1/29/2004 - El Editor Weekly E-Clips

Front Page

SURVEY: DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES IN SYNC WITH HISPANIC LEADERS ON KEY ISSUES

By Matthew Konjoian

The seven remaining Democratic presidential candidates are generally supportive of Hispanic positions on issues of special concern to the Latino community.

This is the key assessment of the candidates' answers to a Hispanic Link News Service survey released this week. All nine of the original candidates for the Democratic nomination responded. Two, Richard Gephardt and Carol Moseley Braun, have since dropped out. President George W. Bush's campaign staff declined to participate in the survey but left the door open to do so later.

The survey, conducted over several weeks, covered a wide range of concerns ranging from affirmative action, bilingual education and immigration to labor and workplace practices.

In response to the recent Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action, the candidates all agreed that race should or could be a factor in determining admission to colleges. It helps bring about more racial diversity to educational institutions and gives non-white students greater opportunity for success, they reasoned.

All of the candidates except Wesley Clark said that using the military to protect our borders against illegal immigration is not the right way to fight this problem. They argued that civilian authorities should be left in charge of immigration and that the military should be used at the borders only if there is a threat to homeland security.

Clark, commander of Allied Forces in the Balkans from 1997 to 2000, felt that deploying military forces at the borders would ensure that those entering were doing so legally and did not pose a threat to security.

The candidates also came out in strong support of earned legalization programs and bilingual education. They said they want to strengthen protections against employment discrimination, stressing that the Department of Homeland Security has to be able to keep our nation secure and still protect the rights of citizens.

The one issue that candidates were divided on was that of punishing employers who hire undocumented immigrants. Some felt that more enforcement of current law would suffice, while others called for expanding civil rights protections.

Following several phone contacts made by Hispanic Link to the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign, spokeswoman Sharon Castillo responded that the campaign will not begin its review of surveys and candidate questionnaires until a later date.

She added, ``We recognize that Hispanic Link News Service provides an important service to the Latino community, and we look forward to providing information relevant to issues of concern to Hispanics during the course of the campaign.''

Here is a summary of the Democratic candidates' responses, along with specific proposals some presented:

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: All candidates agreed with the Supreme Court's decision on affirmative action. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean emphasized that racial diversity provides benefits for the community and society as a whole.

U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Sens. Joe Lieberman and John Edwards emphasized that affirmative action will be needed to bring the United States closer to its goal of equality for all.

MILITARY AT THE BORDER: Of all the candidates, Gen. Wesley Clark was the only one who would support using military force to secure U.S. borders. Dean and Rev. Al Sharpton alluded to the use of military for specific national security threats but not to stop undocumented immigration. Dean felt that further humanitarian reforms would deter illegal immigration.

Edwards and Kucinich stressed that only civilian agencies should be responsible for border control.

Sen. John Kerry felt that the military should be used for some border control, but only in the war on terrorism and the war on drugs, and should not be involved in immigration and naturalization duties.

IMMIGRATION LAW REFORM: All remaining candidates supported some type of ``earned legalization'' program as a way of giving undocumented immigrants legal status after living and working in the United States and obeying U.S. laws for a certain period of time.

Edwards called for a clear ``road map'' or system that immigrants could follow to achieve legal status. Kerry supported having a background check as part of this program in order to allow immigrants to enter and still protect homeland security. Kucinich wanted to revoke laws that would deport immigrants to their home nations for minor crimes.

BILINGUAL EDUCATION: All candidates supported bilingual education. Dean and Kerry saw it as a way to help those who have difficulty understanding English receive equal educational opportunities without falling behind. Both Dean and Sharpton mentioned that the ability to speak more than one language is critical and that bilingual education must be part of this. Edwards said he would support federal funding but believed the framework of a bilingual education system should be set up by each local school system.

CHILDREN'S IMMIGRATION RELIEF: All candidates backed tuition and immigration relief for children of undocumented immigrants. Dean, Edwards, Kerry and Lieberman supported the DREAM Act, which would allow some children of undocumented immigrants to pay in-state college tuition and obtain immigration relief after finishing college. Sharpton felt that the costs associated with sending undocumented children to college should come from federal funds, and not become a local tax expense. In addition to this, he said, any immigrants or their children who enlist in the military should automatically be given citizenship.

