Where does Antonio Villaraigosa, Mayor of Los Angeles, stand on Immigration Reform?

Many in Los Angeles are wondering.

“Don’t forget immigration reform,” wrote USC professors Dowell Myers and Manuel Pastor in a 22 March 2008 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times. The well-respected Myers and Pastor make the case that the first step towards immigration reform, and through it continued economic prosperity for the United States, involves changing perceptions towards immigrants. Immigrants, they contend, should not be “viewed as a problem to be solved but [as] an asset to our regional future.” The question is: “Where does Antonio Villaraigosa, Mayor of Los Angeles, stand on immigration reform?”

Myers and Pastor explain why Los Angeles has to play a leading role in the debate: “We in Los Angeles County have a special interest in this topic: One-third of our residents are immigrants, and nearly half of our labor force is foreign-born. Two-thirds of our youth are the children of immigrants, 90% of them U.S.-born. …our region's economic resilience depends on how these immigrant families and their children fare in coming years.”

Myers and Pastor call for “business, community, labor, and government leaders to focus attention on our immigrant and regional future,” since “clearly we cannot wait for Washington, we must start this conversation now in Los Angeles.” Ever since Antonio Villaraigosa was elected Mayor of Los Angeles in 2005, expectations have ran high that he would stand up for issues of importance to Latinos (not to mention all Angelenos). So what happened?

With the Mayor’s Office silent, and immigration a hot election year issue, Washington has gone on the offensive. In February 2008, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division of the Department of Homeland Security conducted a brash, foolhardy workplace raid at Micro Solutions Enterprises (MSE) in Van Nuys, California. The company, owned by Israeli immigrant and American citizen Avi Wazana, had been in substantial compliance with federal laws regarding employment eligibility, and had even received assurances from ICE that they would not raid his company.

Very little media attention has been paid to this immigration enforcement, one of the most dramatic raids Los Angeles has seen in the past 25 years. MSE, a fast-growing and award-winning manufacturer, had been committed to manufacturing in the U.S. and had even moved jobs to the U.S. from overseas -- the reverse of the outsourcing that we have seen around us the past decade. The results of this reckless, wanton enforcement were sudden, and invoked a dramatic economic and social impact. At the caprice of the federal government, an $80 million business was nearly paralyzed and potentially destroyed. Over 140 innocent workers were arrested and hundreds of others lost their jobs. Dozens of Americans were detained illegally against their will in a mass detention.

While an upstanding corporate citizen has been mercilessly thrown into chaos, there has been no attention paid to the impact that continued enforcements of this kind would have on the social and economic fabric of Los Angeles, for certainly more are in the works. We have heard almost nothing from the Mayor on the subject, even though it is well known that our city has developed a deep economic dependence on immigrant labor. The majority of workers in various labor-force segments are undocumented. It is commonly accepted that approximately one million people living in Los Angeles County are undocumented; they include rank and file workers, managers, skilled employees, and entrepreneurs alike.

The Mayor has already stated that jobs and the economy are the biggest challenges Los Angeles faces. The economy of our city depends on a harmonious and stable business environment. An intensification of immigration enforcements by ICE, given the prevalence of undocumented workers in Los Angeles, could lead to an economic disruption our city has not seen in decades. Why should the people and the economy of Los Angeles suffer solely because the Bush Administration wants to look "tough" on the issue of immigration? National opinion polls suggest that most Americans support the integration of undocumented workers into the economy and granting them permanent status. Mayor Villaraigosa should stand up for the city and call upon the Bush Administration to discontinue these senseless enforcements in Los Angeles until such time that the federal government has enacted comprehensive reform of immigration laws.

Many commentators have drawn attention to the Mayor's political aspirations at the national level. In light of immigration having become such a high profile issue this election year; it is ironic that our Mayor has been silent on the very issue that is of paramount importance to our city. Has Mayor Villaraigosa lost his sense of judgment and responsibility where our city is concerned? For the Mayor to remain silent and complicit while these immigration enforcements damage the social and economic landscape of Los Angeles borders on gross negligence at best and a betrayal at worst. It is also at odds with a sincere position supporting comprehensive immigration reform. Both the workers and employers of our city have expected more and it is high time that the Mayor started to deliver.

