With a last name like "Zack," most people don't realize that the president-elect of the American Bar Association (ABA) is Latino, Cuban-American to be exact. Mr. Zack will be the first president in the ABA's 131-year history who happens to be both Latino and Jewish.

Yet, being a trailblazer is nothing new to Mr. Zack. In a career spanning 35 years, he was the first Hispanic American and youngest president of the Florida Bar and a founding member of the Cuban American Bar Association. He is a specialist in civil trial law, as well as eminent domain, corporate and international law. Among his most high-profile cases, he represented former Vice President Al Gore in the trial of Bush v. Gore in 2000.

A proponent of diversity in the legal profession, Mr. Zack believes there is a "pipeline problem" with attracting students of color to law school. He says he wants to partner with other bar associations, including the Hispanic American Bar Association, the Cuban American Bar Association and the National Bar Association to encourage more minorities to attend law school and tell high school students why they should consider law school as a career choice.

In addition to promoting law school among youth, Mr. Zack enters the ABA presidency with a focus on several other issues important to him: Hispanic legal rights, civil rights, immigration and civics education.

In the following post, Mr. Zack shares the reasons why it's important that everyone has a firm understanding of our Constitution and why he is challenging the nation's lawyers and judges to do their part in promoting civics education.

To me, the answer to "why civic education matters" is a deeply personal one. It's about my life story and that of my family's. It's our particular story, but it's also an experience we share with many other American immigrants. I was born in 1947 and raised in Havana, Cuba. My mother is Cuban.

In the early 1900s my grandfather had come to Cuba from Russia, looking for a better life, searching for freedom, hoping for the right to practice his religion and beliefs without persecution. For many years, he found that. He raised a family, worked hard and prospered. Unfortunately, there came a time when that changed for my family in Cuba. 

When I was 13, we left Cuba to come to the United States. My grandfather became a refugee for the second time, once again having to flee his home in search of that better life. At that young age, I learned a lesson I have never forgotten.

It's just as true today.

As the great American jurist Learned Hand so aptly put it, ""Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."

That's why we, as Americans, must have a better understanding and appreciation of our Constitution. We must rededicate ourselves to learning about our constitutional system--not just the words on parchment, but the fundamental principles and values those words represent.

Principles and values such as the separation of powers, checks and balances, judicial review, the rule of law, and constitutional democracy--majority rule that protects minority rights.

Such a rededication requires a shared commitment to civic education. This will take a concerted effort. We must begin where the need is most urgent and the impact can be the greatest--in our nation's schools.

Unfortunately, leading experts point to the inadequate state of civic education. In a landmark report, the Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools has warned, "School-based civic education is in decline."

Although nearly 40 state constitutions cite the civic mission of schools as the rationale for establishing their public school systems, many high schools now teach only a single semester course on American government.

Less than one-third of 12th graders were proficient or higher on the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress test on civics (known as the "nation's report card"), able to at least demonstrate "competency over challenging subject matter."

Fortunately, we're not alone in the effort to promote civic learning. Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, for one, has taken on the mission to advance the cause of civic education in recent years.

She cautions, however, "I don't know how long we can survive as a nation if we don't teach every generation how our government is structured and works. I regard that as a very important thing for our public schools to teach. It's critical for every generation to learn it. You don't inherit that knowledge through the gene pool."

Yet another distinguished American who has served on our nation's highest court, Justice David Souter, is also dedicated to civic education. In August he spoke about this subject to members of the American Bar Association at our annual meeting in Chicago.

His blunt message, "Civic education in the United States is not good enough." Why civic education matters? "I believe civic educational reform is, literally, essential to the continued vitality of American constitutional government as we know it." Justice Souter's message came with a call to action, for both the organized bar and individual lawyers.

As president-elect of the American Bar Association, I'm pledging my support, and that of our professional association's, to answer that call to action. Moreover, I encourage all lawyers and judges to be personally and actively engaged in civic education in their communities and schools.

Indeed, to preserve our cherished constitutional values, to never take them for granted, all Americans need to support the civic mission of our schools. That's why civic education matters. 

Please join me in that enterprise.

Trickle-Up Wealth Transfer: Cross-subsidization in the payment card market is a long and complicated name for a report that uncovers the extent of how low-income people are being taken advantage of at the cash register -- especially people of color.

We all know that merchants (grocery stores, gas stations, department stores, etc.) charge customers the same price. For example, people, from the same community, going to the local Wal-Mart all pay the same price for a loaf of bread.

If Wal-Mart charged college graduates a higher price than people who only have a high school education, all hell would break loose at such a discriminatory practice.

