Latinos in 2012: Vote out Loud!

With a new holiday season kicking in and facing a last push to get a vote on the DREAM Act, the November 2^nd midterm elections seems like a distant memory. The results show the growing influence of Latino voters in swing states like Florida and New Mexico. They also secured key races for governor and the U.S. Senate in California for the Democratic Party by repelling GOP advances in the state with most Latinos in the nation. Most notably, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) retained his seat by winning over Tea Party favorite Sharon Angle thanks to  “her inability to stop saying crazy things” like advising young rape victims to make “lemons into lemonade.”

Despite these important milestones, campaigns from grassroots organizations like the National Association of Latino elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO), the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) among others, left the aftertaste of being too little too late. They were effective, no doubt about it; however, they failed to motivate Latinos voters to achieve their true electoral potential. According with the Pew Hispanic Center, Latinos represented the same eight percent of all voters in 2010 as they did in 2006. However, the number of eligible Latinos to vote this year grew to approximately 19.2 million voters from an estimated 18 million in 2006.

As the national Spanish-speaking media started to turn up the volume and “banging the drum of [the] ‘you have to go vote, you have to go vote,’” the enthusiasm among voters picked up traction starting only until the first week of October, Latino Decisions reported. Once the campaigns were in full swing, social media also played a key role on reaching wider audiences. On November 28, Latinos in Social Media (LATISM) invited Univision’s Martin Berlanga to participate in a Twitter party on the importance of voting for Latinos. The tweetchat achieved an impressive 8.1 million impressions in one night, according to LATISM’s Vice-Chair Elianne Ramos.

(For the not social media savvy, impressions means how many times people saw tweets about the party’s hashtag.)

They all seem like successfully calculated efforts given the positive election results against the most radical anti-immigrant candidates. However, imagine what they could have accomplished if the media heavyweights had devoted their full resources to these campaigns way earlier in the game. This fast-and-furious approach didn’t spark enough interest among many freshmen citizens who may suffer psychological roadblocks thanks to years of discrimination and disenfranchisement. Let’s not forget that the naturalization process is long, hard, and expensive plus many have to deal with their own negative preconceptions on civic participation. Also, the high educational gap between Latinos and Whites remains disadvantageous against the former.

For the 2012 presidential elections, we should expect that the traditional political parties will diligently work to enfranchise Latinos. However, neither party seems to have even a remote idea on how to tally our votes. Right now, they are busy putting down their own fires rather than making a sincere effort to reach out. Democrats have lost their luster with the electorate and face an uphill battle to reelect President Barack Obama on 2012. On the flip side, Republicans remain overconfident between their trepid loses and surprising gains thanks to a new lot of conservative Latino politicians. For illustration, read the opinion from Representative (TX-R) Lamar Smith and a counter argument from columnist Edward Schumacher-Matos on the Washingtonpost.com.

So what to do next? As NCLR’s Director for Immigration Clarissa Martinez-De-Castro writes, a “meaningful outreach is essential.” For sure, both parties will make their best effort to win the Latino vote; at the same time, grassroots leadership must capitalize on their media partners’ increasing clout. Univision is already the number five national network in the nation and seem poised to “surpass the Anglo networks in seven years, even without the boost provided by growth in the Hispanic population,” AdWeek reports. What a better opportunity to rev up their campaigns starting today and entice every able Latino to go out and vote.

This article was originally published in the LatinoPoliticsBlog.com.

Obama and Uribe Talk Trade and Term Limits AS/COA Online 06/30/09

Presidents Álvaro Uribe and Barack Obama met at the White House on June 29. (AP Photos)

Colombian President Álvaro Uribe met with his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama June 29 to discuss the future of the stalled free-trade agreement and Uribe’s political future. At the meeting, Obama praised Uribe’s achievements on improving security and his fight against drug cartels. The U.S. leader even joked about how difficult it would be to match Uribe’s 70 percent approval ratings after two terms in office. Still, Obama advised Uribe against running for a third consecutive presidential term and used U.S. President George Washington’s experience as an example of statesmanship: “[A]t a time when he could have stayed president for life, he made a decision that after service, he was able to step aside and return to civilian life. And that set a precedent then for the future.”

Obama’s counsel for Uribe to avoid a third term through constitutional change coincided with world attention on Honduras. A day earlier, a coup occurred in the Central American country after Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, planned to go forward with a referendum deemed illegal by the country’s main institutions. Obama expressed his support for democratically elected Zelaya and described the overthrow as “not legal.” Colombia also rejected the coup.

In Colombia, a referendum to pave the way for Uribe’s reelection still faces hurdles in Congress and already shows signs of fatigue among supporters. Cambio magazine explains that the chances to approve the legislation are slim, even with Uribe spending his political capital to move it forward. But Semana magazine says, “Uribe has radicalized his position about the referendum,” and that he sees it “as a matter of pride.”

