Honduran protesters march against the referendum.
(Source: El Heraldo newspaper)

Yet, many readers disagreed pointing to the fact that the military forced the President out of the palace at gunpoint and that many of those same military leaders had received their training at the infamous "School of the Americas."

Also, the Miami Herald and other publications are reporting that the new government is censoring journalists and repressing protests.

But every Honduran-focused blog that I was able to find (Pensieve, La Gringa's Blogcito, Honduras Living,) were telling a different story. In fact, at one point, the bloggers were trying to unite to send a message out to their readers to send a message to Obama to explain to him the "real situation" in Honduras.

The people there in the country are saying that the media is presenting a one-sided look at the situation and is actually filing a lot of information that is not entirely accurate.

Some of these Honduran bloggers want to set the record straight.

One of these Honduras-based bloggers is Laurie Matherne. Laurie is an ESL teacher in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. She authors the blog Laurie's Spot: Thoughts on Honduras, Missions and Justice.

On Sunday, June 28, I awoke to the news that President "Mel" Zelaya of Honduras had been removed from the presidency by the Armed Forces. As a resident of Tegucigalpa, Honduras, I was soon assailed with the sounds of jets and helicopters overhead.

From my perch on the third floor rooftop, my friends and I noted dozens of aircraft, and we hoped for a peaceful day. It was peaceful that day. No blood was shed, no shots were fired. The president, I later learned, was escorted to Costa Rica.

Since that day, however, peace has not prevailed at least in the world-at-large. The city and the country are at peace internally, despite a few protestors who have blocked roads and attempted to throw rocks at a few policemen.

Externally, among the nations, the outcry has been loud and urgent. Mr. Zelaya has the privilege of having the world's attention and sympathy for the moment as world leaders demand his immediate reinstatement as President of the Republic of Honduras.

He was acclaimed with accolades from socialists and conservatives alike after his remarks before the United Nations earlier this week.

However, Mr. Zelaya is an unlikely poster boy for democracy.

By almost any standard, it's easy to note the decline in the standard of living in Honduras. Violent crime, rumors of kidnapping, and whispers of drug smuggling from Venezuela were becoming daily conversation.

And as far as democracy and conservatism, Mr. Zelaya admitted that he turned away from the United States, and he began to seek out the help of leftist regimes who could offer more aid.

He became enamored of the Castro brothers and even more so, of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Mr. Zelaya railroaded the passage of a decree declaring that Honduras would be part of ALBA, the association of social regimes of the Americas. It was widely reported that bribery was used to change the hearts and votes of the elected representatives who voted for the passage of the bill.

As the socialist rhetoric increased, his popularity began to erode. In a quick and disastrous attempt to regain public approval, he signed a decree ordering an overnight increase in the minimum wage by 50 percent.

The effect was immediate. Many of the wage earners lost their jobs as companies could not afford the sudden and dramatic increase. It is estimated that ¼ to 1/3 of the population of Honduras is unemployed or underemployed.

The banner reads: Because the Good are more and we want to live in peace.
(Source: El Heraldo newspaper)

I have noted in my work in this impoverished country that more children are malnourished. I have seen the rapid deterioration of the infrastructure of the country, particularly in regard to education and transportation.

A general strike was called by the public school teachers of Honduras in January to protest the lack of wages paid, some going back as far as nine months. The roads are deteriorating due to the termination of road construction and repair contracts. There has been no budget submitted from the executive branch thus far this year, and there have been increasingly shortfalls in different sectors of the government.

Public opinion, by and large, outside of Honduras, holds that Honduras is at fault for the ousting of Mel Zelaya. However, does anyone realize that he violated many laws in the weeks leading to his exile?

He had planned a referendum that was designed to allow him to be president for life. The referendum had been ruled illegal by the Supreme Court and the Congress of Honduras last week.

On Thursday, June 25, he announced on live television that he desired for anyone on "his side" to meet him at the Air Force station in Tegucigalpa in order to take the illegal ballots by force. A mob of hundreds joined him, as the air force commanders passively handed over the ballots, which had been delivered that morning from Venezuelan presses.