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION: All candidates believed that workplace discrimination is a problem and must be addressed. However, all were not in agreement as to whether discrimination protection should be expanded or kept as is, with better enforcement. Clark, Dean, Edwards, Kerry and Sharpton all felt that the way to end discrimination in workplaces is for stronger measures and greater enforcement.

Lieberman supported current laws. Kucinich felt that support of current laws would preserve equality and justice in the workplace but that if they are found to be insufficient, they must be expanded to ensure compliance.

HOMELAND SECURITY: All candidates believed the Department of Homeland Security can and must do its job of protecting the nation from terrorism and still protect the rights of citizens and that compromising basic rights in the name of national security is not acceptable. Lieberman urged that undocumented immigrants who are put in detention receive bond and fair treatment.

EMPLOYER PENALTIES: While the candidates felt that illegally hiring undocumented immigrants is an important issue, they had very different responses as to how this should be handled. Clark, Kerry and Sharpton supported stronger enforcement of current laws. Dean felt that the current law has failed and must be changed. Edwards felt that if other problems in the immigration system, which he did not refer to specifically, were addressed, we wouldn't have this problem.


N.M. Gov. Responds to Bush in Spanish


Gov. Bill Richardson, in a nationally televised Spanish-language speech, said Tuesday that President Bush (news - web sites)'s policies have failed to help Hispanics.

In a Democratic National Committee (news - web sites)-sponsored response to the president's State of the Union speech, Richardson said nearly 300,000 Hispanics have lost jobs since Bush took office.

The governor's speech was broadcast by the Univision television network immediately after the president's address.
Richardson said Bush used "very optimistic and positive words to describe" many of the nation's problems.
"But unfortunately, he has failed to give us solutions, and he has lost numerous opportunities to present a plan that attacks our most serious problems," Richardson said in a translation of the speech released by his office.

The governor said Bush had "taken a small step forward" with an immigration proposal, but the temporary worker program "does not help immigrant workers to obtain the golden dream: legalization and residency without impunity."

"Instead of being a way to a better life, the Bush plan represents a dead-end for immigrants, who after three years don't have a guarantee they'll be able to stay," he said. "The only thing they have to look forward to is the threat of deportation."

Richardson's speech comes as Democrats and Republicans are courting Hispanics, now the nation's largest minority group.
"If we do not register and vote, the two parties will not continue to pay attention to us. This presidential election is more important than ever before," Richardson said.
Richardson, who served as energy secretary and U.N. ambassador in the Clinton administration, is the nation's only Hispanic governor.



Editorials


“Bienvenido”, Mr. Fox
By Abel Cruz
Only 21 days into 2004 and we already have a new city manager in place. Go figure, what $28,000, a search committee and a Washington State search firm couldn’t accomplish in 7 to 9 months, the mayor and the Willis Group, the consultant firm hired by the city, do so in a blink of an eye. And now we can all hug, make up, go home and wait for one of our neighbors to over water their lawn so that we can report them to the water police! Life in Lubbock is good again!
Ok, so I’m being a little facetious, but can you really blame me. Here we’ve just been put through a charade called a city manager search. We’ve been led to believe that the process used to disqualify the final two candidates was based on their not being qualified, and lo and behold, out of the distant south comes a knight in shining armor! How convenient that Mr. Fox was ready to get back into the city manager arena just when this city needed a savior. We should all feel as lucky as a fox in a henhouse!
“Bienvenido”, Mr. Fox. “Bienvenido” means welcome in Spanish. But I guess you know that, having worked with all those Hispanics in San Antonio...
As I noted earlier, we are now into the 3rd week of 2004. If nothing else, “city-manager-gate” has shown that the Hispanic community is years away from where it should be based on the percentage of the total population that it represents. By that I mean that although Hispanics represent 37.5% of both the city and county population, we are underrepresented in the political, economic and intellectual decisions that affect our community. Our challenge is to figure out how to change that and become full participating citizens that are treated equally and fairly.
To that end, I’ve developed a top 10 list; alae David Letterman, of issues that I will explore in the next few weeks in hopes of providing some positive input and contribute some suggestions on how to address these issues. There are a lot more than 10 and I’m sure they could be added to this list, but here’s my top 10 in no particular order:
1) Apathy in the Community - Greater Community Awareness
2) Educational Issues - Decrease High School Dropout Rate- Increase College Enrollment
3) Greater Voter Registration and Participation - Increased Political Power
4) Greater Political Representation
5) Health Awareness and Healthcare Issues
6) Domestic and Family Violence Issues
7) Crime in the Community
8) Immigration and Documentation Issues
9) Economic Advancement
10) The Formation of a Hispanic Issues Advisory Committee or Diversity Relations Advisory Group, or Diversity Relations Commission to establish an open and honest dialogue with city, county, state and federal government.
Let’s hope that 2004 gives us the opportunity to face whatever challenges come our way. That we may become an example of how a community that is still referred to as the “minority community” can emerge from their minority status and become contributing and participating members of this city.
May whatever source you get your strength from, allow you to face the challenges that come with being a person of Hispanic descent with a true sense of pride and a determination to succeed.
And that we do this so that our children and the generations to follow will all be better off because of our effort and sacrifices.
(c)DosMundos2003 Email: acruztsc@aol.com