The pending bilateral free-trade pact was also a central conversation point for the two leaders during their White House meeting. Obama offered his support for the deal but explained that concerns linger in U.S. Congress over human rights violations against Colombian labor leaders. At the summit, Uribe said that “we are very receptive to receive any advice, any suggestion that help us see how we can achieve our goals of zero human rights violations in Colombia.” After an event co-hosted by the Council of the Americas at the Wilson Center on the morning of June 30, Uribe said he had found Obama “more disposed and interested” in the trade deal. COA’s Eric Farnsworth blogs for Americas Quarterly, the two leaders’ meeting shows “that the bilateral agenda with Colombia goes well beyond passage of one agreement, as important as that is, and that the U.S.-Colombia relationship is strong and enduring.”

Learn more:

• COA Vice President Eric Farnsworth’s AQ blog post about Obama’s meetings with Uribe and Chilean President Michelle Bachelet.
• AS/COA coverage of Uribe’s dilemma about his second consecutive reelection.
• Americas Quarterly’s web exclusive about whether Uribe will seek reelection.
• Transcript of Obama-Uribe press conference following their June 29 meeting.
• Colombia’s constitution.
• Text of the pending U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement.
• Semana analysis of U.S.-Colombia relations.

Ethanol: Brazil Celebrates, United States Debates AS/COA Online 06/04/09

Pumping an ethanol blend at a Brazilian fuel station. (AP Photos)

São Paulo hosted the 2009 Ethanol Summit from June 1 to 3, featuring heavyweights such as President Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva’s Chief of Staff Dilma Roussef, Petrobras CEO Jose Gabrielli, and environmental activist and former U.S. President Bill Clinton. Speakers discussed new cellulose-based ethanol plants, forecasts of increasing ethanol usage in Brazil, and concerns about deforestation. Meanwhile, Colombia has become South America’s second biggest ethanol player and seeks to build its industry. In the United States, the discussion surrounding biofuels continues to focus on subsidies given to U.S. corn growers, corn-based ethanol’s impact on food prices, and tariffs imposed on Brazilian sugarcane-based ethanol.

At the summit, Roussef announced Brazil’s moves toward producing for commercial use cellulose-based (also known as second-generation) ethanol made mainly from woodchips and switchgrass. She also said Brazil hopes to start selling ethanol in that form domestically by the year 2012. Second-generation ethanol should capture almost 30 percent of the Brazilian market by 2020, according to the president of a private firm who spoke at the summit. Gabrielli trumpeted the fact that Petrobras will invest $2.8 billions in biofuels for the next four years and expects that ethanol will represent 75 percent of the Brazilian fuel market by 2020. But with such massive growth, questions surfaced about the dangers of deforestation. Clinton urged Brazil to take decisive steps to protect the rainforest, reduce its carbon footprint, and share its technology with potential ethanol producers like the Dominican Republic and Haiti. In December, Brazilian Environmental Minister Carlos Minc unveiled an ambitious plan to curb deforestation rates by 72 percent by 2017.

Colombia is also pinning hopes on increasing its stake in the ethanol market, given its position as the second largest producer in Latin America. Colombian Agriculture Minister Andrés Fernández said last month that, with six new projects dedicated to ethanol coming online this year, the country’s production capacity should increase twofold. He also said Colombia plans for a fifth of the cars made or imported to have engines using fuel made up 85 percent ethanol blend by 2012. Still, the increases use of ethanol elevates fears that prices on food containing sugar will rise, as they did happened last year in the United States with corn-related products, El Espectador reports.

In the United States, where corn-based ethanol dominates the industry, the debate continues. The Wall Street Journal reports on two federal studies that found corn-based ethanol carries a high price tag for consumers and questionable environmental advantages. In an article for BusinessWeek, automobile journalist Ed Wallace suggests “we must immediately drop the 51 cents per gallon blending credit for ethanol creation in America and drop the 54 cents per gallon tariff on imported Brazilian ethanol.” Lula and U.S. President Barack Obama discussed the 54-cent tariff imposed to Brazilian sugarcane-based ethanol by Washington during his March 14 visit to the White House without any effect. Obama said then that the measure “it is not going to change overnight” but hinted that “over time this source of tension can get resolved.”

Read the article as originally published at the AS/COA website.

Round Five for the DREAM Act AS/COA Online 04/03/09

Enactment of the DREAM Act would allow some undocumented students to gain legal status. (AP Photo)

In a first step to bring immigration reform back to the front burner, Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Rubin (D-IL) and Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) introduced the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act) in the Senate on March 26. A similar bill called the American Dream Act was submitted in the House of Representatives in a bipartisan effort. Yet, despite domestic debate over immigration in recent years, the controversial initiative has not reached the national spotlight. As an example, during President Barack Obama’s interactive town hall meeting held on March 26, none of the top ten questions voted on by more than 3.5 million people were related to immigration reform.