Yet, discrimination is happening in the checkout lanes and, until this report, no one had any idea that credit card companies were making these merchants force low-income Americans to pay more than their fair share for goods and services.

These fees can eat into retailers' profits, sometimes even exceeding their profits. So how do retailers offset the loss? They include the prices they have to pay for the fees into the prices they charge everybody for their goods and services.

People who pay with cash and debit cards are basically subsidizing the people paying with credit cards. In other words, giving them money.

If those credit cards "earn rewards" then it's worse news for those paying cash and with debit since reward cards normally have higher fees.

What the report uncovered was:

•The current structure of the credit card system requires lower income and disproportionate numbers of minority consumers to transfer billions of dollars to higher income and disproportionate numbers of non-minority consumers.

•Total money transferred in the United States due to swipe fees and rewards is about $1.4b to $1.9b on gas and groceries alone.

•The bottom 50 percent of income earners pay at least $669 million more than they should and the top 10 percent of earners receive at least a $354 million subsidy.

•Card rewards accrue disproportionately to wealthier households even after adjusting for spending.

•Consumers with high school diplomas paid more to subsidize people with advanced degrees.

•Minority households paid more to subsidize non-minority households.

The report's author, economist Efraim Berkovich of the University of Pennsylvania, offers some remedies for this inequality among consumers. The bulk of the suggestions have to do with either lowering interchange fees or letting merchants decide which cards and/or rewards programs they accept.

At any rate, making people who pay with cash or debit -- because they can't qualify for a credit card or paying with cash/debit is being a more responsible consumer to them -- have to compensate those who use credit cards is unfair.

If credit card companies want to reward their customers, they shouldn't be stealing from those whom they don't even do business with.

"This study demonstrates that credit card companies have secretly rigged the system so that everyday Americans lose out to those who enjoy top incomes; it also suggests that 'unbanked' Americans, including disproportionate numbers of Hispanics, who don't have cards are hurt the most by swipe fees," said Gus West, Chairman of The Hispanic Institute.

Only when it's realized that 2.3 million refers to the number of Hispanic households with children who feel the pangs of hunger because they are "food insecure" does it become a crucial amount.

According to a new report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service (USDA):

177,000 non-white Hispanic households with children - an almost 50 percent increase over 2007 -- experienced very low food security, meaning that the food intake of one or more of the household children was reduced and their eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year because the household lacked money.

The USDA claims that since they have been collecting data this new statistic marks the largest increase in food security rates among Latino households with children.

While sad, the news isn't shocking given reports that this poor economy is hitting Latinos worse, especially the undocumented.

What is scarier news is that officials with Feeding America believe there are millions more Hispanic families who are going hungry but are not asking for help at the food banks, soup kitchens or emergency feeding centers.

Whether it's because of pride or the fact that it's been drilled into the undocumented population that they cannot take advantage of public services like food banks, even to feed their children, remains to be seen.

In the end, it leaves a critical question to be answered: Given the evidence that we have that more (Latino) children are going hungry, what do we do about it?

If it's a question of undocumented families going hungry then, perhaps, all the assurances that it's OK to use food bank services will be to no avail. However, the idea that children are going hungry should appall anyone who believes that everyone deserves the right to food.

Since most food banks are faith-based and volunteer-run, the notion that anyone would be asked for their citizenship status is unlikely, but it is a public service that to anyone would seem only reserved for citizens -- NOT SO!

The right to eat is an universal right that knows no boundaries, nor immigration policies nor citizenship status.

To deny food to someone who needs it is a criminal act unto itself -- that violates basic human rights and basic morality.

The message to these families should be made clear, through public service announcements on Spanish-language television and radio and in community newspapers, that if a family doesn't have enough to eat there is food available for them, with no strings attached or immigration agents ready to apprehend them.

In the past two years, there has been an irrational vengeance by some state legislators to drive undocumented immigrants out of their states. It didn't matter that these migrants were the main workers in industries that had little appeal to the average American worker, regardless of salary increase, or that these migrants were the only ones keeping Small Towns USA still on the map.

It didn't matter that these same migrants were paying taxes every time they bought food, gas, clothes, furniture, etc. It didn't matter.

All that mattered for these state legislators was to drive out a demographic labeled criminals by a faction who thrive on distorting information to create a false impression of a group of people who are impacting this country in ways that these critics don't like.

What critics of undocumented immigrants didn't count on was that these people had little interest in returning to their home countries, especially if they have children born here.

So, rather than stay and be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and subjecting their friends and legal family members to the same (as in Oklahoma where it has become illegal for anyone to knowingly transport an undocumented immigrant), these migrants have left those states and just moved to other regions of the country where state legislatures aren't as punitive.