Sensenbrenner-like Bills A Political Ploy

The 110th Congress has not even completed the first quarter of 2008 and the sharpened fangs of the Republican side of the aisle are protruding overtime to introduce anti-immigrant legislation of the Sensenbrenner clamor – in both chambers. It's political one-upmanship of the worst kind led by the Republican legislators during this presidential election year, but also includes 48 Democrats in the House who are considered politically vulnerable freshmen who knocked off Republicans to claim their seats. And, now the real political campaigning begins and immigration once again is the political football.

It's not lost on anyone that the Republicans do not have sufficient votes to prevail in either chamber, if the Democrats hold firm. However, the real intention is to unnerve the Democrats who are running strong this year due to a combination of factors pressing on the voters – the slowing economy already resulting in massive job loss, the spreading housing debacle with crippling foreclosures, the continuing war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the growing number of medically uninsured. Additionally, a growing number of states are facing steep budget deficits with no expectation of any federal revenue back-fill. This sounds more like a legislative equivalent of the Willie Horton or Swift Boat ads reminiscent of the 1988 Bush, Sr. and the 2004 Bush, Jr. election strategies. And, considering the deteriorating economic status of a growing number of families during eight years of a Republican administration, immigration is a tried and tested diversion and the immigrants an easy scapegoat.

The series of legislative proposals, 14 at last count, are highlighted by an unprecedented measure to require a two-year maximum jail term for anyone caught crossing the border unauthorized a second time. Other measures include depriving states of 10% of highway funds if they continue the practice of issuing a driver's license to the undocumented, extend the presence of the National Guard along the border, end language assistance at federal agencies and the voting booth for the limited English-speaking, block funding to cities that prevent local police from inquiring about immigration status, authorize local and state police to enforce federal immigration laws, deport immigrants, legal and undocumented, for only one drunk-driving offense, and complete the 700 miles of border fencing construction at the southern border. This is enforcement over the top and would lead to criminalizing the millions of undocumented immigrants in the country, and all new unauthorized entrants, not to mention the hundreds of billions of dollars required to make any of this work.

While not explicitly endorsed by the Democratic leadership, newcomer Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina has introduced a bill in the House thoroughly invasive of every workplace nationally. He is considered typical of many conservative freshmen Democrats fighting to retain their seats in competitive congressional districts. The Shuler-Tancredo Bill, H.R.4088, dubbed the Secure America with Verification and Enforcement Act or SAVE ACT would require that all businesses, within four years, use the government's E-Verify system to ascertain the legal status of their employees, increase the Border Patrol by an additional 8,000 officials, and train state and local police to enforce immigration laws. This number of new border agents would move the current total to 24,000, although it could be higher when past legislation and budget allocations are taken into consideration. The Democrat Shuler has teamed up to craft this legislation with the recalcitrant xenophobe Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo who based his failed presidential bid on a thoroughly anti-immigrant platform.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, considered a liberal from California's Bay Area, has expressed opposition to enforcement-only measures, but would embrace some of the principles without being specific. She clearly feels responsible to provide political cover to these Blue Dog conservative Democrats and protect them from a Republican onslaught using the immigration issue to tilt voters in their direction. Rep. Ciro Rodriguez, from Texas, is one of the 48 Democratic co-sponsors of this right-wing legislation, for example. The irony is that he won his seat by beating out an incumbent Republican of Mexican American origin through mobilizing the Latino community, many of whom participated in the massive marches in 2006 to defeat HR4437, the Sensenbrenner Bill. Pelosi risks alienating the party's Latino and immigrant base if she goes too far past the political center to accomplish her goals.

Senator Robert Menendez,a New Jersey Democrat, one of three Latino senators, has been a stalwart opponent of draconian approaches that demonize immigrants and is expected to hold the line against similar senate versions. However, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus has been characteristically quiet and less than united in responding to these initiatives in both chambers. It is rumored that some legislators within the caucus may be designing their own package. The fear is that they may error again too far in favor of accepting so-called trade offs – stringent enforcement in exchange for less than inclusive legalization schemes.