The DREAM Act offers a two-step legalization process for children described as “1.5ers.” As Washington Post columnist Marcela Sanchez explained in a 2007 article, “One-point-fivers are neither first-generation immigrants, adults who immigrated to the United States; nor are they second-generation, children born here of immigrant parents.” According to the National Immigration Law Center, students who came to the United States before turning 16 at least five years before the bill’s enactment could gain conditional permanent resident status if they have clean criminal records and attain high school graduation or college acceptance. To upgrade from conditional to permanent status, participants must then finish two years of college or serve a minimum of two years in the U.S. military.

How many people would benefit from the measure? Research from 2003 by the Pew Hispanic Center published in a Congressional Research Service report estimated that “each year 65,000 undocumented immigrants graduate high school who have lived in the country for more than five years.” In 2006, the Migration Policy Institute calculated that roughly 360,000 undocumented high school graduates would benefit from the measure that year alone. The Center for Immigration Studies reported in 2007 that 2.1 million could qualify for legal status under the DREAM Act.

The legislation was first introduced in 2001 and rejected four times. But the fifth round may be the charm. As the Orlando Sentinal’s “Hispanosphere” blog points out, “[N]ow Democrats have control of U.S. Congress with a president who has expressed support and voted in favor of this legislation in the last go-round.”

Whether consideration of the DREAM Act represents near-term action on comprehensive immigration reform remains unclear. In a recent visit to Mexico, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that immigration reform is “a high priority” for Obama’s administration. “We believe strongly that there have to be changes made, and we hope we will be able to pursue those in the coming months,” she said. In early March, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told a San Francisco church crowd that “we cannot wait any longer for fair and just immigration reform.” However, during this week’s visit to Costa Rica, Vice President Joe Biden warned Central American leaders that the ailing economy hinders immediate action on U.S. immigration reform.

Read the article as originally published at the AS/COA website.

A Tit for Tat over Trucks AS/COA Online 03/20/09

Trucks at the U.S.-Mexico border. (AP Photo)

A move by U.S. Congress to stop a cross-border trucking program drew a counterpunch from Mexico this week. The recently signed U.S. spending bill ended funding for a pilot program allowing Mexican trucks to transport cargo inside the United States and vice versa. With the program a long overdue part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Mexico chose to retaliate. The administration of Mexican President Felipe Calderón unveiled new tariffs for close to 90 industrial and agricultural products imported from the United States. Yet Washington announced a pair of high-profile visits to Mexico by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. President Barack Obama, opening the door to smooth the turbulence over trade and security issues.

As the tariffs were announced, Mexico’s Economy Secretary Gerardo Ruiz Mateos said that the now-suspended pilot program had been successful with no major safety incidents. He also said the cancellation of the program is “wrong, protectionist, and clearly violates the [NAFTA] treaty.” A Department of Transportation report found that Mexican truckers registered under the program met all 22 safety mandates demanded by U.S. Congress.

The duties, which went into effect on March 19, represent tariff increases of as much as 45 percent on $2.4 billion worth of exports, explains Sidney Weintraub of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in a Forbes.com editorial that breaks down the history of the trucking plan. The Mexican government carefully chose the products on the tariff list “to avoid pushing up prices of staples in Mexico while hitting goods that are important exports for a range of American states. That way, it could have maximum political effect north of the border,” The Economist explains. Wall Street Journal warns that Mexico can turn to other trading partners—Europe, Canada, and Latin America—to replace the U.S. brands. Total trade between Mexico and the United States stood at over $367 billion in 2008.

Trade and trucks are not the only matters troubling U.S.-Mexican relations at the moment. At AS/COA’s recent annual Mexico City conference, Calderón condemned remarks originating in the United States that question Mexico’s institutional strength in the face of violent organized crime. He raised concerns about U.S. drug consumption and arms smuggling and urged joint U.S.-Mexican action to fight drug cartels.

Given the tensions, the timing of the upcoming visits by Obama and Clinton could prove crucial to giving ties between the neighbors a boost. Appearing on National Public Radio’s “Diane Rehm Show,” COA’s Eric Farnsworth explained expects that this bump in trade relations won’t escalate “at a time when, I think, neither nation could afford it.”

Mexico’s El Universal takes a closer look at the trade rift and plans for Obama’s trip to Mexico in advance of April’s Summit of the Americas. Clinton’s visit next week will pave the way for Obama’s. Moreover, the appointment of former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk as the new U.S. Trade Representative gained congressional approval this week, just in time to tackle the problem. “It will be one gnarly challenge after the next for the new U.S. trade representative, starting with the trade war that erupted this week with Mexico,” says Dallas Morning News.

Some contend that killing plans for a trucking program will result in higher shipping costs. Bloomberg reports that what a truck could haul from one point in Mexico to another in the United States will take three different trucks and one extra day without the program. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics shows that the value of goods transported by truck between both countries rose to $234 billion last year. Mexico’s decision came as the World Bank raised alarm about protectionist measures undertaken by G20 members in the midst of the global financial crisis.

AS/COA hosts a program on March 24 in advance of the Obama and Clinton visits. Learn about the event, which will involve a panel videoconferenced in New York and Washington.

Read the article as originally posted at the AS/COA website.