Of course, the punitive states have said, "Good riddance." However, preliminary reports predicting the results of the 2010 US Census count shows that driving out undocumented immigrants doesn't bode well for congressional representation in Washington.

Yet, Arizona, Georgia and South Carolina are among some of the most punitive states for undocumented immigrants whose laws have succeeded in driving undocumented immigrants out in just the last year.

As a result, despite the findings of the report, the possibility exists that these three states and others that have succeeded in passing punitive laws will not see a gain in House seats but may lose some.

This point is brought home in a news report by the Dallas NBC affiliate that found undocumented immigrants being driven out of Oklahoma and other states have made their way to Texas.

While there is no way to know how many illegal immigrants have come to Texas from other states, experts say the number may top 1 million.

It goes without saying that a million people, or more, impacts the Census count.

This isn't an argument to keep from counting undocumented immigrants. It is imperative to know how many people are residing in our country in any given time.

Rather, what this shows is that the narrow minded fear that motivated these punitive actions in states like Oklahoma, Arizona and the rest actually do nothing to make those states safer, their economies stronger or their voices heard in the one legislature where it does count to have as many representatives as possible.

It's known that any type of immigration reform will include a provision called the DREAM Act -- an official recognition of those young people, who were brought here by their parents at an early age, living their formative years in this country, and who will be allowed to put their college degrees to use or enter the military and serve their country.

There are an estimated 65,000 undocumented students in the country. Among them are two that I have had the pleasure of speaking with -- Ramiro and Benita.

Benita is a college graduate and Ramiro is attending college. Both of these young people have been thrust into the spotlight because they chose to speak out on behalf of students like themselves.

They work feverishly for passage of the DREAM Act -- speaking out about why the DREAM Act is needed -- all the while some of their peers are either being deported or receiving 11th hour reprieves for deportation.

Only last week a Chicago City Council committee unanimously passed a resolution in support of a Congressional bill that would let some undocumented immigrant students stay in the country.

That's awesome news for Ramiro because these days when he talks about the DREAM Act, he is both hopeful -- because he wants to retain a positive outlook, he says -- and cautious.

He sees how some Congressmen have used the issue of illegal immigration to try to derail the current healthcare debate and he fears the same tactics will be used to prolong the immigration reform debate.

But as more time passes, more young people run the risk of being discovered and getting deported when all they're doing is going to school or just waiting to see when Congress will take up "their" debate.

A New York Times article explains Benita's situation and a Facebook page titled "Don't Deport Benita Veliz" illustrates clearly her reality -- she may not be here when Congress squares off for Round I of the immigration reform debate.

In the past, Latina Lista has called for a moratorium on all student deportations, and it will take an Act of Obama to make that happen. In a recent interview, Department of Homeland Security, Sec. Janet Napolitano, explained the department's hands are tied when it comes to stopping the deportation of students.

The Secretary went on to say that any immigration reform bill must include the DREAM Act.

That's a given but even with reports that the administration wants to see work started on immigration reform by 2010, it leaves many students still in limbo who are anxious to start leading productive lives.

Since it's not known how a student deportation will affect the chances for return of any immigrant student who now qualifies for the DREAM Act -- currently, anyone deported is not allowed to return to the US either for years or ever -- it's important that things be put on hold when it comes to deporting these students now.

Why?

Because these students' lives are in this country and they will always want to return, even if it means doing so illegally. Unless a stipulation is included in any immigration reform bill regarding student deportations, the bill will have failed before it is passed.

To paraphrase what the writer of the New York Times piece on Benita Veliz wrote in his opening paragraph:

How will this country be a better place when we force students like Benita, Ramiro and the other 63,000 to leave it?

Michael Wildes serves as mayor of Englewood, New Jersey. In addition, he is an immigration lawyer and a former federal prosecutor.

As partner of the NYC-based immigration law firm Wildes & Weinberg, established by his father, Wildes has become internationally renowned for having represented the United States government in immigration proceedings.

Wildes is in his second term as mayor, winning re-election in 2006 and was appointed by former Governor Jon Corzine to sit as a member of the state's Blue Ribbon Panel on Immigration.

With his years of experience interacting and representing immigrants, Wildes makes an argument for his most difficult case yet -- convincing the American public that undocumented immigrants deserve to be granted U.S. citizenship.

Across the nation there is a call for comprehensive immigration reform, and during this period of turmoil in immigration policy, it is important to keep some basic precepts in mind.

There is an estimated 20 million undocumented aliens currently living in the United States, but we don't know WHO they are and we don't know WHERE they came from.

