define the middle class?"
Of course, Obama also is expected to focus his speech on immigration reform and gun control, both broader issues that relate to what happens inside America's schools. In the wake of the Newtown, Conn., elementary school shooting, Obama proposed a set of safety recommendations that would give schools money for more armed guards and social workers.
"I would be shocked if the president doesn't do a paragraph or two on school safety and call out Arne Duncan by name," said Andy Smarick, a former Education Department official who now works for Bellwether Education, a consulting group. "Duncan feels this in his bones from his experience [as schools chief] in Chicago, and he's going to work on this project with the vice president."
The White House mostly has been tight-lipped about its State of the Union plans, but to the extent that the administration is saying anything, they're looking at Tuesday night's speech as an opportunity to "bookend" their K-12 plans, sources say. Instead of focusing on the compulsive, public kindergarten through high school school system, advocates are expecting the president to offer more of a focus on early education, with a little bit of higher education thrown in.
That might be because the Education Department is already in implementation mode on K-12. Obama campaigned in 2008 on rewriting the No Child Left Behind Act, the 2002 law that expired in 2007. Since Congress failed to revamp it, upon Obama's urging, the administration offered states a way to sidestep the law's punitive regulations: They could get waivers in exchange for agreeing to parts of Obama's education reform agenda. Now, more than 30 states have had their waiver applications approved, and the administration is busy making sure states don't renege on their promises -- hardly the bold rhetorical fodder for speeches like the State of the Union.
In January, The Huffington Post first reported that the White House was weighing a major, long-term plan to boost early education slots for low and middle-income families. At the time, a senior official told HuffPost that she didn't want to get out in front of Obama on the issue. But since then, Education Secretary Arne Duncan has said new investments in early education will be a second-term priority -- and many expect this new emphasis to feature in the State of the Union address.
"We're expecting to hear that one of the areas he's hoping to do some investment in will be in early learning," said Kris Perry, who heads the First Five Years Fund, an early education advocacy group. The Obama administration previously had states compete in an early education version of its Race to the Top challenge, which Perry said helped states develop the capacity to serve more students. She hopes any new program would build on that growth.
"I hope he [Obama] connects economic growth and jobs to the importance of investing in early learning for families that are low-income and have very young children," Perry said. "There are many two-parent working families that would benefit immensely from having support for their young children."
Steering away from K-12 also would be a smart political choice -- the administration has sparred with its key constituents, the teachers unions, on education reform in that realm.
Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association, the nation's largest such union, said he would be "elated if he [Obama] talked about early education," adding that pre-school is an important support to any learning that happens later in a student's life.
But even the administration's best-laid plans for early childhood education might not come to fruition. As sequestration looms, the government isn't exactly handing out money for expensive new programs. And a quick look at the fate of Obama's 2012 State of the Union education proposals casts doubt on the feasibility of implementation.
Last year, Obama proposed things like a Race to the Top competition for higher education funding and an increase in Perkins college aid that would connect funding levels to outcomes. But Congress didn't fund either of these initiatives, and Obama has done little for them since last year's speech.
"Some things they moved quite boldly on, and others haven't gotten the same focus," said Kate Tromble, legislative director of the Education Trust. "Presidents can't get funding for everything they want, but it's still incumbent upon them to push the policy envelope."
Tromble added that on the higher education front, she expects to hear more about college affordability, and "some endorsement of MOOCs," or massive open online courses. "We're hoping he talks about the importance of affordability for lower- and middle-income families," she said. But one question remains: "How is the administration going to define the middle class?"
Of course, Obama also is expected to focus his speech on immigration reform and gun control, both broader issues that relate to what happens inside America's schools. In the wake of the Newtown, Conn., elementary school shooting, Obama proposed a set of safety recommendations that would give schools money for more armed guards and social workers.
"I would be shocked if the president doesn't do a paragraph or two on school safety and call out Arne Duncan by name," said Andy Smarick, a former Education Department official who now works for Bellwether Education, a consulting group. "Duncan feels this in his bones from his experience [as schools chief] in Chicago, and he's going to work on this project with the vice president."
via Latest News by Luke Johnson on 2/12/13
By KEN THOMAS, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON — Republicans intend to cast President Barack Obama's second-term agenda as more "big government" and offer a series of steps to boost economic growth and reduce the federal debt, countering the president's agenda with competing visions for the country.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, previewing the Republican response to Obama's State of the Union address on Tuesday, said Republican leaders would pursue policies that would create jobs for middle-class families, tame the federal debt and hold down future spending while providing a check on the president's agenda.
"We don't just want to be the opposition. We want to be the alternative," Rubio said in an interview with The Associated Press.
Rubio's speech will help frame how Republicans respond to Obama's first State of the Union address of his second term and try to shape the agenda at a time of divided government. Obama's first term was marked by clashes with Republicans in Congress over the role of government, deficits and spending cuts, and both sides are expected to use their addresses to offer prescriptions for rejuvenating the economy.
Rubio will deliver his address in both English and Spanish, a move that comes as party leaders point to the need to connect with Latino voters. Obama won 71 percent of Hispanics last year against Republican Mitt Romney and Republicans have said they must address that deficit with Hispanics in order to compete effectively with Democrats in the future.
Rubio is not the only Republican who plans to formally respond to Obama's speech before Congress. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., will deliver a tea party rebuttal to the president's address from the National Press Club on Tuesday night. He said it would serve as an "extra response" to Rubio's speech.