A DISHONEST WAR


By Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)
Of the many issues competing for attention in this new and defining year, one is of a unique order of magnitude: President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq.
The facts demonstrate how dishonest that decision was. As former Treasury secretary Paul H. O'Neill recently confirmed, the debate over military action began as soon as President Bush took office. Some felt Saddam Hussein could be contained without war. A month after the inauguration, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said: "We have kept him contained, kept him in his box." The next day, he said tellingly that Hussein "has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."
The events of Sept. 11, 2001, gave advocates of war the opening they needed.
They tried immediately to tie Hussein to al Qaeda and the terrorist attacks.
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld created an Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon to analyze the intelligence for war and bypass the traditional screening process. Vice President Cheney relied on intelligence from Iraqi exiles and put pressure on intelligence agencies to produce the desired result.
The war in Afghanistan began in October with overwhelming support in Congress and the country. But the focus on Iraq continued behind the scenes, and President Bush went along. In the Rose Garden on Nov. 26, he said:
"Afghanistan is still just the beginning."
Three days later, Cheney publicly began to send signals about attacking
Iraq. On Nov. 29 he said: "I don't think it takes a genius to figure out that this guy [Hussein] is clearly . . . a significant potential problem for the region, for the United States, for everybody with interests in the area." On Dec. 12 he raised the temperature: "If I were Saddam Hussein, I'd be thinking very carefully about the future, and I'd be looking very closely to see what happened to the Taliban in Afghanistan."
Next, Karl Rove, in a rare public stumble, made his own role clear, telling the Republican National Committee on Jan. 19, 2002, that the war on terrorism could be used politically. Republicans could "go to the country on this issue," he said.
Ten days later, in his State of the Union address, President Bush invoked the "axis of evil" -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea -- and we lost our clear focus on al Qaeda. The address contained 12 paragraphs on Afghanistan and 29 on the war on terrorism, but only one fleeting mention of al Qaeda. It said nothing about the Taliban or Osama bin Laden.
In the following months, although bin Laden was still at large, the drumbeat on Iraq gradually drowned out those who felt Hussein was no imminent threat.
On Sept. 12 the president told the United Nations: "Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents and has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon." He said Iraq could build a nuclear weapon "within a year" if Hussein obtained such material.
War on Iraq was clearly coming, but why make this statement in September? As White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. said, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." The 2002 election
campaigns were then entering the home stretch. Election politics prevailed over foreign policy and national security. The administration insisted on a vote in Congress to authorize the war before Congress adjourned for the elections. Why? Because the debate would distract attention from the troubled economy and the failed effort to capture bin Laden. The shift in focus to Iraq could help Republicans and divide Democrats.
The tactic worked. Republicans voted almost unanimously for war and kept control of the House in the elections. Democrats were deeply divided and lost their majority in the Senate. The White House could use its control of Congress to get its way on key domestic priorities.
The final step in the march to war was a feint to the United Nations. But Cheney, Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz had convinced the president that war would be a cakewalk, with or without the United Nations, and that our forces would be welcomed as liberators. In March the war began.
Hussein's brutal regime was not an adequate justification for war, and the administration did not seriously try to make it one until long after the war began and all the false justifications began to fall apart. There was no imminent threat. Hussein had no nuclear weapons, no arsenals of chemical or biological weapons, no connection to Sept. 11 and no plausible link to al Qaeda. We never should have gone to war for ideological reasons driven by politics and based on manipulated intelligence.
Vast resources have been spent on the war that should have been spent on priorities at home. Our forces are stretched thin. Precious lives have been lost. The war has made America more hated in the world and made the war on terrorism harder to win. As Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said in announcing the latest higher alert: "Al Qaeda's continued desire to carry out attacks against our homeland is perhaps greater now than at any point since September 11th."
The most fundamental decision a president ever makes is the decision to go to war. President Bush violated the trust that must exist between government and the people. If Congress and the American people had known the truth, America would never have gone to war in Iraq.
No president who does that to our country deserves to be re-elected.