The Democrats should take heart in the fact that the most recent pattern of election results, when immigration has been used to motivate conservative voters, demonstrates that the majority electorate is not so easily manipulated to the tune of opportunistic politicians and candidates. The extreme conservative Republican presidential candidates – Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter – never even scored a 1% response favorable to their candidacies. And, they were unceremoniously booted from the campaign trail.

Mozilo the Subprime Gorilla

In the light of the U.S.’s worst housing debacle in the last half-century, and no real end in sight, the perpetually tanned founder of Countrywide Financial Corp., Angelo Mozilo, was hammered by a congressional committee for unloading $141 million in stock options. Mozilo claims that that his gain was fortuitous and not timed or manipulated before the company collapsed. Rep. Henry A. Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, does not see it that way.

The company lost $1.7 billion during the last two quarters of 2007, and its stock plunged 80% between February 2007 and the end of the year. Over $20 billion stock value was wiped out literally overnight. Nevertheless, during that same period Mozilo was compensated with $1.9 million salary and $20 million in stock bonuses contingent upon company performance. Not a bad year for the 69 year-old executive who was also planning his retirement for 2008. The company and stockholders lose and he wins. Millions of homeowners lose their equity, default on their loans and are cast out of their homes, and Mozilo makes out like a bandit.
And now, it has been revealed that the FBI is investigating Countrywide and its executives, say Mozilo, for alleged securities fraud. Throw in the Justice Department investigation, according to the New York Times, on top of the FBI for not being completely honest with the public about the depth of possible defaults unraveling across the country.

And unraveling they are. The Los Angeles Times recently reported that according to a report by Moody’s Economy.com nearly 9 million homeowners, close to one-tenth of all mortgage loans nationally, will have seen their equity evaporate by the end of this month or will have mortgage balances that exceed what their homes are worth. It would be outrageous that borrowers would just walk away from these mortgages, their obligations. At least this is the attitude of Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. who “contends that homeowners are obligated to keep paying on their home loans.” “Any homeowner who can afford his mortgage payments, but chooses to walk away from an underwater property is simply a speculator – and one who is not honoring his obligations.”

Now, that seems very morally trite considering the unwillingness of the Bush administration, and congress for that matter, to intervene on the side of the lowly homeowner occupant (not speculator) in the worst housing downturn perhaps since the Great Depression of the 1930s. In fact, they wouldn’t be doing anything worst than their lender – such as in the case of Countrywide, but many other financial institutions who also gamed the system, preyed on anxious consumers, steered clients to exotic loan products, and refined the practices of predatory lending. And, they made billions of dollars. When we factor in how these loans were sold on the secondary market to investors as securities, perhaps trillions of dollars were pocketed.

Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben S. Bernanke last week pointed out the obvious. Millions of homeowners will walk away from their mortgage debt unless banks act quickly by cutting the size of the loans, and not just trim interest rates. I applaud Bernanke for agreeing with me. This is exactly what I recommended to the California Senate Budget Committee in a hearing conducted in Sacramento during February 2007, along with the Greenlining Institute. Some sincere California legislators continue to probe possible remedies to the current crisis, although their hands are pretty much tied. They do not control the financial mechanisms to regulate the banking industry or tinker with interest rates and credit. They do have the authority, however, to rein in and punish unregulated mortgage companies and brokers who continue to prey on the unsuspecting and uneducated borrower. I’m still waiting for that legislation. We endured 2007 and nothing from the California legislature, and only platitudes and empty promises from the Governator.

Bernanke knows of what he speaks. “Housing prices are falling in many parts of the country… the resulting decline in equity reduces both the ability and the financial incentive of stressed borrowers to remain in their homes.” His matter-of-fact advise to the banking industry considering the alternative was to take their knocks and acknowledge that “principal reductions that restore some equity for the homeowner may be a relatively more effective means of avoiding delinquency and foreclosure.” In other words, do what they normally do when businesses default on their loans – take the loss and rewrite the loans realistically.