"This is about the tea party, which is a grassroots movement, a real movement with millions of Americans who are still concerned about some of the deal making that goes on in Washington. They're still concerned about the fact that we are borrowing $50,000 a second," Paul said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." "None of the things I ran on as part of the tea party have been fixed."
Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, has played a high-profile role in promoting comprehensive immigration reform, which both Obama and lawmakers have identified as a top priority this year. But he said his rebuttal would emphasize a number of Republican approaches to improve the economy, including reforms to the tax code, stronger energy policies and ways of improving career and vocational training.
"You're usually able to go as far as your talent and work will take you and that's the direct product of free enterprise and limited government," Rubio said. "The president is basically asking us to abandon that. He's asking us to embrace the principles of more government, more government spending, more government control of our economy."
Rubio said in the past Republicans had not persuaded enough middle-class Americans to support their ideas on the economy. He said the party would argue that tax increases would hurt middle-class families because "they're passed through in the form of higher prices, less pay, less benefits and sometimes layoffs."
"Big government does not help you get ahead. It actually hurts the people who are trying to get ahead," he said.
___
Follow Ken Thomas at: http://twitter.com/AP_Ken_Thomas
WASHINGTON — Republicans intend to cast President Barack Obama's second-term agenda as more "big government" and offer a series of steps to boost economic growth and reduce the federal debt, countering the president's agenda with competing visions for the country.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, previewing the Republican response to Obama's State of the Union address on Tuesday, said Republican leaders would pursue policies that would create jobs for middle-class families, tame the federal debt and hold down future spending while providing a check on the president's agenda.
"We don't just want to be the opposition. We want to be the alternative," Rubio said in an interview with The Associated Press.
Rubio's speech will help frame how Republicans respond to Obama's first State of the Union address of his second term and try to shape the agenda at a time of divided government. Obama's first term was marked by clashes with Republicans in Congress over the role of government, deficits and spending cuts, and both sides are expected to use their addresses to offer prescriptions for rejuvenating the economy.
Rubio will deliver his address in both English and Spanish, a move that comes as party leaders point to the need to connect with Latino voters. Obama won 71 percent of Hispanics last year against Republican Mitt Romney and Republicans have said they must address that deficit with Hispanics in order to compete effectively with Democrats in the future.
Rubio is not the only Republican who plans to formally respond to Obama's speech before Congress. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., will deliver a tea party rebuttal to the president's address from the National Press Club on Tuesday night. He said it would serve as an "extra response" to Rubio's speech.
"This is about the tea party, which is a grassroots movement, a real movement with millions of Americans who are still concerned about some of the deal making that goes on in Washington. They're still concerned about the fact that we are borrowing $50,000 a second," Paul said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." "None of the things I ran on as part of the tea party have been fixed."
Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, has played a high-profile role in promoting comprehensive immigration reform, which both Obama and lawmakers have identified as a top priority this year. But he said his rebuttal would emphasize a number of Republican approaches to improve the economy, including reforms to the tax code, stronger energy policies and ways of improving career and vocational training.
"You're usually able to go as far as your talent and work will take you and that's the direct product of free enterprise and limited government," Rubio said. "The president is basically asking us to abandon that. He's asking us to embrace the principles of more government, more government spending, more government control of our economy."
Rubio said in the past Republicans had not persuaded enough middle-class Americans to support their ideas on the economy. He said the party would argue that tax increases would hurt middle-class families because "they're passed through in the form of higher prices, less pay, less benefits and sometimes layoffs."
"Big government does not help you get ahead. It actually hurts the people who are trying to get ahead," he said.
___
Follow Ken Thomas at: http://twitter.com/AP_Ken_Thomas
via Puerto Rico News - Archive Links's Facebook Wall by Puerto Rico News - Archive Links on 2/12/13
JOBOS, Isabella, Puerto Rico (Monday, February 11, 2013) – The Association of Surfing Professionals (ASP) 4-Star 2013 Rip Curl Pro Puerto Rico presented by seepuertorico.com
Rip Curl Pro Puerto Rico: Day 3 Highlights - Transworld Surf
via puerto …
JOBOS, Isabella, Puerto Rico (Monday, February 11, 2013) – The Association of Surfing Professionals (ASP) 4-Star 2013 Rip Curl Pro Puerto Rico presented by seepuertorico.com
Rip Curl Pro Puerto Rico: Day 3 Highlights - Transworld Surf
via puerto …
JOBOS, Isabella, Puerto Rico (Monday, February 11, 2013) – The Association of Surfing Professionals (ASP) 4-Star 2013 Rip Curl Pro Puerto Rico presented by seepuertorico.com
via Puerto Rico News - Archive Links's Facebook Wall by Puerto Rico News - Archive Links on 2/12/13
The FBI is actively investigating public corruption in Puerto Rico
FBI probing corruption cases in PR
via Caribbean Business on 2/11/13
FBI probing corruption cases in PR
The FBI is actively investigating public corruption in Puerto Rico and will …
The FBI is actively investigating public corruption in Puerto Rico
FBI probing corruption cases in PR
via Caribbean Business on 2/11/13
FBI probing corruption cases in PR
The FBI is actively investigating public corruption in Puerto Rico and will …
The FBI is actively investigating public corruption in Puerto Rico
via Puerto Rico Daily Sun - Google News on 2/7/13
 New York Times |
36 Hours in San Juan, Puerto Rico
New York Times The majestic structure takes on a soft glow as the sun falls over the horizon (it's open daily until 6 p.m.) and offers views of the bay and the ocean that are best savored when pink and orange bands of light begin to settle over the water ... and more » |