The enormity of the problem has caused paralysis and political impotence for years, but the tragic events of September 11, 2001 were the catalyst for a grassroots effort to force Congress to confront the immigration issue comprehensively and publicly.

And though our national psyche has not yet fully recovered from the personal losses suffered by many and the public outrage felt by all, the conversation about border control and immigration policy must take place now -- while detached reflection remains practically impossible.

This discussion must take place within the parameters of certain realities.

The economic reality is that legalizing the presence of undocumented aliens provides a sorely needed resource to our shrinking Social Security fund, and removes the financial burden currently placed upon the taxpayer to provide medical and educational services to illegal aliens and their children.

We must accept the only rational course and admit that our past border policies have failed. A national admission of failure in this regard is, at this stage, acceptable if the lessons learned from it provide us with the improved policies and strategies needed for a safer future.

With millions of illegal aliens living clandestine lives in our nation, any effort to document them is doomed to failure if it doesn't contain a reasonable opportunity for them to achieve citizenship at some point. Drawing the many, hard-working worthy out of the darkness is the only way to shine a light on the unwanted, dangerous few.

Finally, I extend a plea to the members of Congress to deliberate and debate this issue with the requisite compassion and informed resolve that it requires. The complexity of the issue is matched only by its importance to our national identity.

Can anyone doubt that our nation possesses citizens with the combined intellect, compassion, and creativity necessary to meet the challenge of forging a balanced and lasting solution to the immigration question?

Unfortunately, the conversation is taking place during a period of polarized, politicized, and partisan animosity almost unprecedented in our nation's history. While issues of great social significance can be argued in the streets, they are not required to be street fights.

It should be clear to all that while this conversation can't be separated from the emotion of its time, it must be considered in the light of our entire history.

We are a nation of immigrants. More than any nation in modern history we have embraced diversity and been strengthened by the contributions of the foreign-born members of our society. Every American reading this is blessed to be so called because of the opportunity of entry given to a member of their family.

To deny this opportunity to others because of fear, economics, or bigotry is to deny our capacity to resolve this issue with the compassion and innovation that is worthy of our great nation.

What they fail to see is that Dobbs' version of the truth was often so distorted that fellow journalists trying to do objective stories on him couldn't even verify his version of the truth when it came to undocumented immigrants and illegal immigration.

But that's already the past and it's time to take a new look at how other groups distort or use the issue of illegal immigration to further their own agenda. After all, how can we as a nation attempt to arrive at a bipartisan compromise if distortion of facts, from either side, are allowed to pass as the truth?

One would expect to look at the usual suspects who excel at fanning the flames of public outrage when it comes to undocumented immigrants -- like NumbersUSA, Center for Immigration Studies or Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) -- but a recent article that appeared in Roll Call shows that we don't have to look any farther than the GOP.

If such a motion had been attached to the healthcare bill, it was already known that about 20 members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus would have voted against the healthcare bill and given the Republicans the victory they wanted.

In interview after interview, Republican congressmen or their aides went on the record saying that all they had to do was attach "illegal immigrants" to the healthcare bill and they could bring it down.

"If we had done that right, the bill would have been extremely unlikely [to pass], if we'd brought up the illegal immigration motion to recommit," said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), ranking member on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law. "That would have been the coup de grace. It would have killed the bill."

One aide to a conservative Republican called the move "a wasted opportunity" because the GOP would have hugely benefitted from agitating Democratic divisions on immigration..."Whoever thought this was a good motion to recommit is a freaking moron, and we will be in the minority forever because of stuff like this," the aide said. "They are fools, pure and simple. ... Our leadership dropped the ball."

One reason that the GOP leadership may not have used their "illegal immigration" card was not wanting to widen the gulf within their own membership. It's reported that some Hispanic Republicans would not have voted in favor of a healthcare bill that limited the rights of undocumented immigrants from buying their own insurance.

Whatever the reason, if Republicans continue this course of action against the issue of illegal immigration, it's clear that their intent is not to find a solution to the problem that exists but exacerbate it to the point that the American public won't know what's the truth and what's the GOP party line on the issue.

Since the dawn of civilization when soldiers traveled to conquer other regions of the world, there have been soldiers who were themselves conquered by the oldest emotion of the world -- love.

They met and married women who didn't share their nationality. The tradition continues. Soldiers are marrying non-US citizen women. But citizenship status is the last thing on a soldier's mind when he/she is getting ready for deployment and the prospect of never seeing their loved ones again looms greater above all else. For soldiers, it's only right for them to assume if they're laying their lives on the line to protect their country that the government would protect their family.

Unfortunately, that has not been the case when there involves non-citizen spouses. Because of the current immigration laws, non-citizen spouses who have endured separation from their husbands and wives, or worse, the deaths of their partners, aren't even allowed to fully grieve before they are assaulted with the technicalities of U.S. immigration policy.