Could this crisis have been avoided? Probably not. I vividly recall visiting the splendorous Calabasas headquarters of Countrywide Financial Corp. in 2006 to meet with CEO Angelo Mozilo, part of a Greenlining Institute delegation, to advocate against predatory lending practices and call upon the top mortgage lender nationally to create an industry model for good lending practices. How naïve of us! Little did we know that Mozilo had already increased his payroll by 12,000 new hires to aggressively market newfangled loan products to induce an unsophisticated public to buy into what has become an unmitigated American nightmare. Tanned, cocky, undersized stature, with a toothy smile, Mozilo extolled his rags to riches story, the son of poor Italian immigrants who never owned their own home, and guaranteed us of his virtuous motives that every American should be a homeowner. This was his mission, he claimed. Today, two-thirds of the sub-prime loans issued by his company are in default – teetering on foreclosure.

Bank of America has agreed to pull Countrywide’s chestnuts out of the fire for $4 billion. Will it do the same for the hoodwinked borrowers? That remains to be seen.

What's Up with Latinos and Clinton?

Much has been commented on the Latino voter preference for Senator Hillary Clinton, particularly in the California primary elections, and now potentially in Texas – the make-or-break election on March 4th for the New York senator.

It is estimated that Latinos pulled the ballot box lever for her candidacy to the tune of 67 percent. Much has been made of her California triumph over Senator Barack Obama by ten percent, not a large margin in reality, but an important victory none-the-less. And, Latinos were said to have been the determinant. Can she score a similar win in the Lone Star state where Latinos constitute 25 percent of the electorate? Will Latino voters bring it home for her again?

I have heard and read probably most (enough) of the analysts and newfound experts on the Latino vote and their superficial interpretations. And, quite frankly, all have missed the mark. Some talk about racial prejudice holding Latinos back from showering an African American with their votes. Others reflect on the “good” done by President Bill Clinton and his Latino appointments (I can only remember three of national prominence – Cisneros, Peña, and Richardson). Hillary’s commitment to healthcare reform and other good deeds benefiting Latinos and a 1972 stint in a voter registration campaign in south Texas amongst Mexican rural colonias, are also mentioned.

While each reason identified above may engender a grain of truth, a snapshot analysis does not suffice for the real thing. The truth lies elsewhere. The story goes back to the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, better known as the amnesty bill signed into law by the then President Ronald Reagan.

Well over 3 million individuals qualified to legalize their immigration status beginning in May 1987, and they came of electoral age in January 1996 upon obtaining U.S. citizenship that same year. The November 1996 presidential election was their first voting experience as new citizens, and Bill Clinton was the man, notwithstanding that he had previously signed into law numerous onerous measures detrimental to immigrants generally, but particularly harsh on Latinos.

The border wall with Mexico and the border deaths phenomena made their first appearance under Clinton. Immigration laws punishing unlawful entrants with few prospects for waivers and harsher bars to legalize their status through family petitions, the elimination of legal provisions to permit adjustment to legal status without first being forced to leave the country, and streamlined removal of denied asylum applicants, the denial of benefits to legal permanent residents, the removal of legal residents for certain criminal offenses, and other similar measures led to a ballooning undocumented population only too soon after the 1986 landmark law. However, immigrants only began to feel the full weight of this right-wing turn in the law and its application by the final year of the Clinton tenure.

Nevertheless, millions of new Latino citizens had acquired the vote and made their presence felt in numbers not previously experienced in the U.S. The biggest electoral gains by Latino candidates to political office began in earnest from 1996 forward. In fact, three factors propelled greater citizenship acquisition during this period – one, the passage of the anti-immigrant Proposition 187 in California, two, the passage of Clinton immigration legislation to deny federal social benefits to legal permanent residents, and three, the newly legalized immigrants became eligible for citizenship and proceeded to file millions of petitions to legally immigrate other family members, and to register to vote.

The political landscape for Latinos in heavy legalization states would never be the same – California, Texas, Illinois, and New York – to name the top four. While the National Association of Latino Elected Officials (NALEO) could provide the figures with exactitude, my anecdotal observations are that the greatest number ever of Latinos elected to public office at the local, state, and federal level occurred during President Clinton’s second term with the advent of millions of new Latino voters. During this same period we also observed the fastest increase of Spanish language media and small business development.