He then returned exultantly to the airwaves for a two-hour emotionally charged speech, at one point bursting into song, and at other times, mocking the members of the military and assembly.

Is it possible that the coup, if indeed it was a coup, was a good thing?

"For what are military coups, the last weekend in Honduras was strangely democratic," says an editorial this week in the Wall Street Journal, adding that the Army did not depose president Manuel Zelaya alone, but was following an order by the Supreme Court .

And what about the views of the Honduran people? I have not seen any coverage of the massive and peaceful demonstrations in the capital that have occurred over the past week in favor of the new government.

No one outside of Honduras has mentioned seeing the thousands who gathered in Tegucigalpa before the referendum on July 26 under the banner, "We Want to Live in Peace, Freedom, and Development."

It's reported over 15,000 people took to the streets in a peaceful march in support of the new government.
(Source: El Heraldo newspaper)

I have not seen any US media outlet show coverage of the tens of thousands who gathered yesterday in support of the new government. A friend commented on the remarkably one-sided coverage of the crisis, "A few hundred rioters throwing rocks at soldiers and the police and water cannon makes much better news than thousands of supporters holding their hands above their hearts with tears streaming down their face singing the national anthem."

Honduras is a small and underdeveloped country. It can ill afford the bad reputation that the world has for its leaders. However, I hope and pray that world would consider carefully the events surrounding the removal of Mr. Zelaya.

I am reminded of the words of the prophet Amos:

Do you know what I want?

I want justice--oceans of it.
I want fairness--rivers of it.
That's what I want. That's all I want. Amos 5:24

As rivers and oceans of people are marching across the land of Honduras, one can only hope and pray that the world will take notice of a small country that seeks to live in peace, freedom and development.

The White House and members of Congress must move quickly on enacting a just and humane immigration reform package that will reunite families, reinvigorate the economy, and remove the term "illegal or undocumented immigrants" from the dialogue in this country.

Ethnic media, which reaches over 60 million adults in the United States, calls on Congress to move decisively on immigration reform because there are few issues as important to the nation's well-being as an overhaul of the inefficient, inhumane and economically debilitating immigration system.

More importantly, we are also urging our readers and viewers to contact their Senators and Congressmen and let them know that immigration reform must be a national priority.

Our nation needs comprehensive immigration policies that will replace a broken system of raids and roundups with one that protects all workers from exploitation, improves America's security and builds strong communities.

It's time to end the division between workers, which has allowed big business to exploit both sides. Clearly, working-class citizens and immigrant workers have much in common - dreams of better homes, education for their families and quality healthcare.

There is more that brings us together, than separates us. United we can be a strong force for change, changes that bring more workforce safety and humane conditions.

Immigration is often portrayed as an explosive, divisive issue. In reality it's not.

Since the repeal of the national origins quota system in 1965, which discriminated against certain immigrants, a consensus has been building towards an immigration system that respects the country's core values.

These include economic opportunity, equality under the law regardless of ethnic background, and an embrace of the world's most innovative, energetic and ambitious workers.

Now, with the country facing serious competition from workers abroad, it's more important than ever to create a world-class immigration system. It's for the good of families, good for communities and good for America.

We learned last month that Benita can stay in the U.S. for another three months until her fate is determined.

Student Walter Lara is to be deported July 6, 2009.

Unfortunately, time is fast running out for yet another honors student. His name is Walter Lara and he only has 5 days left to convince Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to let him stay in the only country he has ever known as home.

Lara received top scores in high school and college. After graduating from Miami-Dade Honors College in 2007 he became a computer technician.

Since it became known that Walter is going to be deported on July 6, 2009, unless Sec. Napolitano intervenes and defers action on his deportation, Florida politicians and supporters nationwide have been issuing emails and calls to Sec. Napolitano's office to halt his deportation.