For that reason, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) introduced in the Senate yesterday, the Military Families Act, S. 2757.

"help ensure the families of those that have served our country with pride and valor don't face unfair and unexpected deportation and are able to remain in this land they call home, close to their loved ones."

According to a special report released by the Immigration Policy Center entitled "Essential to the Fight: Immigrants in the Military Eight Years after 9/11":

As of June 30, 2009, there were 114,601 foreign‐born individuals serving in the armed forces, representing 7.91 percent of the 1.4 million military personnel on active duty. Roughly 80.97 percent of foreign‐born service members were naturalized U.S. citizens, while 12.66 percent were not U.S. citizens.

The September 11 attacks precipitated immediate changes in policies on immigrants in the military. Once the nation was at war, immigrants in the armed forces were eligible for naturalization under the special wartime military naturalization statute. As of October 2009, more than 53,000 immigrants had taken advantage of this provision to become U.S. citizens.

Immigrants who have served in the U.S. military and by so doing earned their citizenship include Alfred Rascon, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico who won the Medal of Honor during the Vietnam War and later became a U.S. citizen and eventually the Director of the Selective Service System.

All immigrants who did not come to the United States on non‐immigrant visas also were--and are--potentially subject to the draft. Congress has long required all foreign‐born males age 18 to 26 who are living in the United States to register for Selective Service and to serve in the military if drafted.

Even undocumented immigrants are required to register. While there has been no serious effort to start a draft, the military services could draft undocumented immigrants should the draft be reinstated. Failure to register for Selective Service may temporarily or permanently bar an immigrant from naturalizing. A conviction for desertion in time of war or a claim of exemption from military service on the grounds of "alienage" (that is, not being a native of the United States) may result in a permanent bar to naturalization.

It's always been understood that fighting for this country is an honor, a service and bonds men and women with this country like no other job in the nation.

So, it's not unreasonable to expect the government to honor its part of the bargain to keep a soldier's family protected --regardless of citizenship status.

(Editor's note: Check out the featured video, "Second Battle," on the Latina Lista Network.)

Unlike the Bush years, the Department of Homeland Security had no need to grandstand for the media in conducting this new version of an immigration raid.

Though the loss of a job is devastating for anyone, losing a job by being fired is a lot less traumatic on an undocumented immigrant's family than seeing a loved parent shackled and carted off to not be seen again.

In that regard, the Obama Administration got the message from advocates for humane treatment of undocumented immigrants. No one was arrested or known to be flagged for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) -- just told "You can't work here."

For the immigrants who lost their jobs, it's a sore loss of income so near the holidays. It's reported that the cleaning service paid their workers $13/hour and to these immigrants that was good money that they were able to stretch to pay rent, buy food, clothe their families, send some back home and still have a little left over for emergencies and entertainment.

The critics of undocumented immigrants are already screaming about how this raid was conducted and the people let go but this raid focuses on what the crux of illegal immigration is all about -- the employers.

So this cleaning service, ABM, had 1200 slots to fill. The number fired was three times more than the amount of undocumented workers arrested in Postville, Iowa.

It seems a lot of people were attracted to the job openings, and according to reports, ABM has filled all 1200 slots. Yet if history repeats itself, these people won't stay long if they are new to doing hard labor day-in-and-day-out.

Even during a time of economic recession and high unemployment, most native-born workers do not compete with most immigrants for the same jobs. This is apparent even when we compare unemployed natives with employed "recent" immigrants who came to the United States within the past decade.

 Unemployed natives and employed recent immigrants tend to have different levels of education, to live in different parts of the country, to have experience in different occupations, and to have different amounts of work experience. As a result, they could not simply be "swapped" for one another.

The U.S. economy will not be lifted out of recession by removing immigrant workers from the labor force. Rather, the key to recovery is creating jobs. Encouraging unemployed machinists on the East Coast to become food servers on the West Coast is not a recipe for long-term economic growth.

In fact, a separate report published in 2008 points out that removing such a large demographic from the American economy would have devastating consequences for the economy:

For the US as a whole, the immediate negative effect of eliminating the undocumented workforce would include an estimated $1.757 trillion in annual lost spending

$651.511 billion in annual lost output

8.1 million lost jobs.

If all undocumented workers were removed from the workforce, a number of industries would face substantial shortages of workers, and Americans would have to be induced into the labor pool or provided incentives to take jobs far below their current education and skill levels.

For this phenomenon to occur to a meaningful extent, substantial wage escalation would likely be necessary, thus eroding competitiveness in global markets.