Latinos, then, came of age politically under Clinton’s second term and patronage, and this included its political positioning within the Democratic Party on a regional and national level.

This in the main accounts for the endorsement of Hillary Clinton by higher than 80 percent of Latino elected officials, particularly those of the older generation. The Clinton name is that which appeared on the first ballot cast by the millions of new citizens. He (and his first lady) was president when the new immigrant citizen enjoyed immediate social integration and acceptance, and an improvement in their economic income and social wage. This is the first generation voting citizen of immigrant stock – the least formal education, lowest income, slightest political experience, but loyal to a fault. As a result of their legalized status they claimed the opportunity to immigrate millions of their loved ones and raise their children, both native born and undocumented, from under the shadow of dubious legal status.

Is gender politics a factor amongst Latina voters? Certainly, no different than how women throughout the country size up the prospect of electing the first women president.

Does racial prejudice motivate some Latino voters contrary to the Obama candidacy? Undoubtedly, not dissimilar to how racial prejudice shapes the opinions of other racial or national origin constituencies. Nevertheless, the historical experience indicates that Latinos have consistently voted in favor of African American candidates. The names of Tom Bradley, Harold Washington, and David Dinkins are notable examples.

Did Latinos fair well economically under the Clinton reign? Invariably a minority prospered well similar to the African American middle class experience. The Latino political elite was the most natural beneficiary. However, the mass of workers saw their wages stagnate, and eventually decline, and manufacturing jobs began a brisk disappearance from the American landscape directly attributable to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) consummated by free trader Bill. Some prominent political appointments do not a broad social advance for the mass of Latino workers make.

Lastly, Hillary Clinton has been campaigning for the past fifteen years, most especially in California. She has assiduously called in all the political chits common to any system of political patronage. Her fundraising prowess was unparalleled – that is until the young senator from the Land of Lincoln arrived on the scene. Name identification means everything in politics and is the first advantage staked out by a candidate. Clinton certainly had the initial edge. These are additional factors that explain the Latino electorate inclination towards the former first lady.

On the other hand, Senator Obama has slight but growing name recognition amongst Latinos, few but growing prominent Latino endorsers, a scant but strengthening political organization within these communities, and meager information about his political record, accomplishments, and platform. What he lacks in these areas, though, he makes up for with personal magnetism, a similar background story, the image of an outsider, and persuasive oratorical flair.

The Texas primary will once again test the pundits’ ability to interpret the Latino vote.

Money Better Spent on Mining Latino Votes

Many consider next Tuesday’s primary election in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont, as a mini-Super Tuesday make-or-break election for Senator Hillary Clinton. And both Democratic Party candidates are beating the band to woo Latino voters into their column to settle the question, the ultimate party favorite to square off with the presumptive Republican Party candidate, Senator John McCain.

They are really doing more than beating the band. According to James Pinkerton, his article appeared in the Houston Chronicle on February 29, 2008, Sens. Clinton and Obama are spending unprecedented sums to convey their messages in Spanish ads as “part of a Texas primary media blitz that one national campaign finance expert estimates will end up dumping $20 million in Texas for the March 4 contest.” (Click here for the article.)

My impression is that no previous political campaign has spent as much marketing to Latinos, albeit the lion’s share will undoubtedly land in the coffers of corporate media outlets – a huge boon for the Spanish language networks.

It appears that Latinos represent the mother lode of votes to determine the outcome in Texas, fully 25 percent of the state electorate. This is a higher percentage than they represent in California, and while 30 percent of the state’s Democratic Party primary turnout was Latino, an estimated 67 percent swung for Clinton. All things being equal in relation to other segments of the Texan electorate, African Americans will likely support Senator Barack Obama in the 90 percentage range, the white vote will split between the two, and the Latino vote is the unknown in play. It’s nice to be wanted.

This is why I have always advocated for competitive districts, multiple parties, choice diversity, and an electoral system of the 21st century in America – proportional representation, public campaign financing, equal media access, redistricting of districts not by the seated legislators, elimination of the archaic electoral college, same day registration, and other necessary democratic electoral reforms. This all would make for much greater participation in civil society by all constituencies.

