« January 2008 |
Main
| March 2008 »
February 2008 archives
Latino voters have long been characterized as loyal supporters or, in some circles, followers, depending on your view of loyalty and Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign is counting on the latter here in Texas in her quest to snatch the Democratic nomination away from rival Sen. Barack Obama next week.
Clinton is hoping - more likely praying - that Texas Latinos follow the lead of our California and New York primos (cousins) and hand her a majority win over her rival. But her campaign is learning the hard lesson that a win in Texas depends, not on yesterday's loyalties, but a new reality -- the "M" factor.
Voters born between 1980 and 2000 are known as the Millennial Generation. In Texas, 31 percent of Hispanic eligible voters are between the ages of 18 to 29-years-old and these young Latinos are close to being the majority demographic overall among Texas Latino voters.
Latinos, 30-44-years-of-age, the current largest group within Latino voters, outnumber the millenials, but only by a measly .2 percent. Couple these numbers with the fact that Latino voters comprise almost 40 percent of eligible Texas Democratic voters. It's an implication that deserves attention.
Because in this Democratic primary most young Latino voters are dismissing the political loyalties of their parents and following a path that is relevant to how they view the world.
Unfortunately, the Clinton campaign has missed this, insisting on focusing the majority of their Latino outreach on ethnicity, not age. By contrast, Obama has focused his campaigning on college campuses and urban settings, home to most youth. Clinton has stuck to the tried-and-true style of political politicking -- walking the streets of Latino neighborhoods during the day and visiting local taquerias, not likely places or hours for young people to hang out.
If Clinton's people had been savvy about this age group, then they would have known that the millenials, a group whose lives are seamlessly integrated with technology, are a demographic bred on instant gratification, constant change, team work, and for whom diversity is a way of life.
They are increasingly fed up with how the "old guard" Latino leadership insists on looking at today's politics through yesterday's lenses -- and then professing to speak for all Latinos. It was a fact that recently came to a head in Dallas when an 84-year-old matriarch of Dallas Latino civil rights said that "Obama simply has a problem that he happens to be black."
Drawing from her experience in the city's history when racial tensions existed between blacks and browns, the self-confessed Clinton supporter was instantly scolded by Latino millennials who saw her comment as divisive.
"This whole black and brown divide...is one of the most exaggerated arguments in the country today," opined 19-year-old Manuel Rendon. Rendon had introduced Obama at a rally the previous week attracting 18,000 people of all ages and ethncities.
Yet for all their passion and desire for change, millennials have a lousy track record for sustaining their momentum since they bore easily and really don't like it when they don't get their way.
A hint of that ego-centric mentality came into sharp focus courtesy of Obama's own camp when his campaign commissioned a survey by Hispanic Economics. Latino first-time voters under the age of 30 were asked "If Obama is not nominated, and in November it is Hillary Clinton versus John McCain, are you likely to bother to vote at all?" Eighty percent of these young Obama supporters answered, "No."
But if there is a "long tail" to this newfound political passion among Latino millenials, it's the fact that they are not just sharing it with their peers -- but with their families, the center of Latino culture. It's natural that millenials bringing home their passion, enthusiasm and information are educating their parents and extended family members.
In some cases, the millenials are changing the minds of the older adults who are both proud of the budding political involvement of their children and who also have been struggling themselves in choosing who would make the better president.
It would be an understatement to say that Latino Millennials will be a factor in the Texas primary. The likelier scenario is that they will be a force -- that will rock the vote.
The once white-hot issue of illegal immigration has taken a curious twist in American politics.
On the one hand, state and local politicians are using the polarizing topic as the foundation of their bids for public office.
But on the national level, presidential candidates try to distance themselves from that same issue. They pay just enough lip service to give the impression that they care about it, but not too much - not unless they're campaigning in those pockets of the country directly impacted by the problems created by having undocumented residents.
To be fair, last year's bipartisan partnership forged among Senators John McCain, Ted Kennedy, Jon Kyle, and fully supported by President Bush, which resulted in the crafting of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 was a good start at addressing the issue. That it was roundly defeated in Congress and its supporters have since tucked their tails between their legs and retreated is a disappointing commentary on where the issue now stands at the federal level. Just how loathe Washington is to touch the issue was underscored during the recent visit of Mexico's President Felipe Calderon. Mexico's president was received by state legislatures, governors and business groups but not by the White House where an invitation was never extended to the visiting head of state.
Political analysts, on both sides of the border, noted how unusual that a foreign leader visiting another country would not be met by the president, even if it was an unofficial trip. It's too bad because much is changing when it comes to immigration law in Mexico - and it's at the U.S.' behest.
If reforming the nation's immigration system is to ever be fully realized, it has to be on the national level. Not with work site raids, family detention facilities, border walls and intimidation tactics by neighborhood law enforcement and local and state politicians but taking it to the next level where only national players can -- through nation-to-nation cooperation with the one country where the majority of undocumented immigrants originate.
There are current attempts by immigration reform critics to bolster the justification of building a wall between Mexico and the United States by citing Mexico's historically harsh treatment of their own illegally arrived population.
It's an argument that Mexican legislators are trying to turn into a moot point.
In May of last year, the Chamber of Deputies in the Mexican Congress revoked age-old immigration laws that mandated prison sentences and huge fines for a list of offenses that resemble current U.S. policy towards undocumented immigrants: working illegally in the country, marrying a citizen for the sake of permanent residency, staying with an expired visa and returning to the country after being deported.