Hindsight will fully reveal exactly how the U.S. economy has evolved in depending on undocumented immigrant labor, not just for their sweat, but in keeping costs down and making consumer goods, food and services affordable for the average American.

Good or bad there has always existed an hierarchy of workers. Theoretically, those with the least amount of education get paid the least while those with the most education get paid the most -- and those who speak with a foreign accent or don't have the proper paperwork or credentials do the work most citizens would rather pay someone else to do anyway.

Supporters of the U.S. wall say that our wall is not the same thing as the Berlin Wall. It's supposed to keep us safe from terrorists and violent drug cartels.

Yet, we've already seen proof that is not the case. Last month, more than 300 people were arrested in a series of drug raids targeting a Mexican drug cartel operating in the US.

Twenty years ago, the German people celebrated tearing down the Berlin Wall.

And in two separate domestic terrorist apprehensions -- Najibullah Zazi and Hosam Maher Husein Smadi -- neither one entered the country via our southern border.

No, it's clear that the wall has not achieved the purpose told to the American public. Instead, the wall has accomplished separating families on either side of the border, forced immigrants, who want to enter the country illegally to find work, to take the most dangerous routes into the country and disappear among the mountains and deserts never to be heard or seen again and wreaked havoc on a fragile environmental system.

The wall has not made this country safer but rather is the victorious symbol for a group of elected officials who let hysteria and influential immigration extremists control the immigration debate.

Even when a legislator from the impacted border area speaks out against the wall, those in Washington, who think they know better, dismiss his voice.

Interestingly enough and rightfully so, most Americans see it (the fall of the Berlin Wall) as a symbolic end of tyranny. Here in the borderlands of this country, on the edges of my legislative district, Americans forget that a similar wall was constructed (sadly with the help of misguided elected officials) separating family members and a singular community.

How long will it take the people of this country to see the contradictions in today's celebrations while we continue to construct our own wall in my community's backyard. I hope to live to see the day. In the meantime, I join in the celebrations ending this symbol of tyranny.

Here in South Texas we ask that our nation continue to remember this day, as we undoubtedly will, with the vivid and wasteful reminder that we live with here along the border. After the fear diminishes and the recognition of the enormous cost to our country is realized maybe we here on the border can find an additional reason to celebrate. Until then this day shall remain bitter-sweet.

Today is a day when all lovers of freedom can happily proclaim their rejection on any attempt to divide a people. In the words of a wise president, "Tear Down this Wall!"

If that's the case, CHC members have vowed to vote against the bill.

The (CHC) lawmakers said they opposed a provision from the Senate health care bill that would prohibit illegal immigrants from buying private insurance plans on the new health insurance exchanges to be created, even with their own money.

The House bill already would already require immigrants to verify their citizenship in order to receive federal subsidies for insurance. However, the House could be compelled to adopt the stronger Senate language. The White House is backing the Senate language because it is concerned the issue could derail the bill once Senate and House leaders have to merge their proposals.

Already there is speculation that the Democrats may not have enough votes to pass the legislation on Saturday, as they originally planned.

It's not known for sure if the 20 eligible votes from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus are being taken into that prediction but one thing is certain -- the men and women of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, who will withhold their votes if the unnecessary and mean-spirited language is included in the House version of the bill, did the right thing.

The fact that the White House is so willing to acquiesce on this point to placate the hysteria rampant in Congress against undocumented immigrants should make all advocates for fair immigration reform more than a little nervous.

The idea that it's OK to deny health coverage to people who are willing to buy it defies common sense.

If undocumented immigrants are allowed to buy health insurance, gone would be the overuse of emergency rooms (ER) or unpaid ER visits.

In these times of H1N1, why no one can see it makes more sense to have people covered by health insurance, who would be more likely to visit their doctors at the first sign of flu symptoms, rather than wait till they get to the point where they need costly hospitalization, is unfathomable.

Also, if there is a provision in the healthcare bill that would make it a requirement to buy health coverage, then by virtue of the purposeful exclusion of undocumented immigrants, the bill would put them in violation of the law -- something that their critics could foreseeably twist to their advantage to show how one more law undocumented immigrants violate, regardless if it's under their control or not.

The underlying reason for excluding undocumented immigrants is to drive them out of the country but for those people who have children born in this country, have lived here 20 years or more, the reality of the situation is they're not going anywhere.

As unkind as some citizens are towards them in denying them the opportunity to have affordable medical care, this country is their home by now and they will continue to do what they've always done once the healthcare bill passes -- pray they don't get sick.

Defeating that amendment recognizes that people like Marcelo Lucero are a part of this country and their presence should not be overlooked, or in Marcelo's case forgotten.