But, back to the money question in Texas. Mariachi bands, Spanish language ballads lauding the attributes of the candidates, messages emphasizing family values, healthcare reform and educational access, while minimizing the immigration issue, are costing Clinton and Obama literally millions – an estimated $8 million for the former, $10 million for the later, and the remainder by others. And this is just in a matter of several weeks of media exposure. What a waste! All message, but where’s the proverbial beef?

The money could be better spent to empower a still too disenfranchised electorate – in voter registration, education, organization, and ultimately, mobilization. In fact, those experienced in voter registration peg the reasonable investment amount of $10 per new registrant in the average campaign. In another words, a $20 million investment in such a laudable and democratic experiment could harvest 2 million new Latino voters empowered to cast their lot with those who truly value their worth – think enough about them to invest in their electoral empowerment, in human capital not just media mesmerizing.

The Willie C. Velasquez Institute estimates that there are still six million unregistered eligible Latino citizens to be harvested. It also estimates that of the close to 10 million Latino registered voters nationally, less than 60 percent actually reach the ballot box on Election Day to punch for their candidate preference. The 40 percent voter apathy is really a question of education and motivation. On a different note, there are also 9 million permanent legal residents eligible for U.S. citizenship status – a mine full of potential new voters.

What party and candidate(s) speak to the issues of relevance and concern to Latino voters, short on rhetoric and long on concerted action, legislation, and social mobilization? Who will bring these voters to the dance as Willie C. Velasquez, in life, used to repeat the old Texan refrain? A recent experience demonstrates that one astute right-wing political advisor/consultant had it right (for this side) when he bet on and worked to bring a reported 4 million energized voters into the presidential fray of 2004 – the evangelical factor. I am referring to Mr. Karl Rove. George W. won his second term and all else is history.

This was a good example of a campaign putting its money where its mouth is. Can Clinton and Obama say as much, or the Democratic Party for that matter? Only time will tell, but the Texas experience indicates that they still don’t get the message.

Who's Afraid of Ralph Nader?

Pols, candidates, and party leaders, particularly those of the Democratic Party and their fervent allies, are expressing concern, ridicule, and even horror at the recently declared presidential candidacy of legendary consumer activist Ralph Nader for the 2008 elections.

We are reminded of his run in 2000 and the blame cast upon him for Al Gore’s loss, or by their standards – George W. Bush’s win. It all came down to Florida is the claim, and had Nader not been in the race (and not obtained 97,000 plus votes) Gore would not have taken the country into Iraq or committed an untold number of other sins rightfully attributed to the Bush administration.

Nader defends himself against such accusations with some of his own statistics, particularly, the embarrassing fact that some 250,000 democratic Floridian voters cast their lot with George W. That Al Gore did not even win his own state of birth and for which he had previously represented in the U.S. Senate, Tennessee.

In his 2000 presidential bid, Nader received 2.7 percent of the vote, less than 3 million, and in 2004 less than 1 percent. He was literally censured by U.S. corporate media during both campaigns and never allowed to participate in any of the candidate debates. His voice, and that of independent registered voters, was basically muted by the media. And, American democracy was not better for it, either.

Nader argues why blame him for the ills of the past seven years, instead of the Republicans, Bush himself, the Democrats in congress, or the 250,000 democrats who voted for Bush in Florida in 2000. “Why blame those who propose a progressive platform” in this campaign. “Get over it,” he dismisses his detractors, and “try and have a diverse multiple-choice multiple-party democracy the way they have in Western Europe and Canada.” He makes a good point.

The premise for his decision to run is two prong – one, that only 23 percent of the electorate are satisfied with the direction of the country and 69 percent express that both political parties are failing; second, that none of the most prominent presidential candidates – he names Clinton, Obama, and McCain – are addressing the most important issues of concern to a majority of Americans – the prospect of a single-payer healthcare alternative; Pentagon waste and the bloated military budget – a wasteful defense is a weak defense, he rationalizes; no commitment to labor law reform or repeal of the onerous Taft-Hartley Act; and corporate crime and greed that runs in the trillions, while the income of the average worker stagnates and continues to decline. He declares that Washington, D.C. is corporate occupied terrain. One feels compelled to do something to open up the system, pave a way for third parties, and other voices to invigorate democracy, he pounds.

