by José de la Isla

José de la Isla

HOUSTON — In their mad scramble to gain credibility from the increasingly important Latino vote, presidential candidates are already harvesting endorsements and forming “advisory” committees of prominent Hispanics.

So how is one candidate more in tune than another? What is authentic interest and what is entirely self-serving?

In fact, who sets the Latino agenda?

The late Los Angeles Times columnist Frank del Olmo complained in 1987 about the efforts of then-San Antonio mayor Henry Cisneros who proposed a summit to prepare a national agenda for the 1988 presidential race.  Del Olmo reasoned, it is simply not possible to combine the political interests of Mexican Americans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans and Central Americans. He even referenced what he called “the myth of a Hispanic vote.”

Today, the list would go beyond ethnicities to regions, income groups, education categories, religion, citizenship status, and gender.

Of course, there is no myth now but a functioning reality about the importance of the Latino vote.

Yet, what exactly is the Latino perspective when so many “issues” are put on the table? With the possible exception of the deep-seated dismay with Congress’s inaction on immigration and (so far) education, other matters can cut any which way.

True, Del Olmo was correct to object to a one-size-fits-all mentality. Yet, an agenda resulted in 1988, formulated by 50 leaders, of the National Hispanic Leadership Conference. It offered a buffet of 14 policy issue areas. In 1992, a similar bipartisan agenda was offered to George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

Even those who follow politics closely may be surprised to learn that this contemporary effort, while significant, was not unprecedented. Actually, the first such effort occurred in 1939.

In his forthcoming book, “The Search for a Civic Voice: California Latino Politics,” Kenneth C. Burt brilliantly documents the First National Congress of the Mexican and Spanish-American Peoples of the United States (known as El Congreso). Representatives to it came from Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Montana and New York.

The basic values expressed in the first meeting, held in Los Angeles, stand up to this day. Eduardo Quevedo, its presiding chairman, talked about promoting unity within the Hispanic community by combating inequality. The movement would form alliances with other progressive organizations. Its agenda was directed at state-level initiatives and federal action. It had a transnational perspective, showing presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lázaro Cárdenas’s shared responsibilities in matters of immigration and progress.

El Congreso stood for democratic rule in those pre-World War II days, when some prominent state and national leaders flirted with fascism and others rationalized for Stalinist Russia.

And most applicable today, they stood for civic participation — extending voting rights by eliminating discriminatory practices, and engaging in outreach to turn out the vote.

The national mobilization foreseen in 1939 was not carried out. But its spirit has persisted over the seven decades. Now, a new initiative — ya es hora, now’s the time — involves the National Council of La Raza, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, the Service Employees International Union SEIU and the We Are America Alliance, ImpreMedia, Univisión, and 300 regional and local organizations in 15 states.

This is the kind of action that makes presidential frontrunners perk up. The Wall Street Journal concedes the mobilization “could influence the agenda and outcome of the 2008 election.”

So, who speaks for Hispanics? The voters do, of course. And it seems candidates listen, but only after a scrappy Latino agenda packs a brawny wallop at the polls. And with each election, their hearing improves.

(José de la Isla, author of “The Rise of Hispanic Political Power” (Archer Books, 2003) writes a weekly commentary for Hispanic Link News Service. E-mail joseisla3@yahoo.com.) © 2007

by José de la Isla

HOUSTON — With the U.S. Senate’s refusal to act on an immigration reform bill this year, the old Chinese definition of “crisis” seems appropriate. “Crisis” in translation is generally held to mean “danger” and “opportunity.”

The danger is quite obvious. The National Conference of State Legislators reported in April that nearly 1,200 pieces of immigration legislation had already been introduced at the state level this year, more than double last year’s total. By year’s end, possibly every state in the union will be looking at “remedies” to restrict activity and movements by immigrants.

Such actions may appease assorted nativists and others who are just plain frustrated by federal inaction, but it’s a long way from a solution. It comes with plentiful “shoot-yourself-in-the-foot” dangers.

Immigrants and their children will account for all U.S. work-force growth between 2010 and 2030. As an example, Central Florida’s economic growth is tied to its fast-growing Hispanic population (many of them immigrants).

Many countries with homogeneous populations and little immigration (such as Germany, Italy and Japan) don’t grow as fast economically as other developed countries.  The same is true of regions within the United States.

Particularly disturbing here are the values and public attitudes that restrictive measures engender. Even if and when federal immigration reform comes about, ethnic-conflict jargon will have set up xenophobic, polarizing mindsets that could last generations and take decades to overcome.

Restrictive policies will contribute to making a nation that’s already gripped with fear about terrorism reach a new level of suspicion concerning the people within it. Some current proposals compete with the Jim Crow law of segregation days. It’s like the ’50s all over again.

A polarized nation led by a large but shrinking, grumpy white population will emerge as Hispanics become 17 percent of its people by 2020 and 24 percent by 2050.

It’s still a long while before 2009, when hopefully a new Congress will act responsibly in the national interest.  Meanwhile, local “reforms” based on emotion can cripple law-abiding working families, many of whom are U.S. citizens.

Now, the opportunities are much less visual, hidden behind dismal, disconcerting statistics in Mexico.

Mexicans make up roughly 60 percent of the unauthorized immigrants in the United States. Much of our immigration pull stems from the huge discrepancy in the standards of living between us and our neighboring countries. It’s one of the widest in the world.