Marcelo was an Ecuadorian immigrant whose American Dream ended in a nightmare.

It was a year ago that the country discovered the awful truth of what some boys in Suffolk County, New York do for fun. By their own admission, they looked for Latinos, or beaners, as they called them and assaulted them for laughs.

It was Marcelo's misfortune that he was this group's next target. Yet, this time something went terribly wrong and Marcelo didn't get to hobble away with a few bruises and broken bones, probably like the other men targeted, he was murdered in cold-blood.

Only today, one of the teens involved pled guilty.

Hausch, 18, pleaded guilty to four counts to settle a nine-count indictment, including conspiracy, gang assault, assault as a hate crime and attempted assault as a hate crime in the Nov. 8, 2008, killing of Marcelo Lucero.

It's a small start on a long road for justice for Marcelo. While his murder horrifies decent human beings, the atmosphere that enabled those boys to think killing Latinos was OK, still exists.

These commentators don't just voice their opinions on illegal immigration but they deliver them in such a way that it makes some listeners feel empowered and justified in shouting a racial slur or derogatory comment towards any person they perceive to be an undocumented immigrant walking down the street.

As an immigration reform bill takes shape, the rhetoric against non-citizen immigrants will only increase, as will, the animosity towards them. Chaos is bound to follow because people who feel empowered and justified will implement their own definition of justice as those boys did with Marcelo.

The thinking among the boys was that they could get away with assaulting Latinos but a few had the sense to know that murder crosses the line -- but it only took one who didn't have that same insight.

And that's all it ever takes.

No, it's not the fact that a Republican won in each race. It's the fact that voters of color and young people could have cared less about who would win.

There's no denying that the 2008 presidential election was unlike any other and it awakened the proverbial sleeping giant of young and multicultural voters. Yet, there were many who worried that once the presidential election was over if the same momentum could be sustained with each "lesser" election.

It's obvious now that it can't with some voters, but with Latino voters it's a different story.

Republican Gov-elect Bob McDonnell smiles at a news conference with transition members, Phil Cox, left, and Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, right, in Richmond Nov. 4. (AP Photo)

For the Latino constituency, participation in local elections, for now, hinges on what role that elected official has in passing immigration reform or the DREAM Act. It's a safe bet that any candidate running for Congress will get close scrutiny from Latino voters in their districts and states and will see a resurge of Latino voters at the polls.

As long as immigration reform is on the table, it's the carrot that energizes this voting bloc to come out.

But the real problem lies in elections for local and state candidates, as was seen in yesterday's election turnouts.

Latino voters are no different in wondering what difference their vote makes for a candidate who isn't seen as a "people's candidate" in their community and other communities of color.

The fact that both candidates for governor who won were Anglo already illustrates that what was gained from the presidential campaigns has slipped away -- the inclusiveness of candidates of color which, in turn, generated enthusiasm, not just among voters of color, but young people who rightly see candidates of color as bringing change to a staid political system.

In the days after Obama won, there was a lot of buzz within the national Latino community of setting up organizations to help identify, groom and support tomorrow's Latino political candidates.

The hope is that more people of color join in aspiring to serve this nation in public office and that both political parties welcome this participation. Until these candidates materialize, who have the ability to excite a new generation of voters, along with, a segment for whom politics has had little meaning, turnout will be less than what it's known it can be.

(Update Nov. 5, 2009 -- If there's any doubt that a candidate of color can re-energize civic participation among youth and voters of color, just check out what happened in the mayoral elections of Lawrence, Mass. this week. 

The city elected the first Latino mayor of the state but what's even more remarkable is that Lawrence became the first city in the state where registered Latino voters outnumbered white voters.)

Maybe that's the reason why too many child protective services around the country are prone to remove the children from Latino and black households rather than work with families. "In the United States, children of color represent approximately one third of the U.S. population but 60% of children in foster care."

In an article by the Morris News Service, it was found that in Texas, too many kids are seized from their homes if there is a suspicion of abuse or neglect.

On the surface, that would seem like a good thing since the last thing anyone wants to do is leave children in a dangerous environment. Yet, when the numbers show there is an overrepresentation of Latino children in the foster care system something is not right.

After all, when someone is in trouble in a Latino family, it's usually the extended family members who take over the child-rearing. But in places like Lubbock County, Texas where last year, 87 of the 174 children in foster care - 50 percent - were Hispanic, and the county's Hispanic population is only 30 percent - something is wrong.

Are all of these children really in abusive and neglectful situations or is it too difficult for agency workers to communicate with the families and so it's easier to remove them?

As Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, a nonprofit group based in Alexandria, Va. said:

An African-American or a Hispanic child is more likely to be taken away from his or her parents than a white child. And when a white child is up for adoption he or she will find a home sooner than an African-American or a Hispanic child.

But that's not the case everywhere. A GOOGLE search of the terms "child welfare and race" shows that researchers have been writing about the issue since 2000. A June 2009 report speculated on several reasons why there still existed such an ethnic disparity in child removals:

Reporter Bias. Medical providers are one of the top three sources for CPS reports (GAO, 2007), and research suggests racial bias may play a role in their reporting patterns. For example, numerous studies have shown that hospitals report families of color more for child abuse and neglect, even when they have similar presenting problems (studies cited in Hill, 2006). One study found that women of color are more likely to be reported than white women for newborns who test positive for drugs (Chasnoff, Landress, & Barrett, 1990).

Distrust and Racial Bias or Cultural Misunderstanding within Child Welfare. Many child welfare officials and researchers have suggested that families' distrust of the child welfare system contributes to disproportionality. In particular, African Americans in some poor communities may consider child welfare agencies as more interested in separating children from parents than in helping families (GAO, 2007). As a result, families may not seek or cooperate with services, which can then increase the risk of a child's removal.
In addition to possible bias by reporters, there may also be bias or cultural misunderstanding on the part of child welfare caseworkers and juvenile and family court judges (GAO, 2007). Those on the front lines may make unrecognized assumptions about someone from a different class, race, or ethnic group--and those assumptions can lead to more intensive and disruptive interventions in families' lives.

While historically, African American and American Indian children have been removed from their homes in the largest numbers, Latino children are the third highest group. However, disturbing trends happening with the removal of Latino children underscore the need to create more culturally sensitive programs for social workers and programs to educate parents on parenting.

According to Casey Family programs web site:

Some studies have shown that Latino children are usually younger (between the ages of 0-5) than non-Latino children at the time of referral and substantiation, placing them at higher risk for placement. This is concerning given that infants and young children are less likely to be reunified with their families.

• Reports of abuse and neglect are relatively proportionate between Latino and White non-Latino children. Yet, substantiated (removal) cases are more likely to occur with Latino children.

• Latino children are more likely to be placed in out-of home care more quickly and for longer periods of time than their White non-Latino counterparts.

• 62% of the Latino children served by child welfare services today are placed in out-of home care, compared to 25% in 1977.

If there is a silver lining to these dismal statistics, it's that Latino children represent the highest number of all racial/ethnic groups when it comes to being placed with relatives -- but that doesn't happen with all the children who are removed or separated from their parents.

This increasing trend of the removal of Latino children should be a wake-up call to the community to address the issue before it gets to the point where it is with African American and Native American communities, and negative assumptions of Hispanic families in trouble take deeper root in the minds of the people authorized to help.

Since layoffs began, we saw people with college degrees and professional careers band together in designated meeting spaces every morning to hear motivational keep-your-chin-up speeches, share a pot of coffee, network with their newfound friends and pour over job listings in the newspaper or want ads online.

For people without a college degree, and some without even U.S. citizenship, they do the same thing -- get up, go to a central location, mingle with their newfound friends and wait for a job to drive up and a willing employer who needs help with hard labor at a cheap, sometimes too cheap, a price.

Of course, the second description refers to day laborers. Across the country, groups of day laborers have grown. Once known primarily as an outlet for undocumented immigrants to offer their labor cheaply, it's now a mix of both out-of-work citizens and undocumented labor.

That's why a sting operation in Carlsbad, California of local day laborers, along with, other attempts across the country to keep day laborers from being able to earn a living in these hard times doesn't make sense when people are trying to keep from asking for handouts and are willing to work for their money.

These are special times that call for humanitarian aid right in our own backyards -- and cities can do much more than what they're doing to keep day laborers safe while looking for jobs while keeping local business owners happy that day laborers aren't waiting for jobs in front of their businesses.

That these people would rather work than steal or beg should be commended. Yet, because it has been deemed that they are undocumented, they're considered to be unworthy of surviving.

Now, that there's a mix of both citizens and non-citizens in the day laborer pool, to conduct an immigration raid without probable evidence that there are undocumented immigrants present is the vilest form of racial profiling.

These are different times, and until immigration reform is passed, the charitable thing to do is for cities to designate certain areas of town for day laborers to congregate. Since many do not have transportation, the areas should be within easy distance from where the majority of day laborers congregate.

Those day laborers outside the designated areas would be subjecting themselves to a ticket but as long as they congregate with the rest of their colleagues, their assembly should not be seen as being any different than that other group who is lucky enough to have a pot of coffee waiting for them as they wait their turns for a job.