On February 28, 2008, Nader announced that his running mate would be San Franciscan attorney and Green Party luminary, Matt Gonzalez. Gonzalez has expressed his own reasons for accepting the challenge as much to do with his own misgivings with the Obama candidacy. He actually describes his thoughts more thoroughly than does Nader. Check out his reasoning at the following link.

But, the real question for progressives, is who’s afraid of a Nader candidacy and why? What questions is Nader raising that are not being adequately addressed by the current candidates? Who is aided by his candidacy, and whom does it potentially harm?

The Democratic Party leadership is obviously the most fearful of the Nader candidacy and perhaps their leading candidates even if they don’t express as much in public. They don’t want a repeat of 2000. And while they cannot accuse him directly for the loss of 2004, literally millions of dollars was spent by the Democrats to keep him off the ballot in enough states to avoid a repeat of the 2000 electoral debacle.

And, why not spend millions of dollars to enlarge and embolden the natural and traditional Democratic Party electoral base with massive voter registration, education and mobilization campaigns instead of muting the voice of credible third party candidates?

A word of advice to the Democrats – take the issues away from Citizen Nader by addressing the issues that he poses in his platform. This is the best way to obviate his campaign and make irrelevant his critique.

Mexican American Political Association Says “Si Se Puede” with Obama

Los Angeles, CA. The Mexican American Political Association (MAPA) has announced its endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for the primary election(s). Below is a statement released by MAPA National President, Nativo V. Lopez:

“In various previous bulletins we have pointed out numerous contradictions and challenges facing us during this presidential campaign. The aspirations for political change that conforms to the myriad social needs of Latinos, the working majorities of the U.S., and all people of color are huge. Fair and humane immigration reform, an end to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the return of U.S. troops to their loved ones, universal and affordable healthcare, fair versus “free” trade policies and an end to the export of millions of jobs, immediate relief to working families devastated by the subprime housing crisis, equitable and progressive tax rates, a reduction of the budget deficit not on the backs of working people, a restoration and protection of privacy rights and an end to government spying and surveillance on its citizens and residents, protected right to organize a union and negotiate a collective bargaining unit, an end to the era of dependency on fossil fuels, the inviolability of women’s right to choice and immediate access to health services – these and many more issues are moving millions “of people into motion in search of relevant change in our country.

“The real question before us is whether any of the current presidential candidates measures up to our expectations and aspirations for change within the context of a constrained political system dominated by two main political parties – Republican and Democratic, its various minor parties, but an ever growing and robust independent segment of the electorate?

“The Mexican American Political Association (MAPA), the oldest political-civic organization of Mexican Americans and Latinos in the U.S., answers the question in the affirmative with some reservations. The task before us is enormous and we refuse to invest everything on one woman or man aspiring to assume the highest political office in the land, and expect that this will create the change we desire. This is only one element of the political equation. The majority of the responsibility for change is ours – our collective responsibility to create sweeping social movement and impose our political will as the majority producers of society. We do this by participating in political elections, mobilizations of masses of people, social protests, lobbying, sit-ins, petitions, recall of elected officials when necessary, and the use of many other tactics.

“No political candidate is perfect, but which candidate comes closest to our ideal and speaks to our issues and interests, exudes confidence, demonstrates a track-record for integrity and speaking truth to power, and voting in favor of working peoples interests?

“Our first choice was Congressman Dennis Kucinich. We firmly believe that his platform is our platform, and that his progressive trajectory as an elected official speaks for itself. However, for many reasons citizen Kucinich retired from the presidential primary race to pursue a re-election bid for his current seat. MAPA stood on principle to support the candidate who thoroughly stands for peace, fair trade, humane immigration reform, universal healthcare access, women’s choice, worker’s rights, and while his candidacy may have represented an impossible long-shot – we resolved that elections in and of themselves do not constitute the main measure of political change, and that our fight is a strategic one premised on deep-rooted organization of political conscious Latino workers and families in alliance with affinity constituencies.