But anyone who thinks emigration is good for Mexico is mistaken. It only makes things worse. In June, the United Nations Program for Development reported the main contributor is “inequality and not poverty.”

The program’s Thierry Lemaresquier points out it is neither the richest nor the poorest who leave. Instead it is those in the middle. This is precisely the group that Mexico most needs for its own development.

That correlates with another recent revelation.  Quoted in the Mexico City daily El Universal, Mexico’s Secretary of the Public Interest (Función Pública) stated that in the last five years, 35 percent of potential direct foreign investments decided against entering Mexico because of the perception of the country’s corruption and lack of transparency.

The vicious cycle is one that pushes people out and discourages investment within. It is a formula for slow growth and stagnation — consequently more emigration.

Between now and 2009 is a good time for inter-parliamentary commissions, immigrant hometown associations, Latino chambers of commerce, civic groups and transnational interests to demand that Mexico clean up its act.

President Felipe Calderón and the parties that make up Mexico’s Congress need to hear it from every direction. It’s a better solution than the ludicrous convulsion taking place in the United States, stemming from our own lack of reform.

So that’s the danger and the opportunity. Just as in the Chinese word for “crisis.”

[José de la Isla, author of “The Rise of Hispanic Political Power” (Archer Books, 2003) writes a weekly commentary for Hispanic Link News Service. E-mail joseisla3@yahoo.com.]© 2007

by Marvin J Ramirez

Marvin Ramirez

The recent Tuesday, June 26 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that race cannot be a factor in the assignment of children in public school is slap in the face to African-North Americans and Latinos who have faced more than a century of discrimination in society.

The court struck down public school choice plans in Seattle, Washington, and Louisville, Kentucky, saying that they relied on an unconstitutional use of racial criteria, with the 5-4 vote.

Similar plans already in place or being proposed nationwide could be in danger now, which would sharply limit the power of local governments to achieve diversity using race-based criteria.

“The troubling end-of-term Supreme Court decision that forbids local school boards from using race as a factor in their efforts to achieve school integration endangers the progress made during the civil rights movement and the quality of our educational system,” said Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Oak).

“As someone who is passionate about ensuring equality for people on all the issues, the recent ruling has saddened me and it forces us to redouble our efforts to defeat the effects of housing and other segregation patterns,” Lee said.

Decided May 17, 1954. BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) its aim was to end discrimination in the schools based on race.

Cites the case: “Segregation of white and Negro children in the public schools of a State solely on the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment – even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors of White and Negro schools may be equal.

After that decision, schools around the nation started using race to integrate the schools in order to insure equal access to a good education to all children.

“Today’s shocking decision undermines the commitment to equality in education that was spelled out in the Brown vs. The Board of Education decision, and threatens to turn the clock back on half a century of advances in racial equality in education,” adds Lee.

After attacking and weakening affirmative action, which was part of the Civil Rights Act some 40 years ago, I just hope that after this Court ruling, the schools find ways to continue integrating the so every child in the U.S. can have the same opportunity for a quality and competitive education.

The enemy of the immigrants, obviously is also the enemy of the civil rights laws that protect the groups that have been historically more oppressed.

by Marvin J Ramirez

Marvin Ramirez

Not long ago, people got their water only from the tap. Now, almost most people buy water in a bottle, sometimes thinking the quality is better.

A water seller came by my office sometimes ago. He offered me one of those big water gallons for free.

“For free? I asked. Yes, he said, but I would need to sign up for a contract. I said: “No thanks. I don’t think I need it.”

“Where do you get your water from” he asked. I said, “from the tap.”

Then we entered into a short, friendly discussion, and I was able to explain to him that we have ran articles – sponsored by KQED – in the paper about the this subject, and I assured him that in fact tap water in San Francisco is one of the ones in the nation. And that bottled water could be of less quality.

According to the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA), North Americans drank 5 billion gallons of water in 2001. That’s about the same amount of water that falls from the American Falls at Niagara Falls in two hours.

The business of selling bottled water has grown to great proportions in more than a decade, and have taken a large space at nearly every supermarket, convenience store and vending machine from coast to coast, where dozens of brands compete for consumers’ dollars. In four years, industry experts anticipate that bottled water will be second only to soda pop as America’s beverage of choice, according to a report.

Water, of course, is essential to human health. Drinking enough water to replace whatever is lost through bodily functions is important. Besides the water inside the bottle, which according to experts  is not different or perhaps not any better from tap water, cities around the globe are taking now steps that could reduce the consumption of bottle water.

Noticing on the environmental impact caused by the huge number of plastic bottle out there in the market, are many cities nationwide and globally.

A push to bring back the tap, led by mayors who want to cut down on global warming is underway.

According to a report, nothing irks Salt Lake City Mayor Ross (Rocky) Anderson more than seeing people tote water in plastic bottles. In fact, he argues, his city has some of the best tap water in the country. Several months ago, Anderson instructed department heads to stop buying bottled water for the city’s 2,200 workers and provide coolers and fountains instead.

And this is now happening in San Francisco, where the city is going to stop buying bottle water for city employees, which has been costing the city millions every year.

Anderson is urging the U.S. Conference of Mayors to promote tap water as a way to limit greenhouse-gas emissions.

Most water brands are packaged in a plastic derived from crude oil, polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Those containers are then transported on diesel-burning trucks-or shipped in from exotic destinations like Fiji, generating greenhouse gases.

Water from the tap, is good, and healthy. Stop buying water when you can get for free, while you will protect the environment.