Mexican legislators want to change the current policy of imposing those guilty of these violations with lengthy prison sentences by either charging a maximum fine equal to minimum salary earnings of 20 days or imposing 36 hours of community service.
And in an obvious nod towards the current negative political attitude towards undocumented immigrants in the United States, the new law in Mexico would allow for undocumented immigrants to be given a chance to legalize their situation. The legislation is now undergoing analysis in the Mexican Senate.
In the meantime, U.S. leaders continually insist in putting the immigration issue on the backburner. Luckily, some organizations have not.
In breaking with traditionally helping U.S. Latino communities through investments, California-based Hispanics in Philanthropy has awarded their first installment of a three-year $219,000 economic grant to expand a goat-cheese cooperative in Guanajuato, Mexico.
According to Diana Campoamor, president of the organization, helping expand businesses south of the border is part of a new movement in Northern California to address the root causes of illegal immigration by supplementing Mexican economic opportunities.
And thankfully it doesn't stop there. Recognizing how much businesses in both countries are interconnected, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, Tony Garza, is overseeing an upcoming joint business development event in Mexico City for American and Mexican businesses.
Titled U.S. and Mexico: Building Partnerships in Infrastructure, the event is designed to educate businesses who want to bid on over 300 projects to be built in Mexico as part of President Calderon's National Infrastructure Plan.
Yet, these isolated efforts to help Mexico overcome their economy's shortcomings must be supplemented with a broader immigration reform initiative from the U.S. federal government.
It is our turn to craft policy on how to address this nation's undocumented immigrants. Immigrants who applaud the turnaround happening in their native country so that relatives won't have to repeat their same perilous journeys, but who don't entertain the dream of returning to live in Mexico because of one simple reason -- the United States is their home.
Texas has long been romanticized for its Wild West, in-your-face, up-against-the-odds streak of defiant independence. It's the kind of defiance that created historical legends and which has always been hailed as a badge of honor by Texans.
Remember the Alamo?
Yet, who would have thought that in this day and age there would be a necessary resurgence of this kind of Lone Star defiance that would pit generational Texans against the federal government?
It's exactly what is happening in Texas' Rio Grande Valley between Texans, who live along the border with Mexico, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The DHS is gunning for 180 miles of Texas land to build part of the congressionally mandated 670 miles of border fence dedicated to border security.
In the process of trying to wrestle the land away from its owners, the federal government is trampling on the property rights of Texans some of whom can trace their family lands to deeds granted by the King of Spain in the 1700s.
And the agency is increasingly creating tension between Texas and Mexico border neighbors who have historically depended on each other for economic support. On top of that, the government's latest court actions are cultivating an ever-growing distrust and resentment between South Texas residents and Washington.
Unlike the past when Texans would lay down their lives rather than compromise their ideals, modern-day South Texans want to work with the federal government. It's the government that doesn't want to work with them.
Time and time again, delegations from the Texas border region have trekked to Washington to present their case - that there are better ways to secure the border. Building a barrier along the bordert would not only evoke memories of the Berlin Wall but create a hardship in the region.
Each time, border delegations' ideas have been rebuffed.
Alternative suggestions include the creation of a natural barrier by constructing a weir dam along the Rio Grande that would raise the water level, widen the river and back it up for 42 miles.
One of the proponents of the weir dam, Brownsville Mayor Pat Ahumada, says that this idea creates a virtual fence that could easily be patrolled with high-speed boats, electronic equipment and border agents. It also would only cost about $40 million, much less than the barbed wire/chain-link variety.
The mayor isn't shy about admitting that such an idea would offer a range of economic opportunities to develop the river for tourism -- something badly needed in a region that is home to some of the poorest counties in the nation.
For unknown reasons, the government wasn't interested in this idea.
So border residents had another one: build the fence along the levees in the area. The fence would reinforce the levees without adversely affecting the flood plain. As it stands now, the proposed fence would impact the region's ecological and historical corridor that lies along the river and which also serves as another source of tourism dollars.
Once again, this idea wasn't received well.
If the proposed fence were to go up today, it would cut through the region in such a way that it would disrupt the fragile nature preserve that draws thousands of bird watchers every year and cede several historical landmarks to Mexico.
In what has become standard practice for this administration, little thought has been given to the consequences or logistics of the proposed fence. Nor does DHS feel they have to discuss it with Texas landowners.
In a document distributed by the agency titled "Border Fence Construction Outreach," it stated that DHS had held 18 town hall meetings about the border fence.
Yet when pressed by the local media about the meetings, DHS was forced to admit that none of the meetings were held in the Rio Grande Valley. The majority were "briefings" held at Border Patrol stations.
It's clear the government doesn't want citizen input, nor obstruction.
So far, the DHS has filed 33 border wall condemnation lawsuits against Rio Grande Valley residents. They are suing for 180-day temporary access to the lands so federal contractors can "survey and conduct soil borings to aid in planning the fence's location."
The government hopes to have construction of the fence completed by the end of the year -- right before a new President is to be sworn in.
As was to be expected, the first round of Texas landowners targeted by federal lawsuits have lost.
Yet, being Texans, the battle is far from over.
Continue reading "Texas Showdown, Modern Issue" »