Bush's Immigration Plan: Spinning as Usual?

By Domenico Maceri
After more than three years in office, Bush finally got down to business and began to deal with the question of immigration. Although details of his plan will have to go through Congress, Bush's proposal would allow immigrants to cross the border legally if jobs are awaiting them and at the same time would provide undocumented workers already in the US a way to regularize their immigration status.
Some Mexican officials, upon hearing of Bush's plan, were initially happy but were worried that it might be a campaign tactic to win the Latino vote in this year's presidential election.
Do Mexican officials have reason to mistrust Bush?
A review of the major events in his presidency suggests that there is indeed reason for skepticism. Take a look at Bush's pattern of spin and even outright deception.
Bush sold the war with Iraq to the American public because of the threat of terrorism and the famous weapons of mass destruction which Saddam Hussein was said to possess. Since no weapons were found, the original rationale for the war switched and became a conflict to depose an evil dictator and establish democracy in Iraq.
Eliminating the Saddam Hussein regime turned out to be an extremely expensive proposition which the country can ill afford. Bush inherited a budget surplus and turned it into very serious budget deficits with his trillion dollar tax cuts. Although middle class people did receive small refunds, the vast majority of the benefits went to the top 1%.Yet, Bush managed to spin the tax cuts as a way of stimulating the economy, thus attempting to justify enriching the already rich.
A similar spin occurred with Bush's education plan. Bush got Edward Kennedy to support his education bill, but again he came up short. The Leave No Child Behind Act had a number of problems, given its focus on testing. It set restrictive standards which all students in all the different groups must meet. Inevitably, 100% of the students in any given year are not going to measure up and the schools will be punished. In spite of its restrictions, Kennedy supported the bill because of the funding which would have been welcome particularly in poor schools. Unfortunately, after the bill was passed, Bush eliminated the funding to the dismay of Kennedy.
The new Medicare drug benefit bill passed by Congress and signed by Bush also came up short of expectations of solving the senior citizens' predicament. Polls showed that a majority of Americans did not support it. The plan has serious restrictions and it is costly. Only seniors who needvery expensive drugs and pharmaceutical companies will benefit. To qualify for 95% coverage, seniors will have to spend $5,100 out of pocket. That is certainly a lot of money and many seniors on fixed incomes will not be able to afford it. Yet, Bush will spin it as having passed a drug plan for seniors.
In another related healthcare issues, Bush also promised a lot and delivered very little. His promise of fifteen billion dollars to deal with the AIDS epidemic in Africa and the Caribbean left much to be desired. Instead of making the funds available at once when the money would be of most benefit, it will be staggered. In addition, instead of channeling the funds through The Global Fund, a UN sponsored agency created to fight AIDS and other diseases around the world, Bush created a US agency which will disperse the funds. In so doing, a new American bureaucracy maintains control, which will in all likelihood not provide funds to countries that might use the money to educate people about condom usage —an important tool in eradicating AIDS. Again, although AIDS activists were initially enthusiastic about the amount of the funds, the reality has been a disappointment.
Bush's plan to solve the immigration issue is not all bad nor all good. It could be a first step and he deserves credit for putting the matter on the front burner. It may be that Bush will get some immigration legislation through Congress. However, just like with his "other" accomplishments, benefits to society will end up being minimal at best.
Mexican officials are right to be skeptical that the President's plan is a political ploy particularly in light of the fact that its chief architect is Karl Rove, the president's political strategist. Just like Bush's other "accomplishments," real immigration reform will have to wait until a new president lives in the White House.

Back to News Archive  |  Previous Article  |  Next Article