“However, something nasty in the national campaigns reared its head over the past two weeks, which motivated us to consider another endorsement for a presidential candidate of the Democratic Party primary elections. We have observed with utter disgust the use of racially divisive and polarizing tactics employed by the Clintons, both Hillary and Bill, against Senator Barack Obama, not the first presidential candidate of African American origin. This is something that we would have expected from Republican candidates, but instead it surfaced from the bowels of the center-right institutional currents of the Democratic Party. The tactics are absolutely deplorable and clearly demonstrate what the Clintons think of all people of color.

“In other words, when they speak and refer to Senator Barack Obama in the racially disparaging manner in which they have, they are really referring to all of us people of color – African Americans, Latinos, Asian Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans. Perhaps worst yet, they think little of white members of the electorate wrongly believing that such tactics would move white voters away from Senator Obama - the scary specter of a black candidate with little experience and questionable credibility assuming the reins of power. The repeated claim by the Clintons’ paid pollster, Sergio Bendixen that Latinos won’t vote for a black man is one more example of the polarizing self-fulfilling prophecy injected into the campaign of late. Certainly they will deny such a charge, but then again, they are not people of color and have not been the victims of their own invective.

“MAPA has historically supported candidates it believed were competent to represent the corresponding electorate irrespective of their national origin, race, gender or age. The content of their character is what mattered most to us.

“The leadership and membership of MAPA have resolved to endorse Senator Barack Obama as the presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, who also just happens to be African American.

“We also observe with great pride growing numbers of young white voters enthusiastically embracing the message of Senator Obama, black voters turning out in greater percentages than previous elections exuding pride and hope, Latino culinary union members who see themselves in the candidacy of the young senator, and women who deposit their faith in the intelligence and oratorical imagery displayed by candidate Barack Obama. All of this bodes well for the future of America – seeing beyond race – capable of assimilating the message of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

“Senator Obama is the only remaining candidate who has declared in favor of issuing driver’s licenses to immigrants (much before the current campaign) and the right of immigrant youth to higher education through the Dream Act, pursuing humane immigration reform his first year in office, returning all U.S. combat troops from Iraq, (one of the few federal legislators who originally opposed the war publicly), and pursuing universal healthcare reform (albeit retaining a role for private insurance companies) – these are a few of his down-payment commitments to the electorate he seeks to convince that now is the time to carve the change required due to the current maladies plaguing the country. It is our obligation to move this campaign and candidacy still closer to the wishes and pressing needs of the majorities.

“Si Se Puede con Obama, Yes We Can with Obama, is the recurring chant that we now will also raise to oppose those candidates who live in the past, seek dynasty, angle to divide and polarize us, or propose continued neo-liberal directions for the nation-state.

“Si Se Puede with Obama, and with and by and for the people.”

###

Nativo V. Lopez is currently the National President of the Mexican American Political Association (MAPA), which requires of him full-time advocacy for the civil, human, labor, and immigrant rights of Mexicans, Mexican Americans, and Latinos throughout the United States. He has dedicated his life to these causes since his years as a high school student where he founded the first student movement organization, United Mexican American Students (UMAS). He was born in Boyle Heights, Los Angeles in 1951 to Mexican American parents, and is of both eighth-generation native U.S. born and immigrant stock. Nativo met the legendary immigrant organizer, leader, and advocate, Humberto “Bert” Corona, in 1971 and worked with him in various capacities for thirty years with the organizations Center for Autonomous Social Action (CASA), Hermandad Mexicana, and MAPA. He was a lead organizer in the 2006 pro-immigrant marches and was part of the creation of the National Alliance for Immigrant’s Rights (NAIR) in Chicago, Illinois.

The Mexican American Political Association, an advocacy organization, was founded in Fresno, California in 1963 and has chapters throughout California. It is dedicated to the constitutional and democratic principles of political freedom and representation for the Mexican, Mexican-American and Latino people in the United States. For more information, visit the MAPA website at http://www.mapa.org/.