US Senator Bill Nelson has drafted a letter on Walter's behalf to Sec. Napolitano requesting that they defer action on Walter's deportation because "he has earned the chance to live and work here and call America home."

A nationwide plea has been made asking for people who support Walter to add their names to the letter. It will be delivered tomorrow, Thursday, July 2, to the Department of Homeland Security.

Walter is a prime example of what we want all of our young people to become -- educated and productive members of society.

Sending Walter back to Argentina when he grew up in the U.S. is a misguided case of trying to enforce the law 20 years too late -- long after Walter grew up seeing himself as an American citizen.

it's time Sec. Napolitano put a moratorium on all deportation proceedings involving students who meet the DREAM Act criteria until Congress definitively decides on the fate of all those students who dream that this country will believe them when they say they are American in every sense of the word, except on paper.

To keep up with the stressful turmoil Walter is handling with such grace as he now sets up television interviews and makes personal visits to members of Congress to plead his case, you can follow him on his Twitter page.

It may be legal to send Walter back but it's an injustice that violates the moral conscience that all countries must govern themselves with to maintain a true definition of justice.

Honduran President Manuel Zelaya addresses the United Nations General Assembly Tuesday, June 30, 2009. Zelaya was ousted Sunday in a military coup. Behind him is Miguel d'Escoto Brockman, President of the General Assembly and Nicaragua's ambassador the U.N.
(Source: AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)

In the day, when a Latin American leader ran afoul of a certain group, patience always ran thin and instead of waiting for the next election to oust him from office, or the more civil process of an impeachment, the military was called in with guns drawn to act as the new "presidential guard" as they "escorted" the fallen-from-grace politician into exile.

Such a forceful removal from office is always touted as the opposite of what democracy stands for and in the past, it was never the will of the people as it was the will of a few elites who had aligned themselves with the military to take control of the country.

So, when it was reported that the Honduran military was following the blueprint of past coup takeovers, it sent not only a shiver through South, Central and North America but an instantaneous outcry from every political leader around the world demanding that Zelaya immediately be reinstated.

Yet, in researching the full story, it's apparent that Zelaya didn't have preserving the country's democratic principles on his mind. In fact, if he had been allowed to continue with his intention of holding a referendum that would have changed the constitutional term limits for president, he might have laid the groundwork to not follow in Obama's example but Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.

That fear was compounded when Zelaya, wanting to hold the referendum to extend his presidential term, just like his friend Hugo Chavez, and denied to do so by the Honduran Congress -- in fact, the Congress outlawed it -- had his friend Chavez fly in referendum ballots from Venezuela in defiance of the congressional ruling.

That led to a tit-for-tat pitting President Manuel Zelaya against not only the Congress, but also the Supreme Court, the military, and members of his own party.

After Congress declared the Sunday referendum illegal last week, Zelaya found himself in a standoff with the country's main institutions. Honduras' Supreme Court and electoral tribunal also declared the referendum illegal and, when the armed forces refused to distribute the ballots, Zelaya ousted armed forces chief General Romeo Vásquez.

Top army officials and the defense minister resigned in protest. The court ordered Vásquez reinstated, Zelaya refused, and the attorney general said Congress should force the president to step down, questioning his mental stability. The Catholic Church in Honduras joined in voicing opposition to the referendum.

On Thursday, Zelaya led supporters to collect referendum ballots from the air force headquarters. Meanwhile, hundreds of members of the armed forces were deployed to maintain order. On Friday Zelaya delivered a two-hour speech during which he said: "Congress cannot investigate me, much less remove me or stage a technical coup against me because I am honest, I'm a free president and nobody scares me."

It's clear Zelaya is not scared because he not only has his friends Chavez, Morales and Castro supporting him but newfound friends named Obama and Clinton.

Since being ousted, the world has gathered behind Zelaya in an almost unprecedented show of solidarity to show their support of him. Today, the United Nations passed a resolution condemning the ouster of Zelaya -- but why?

Though Zelaya has a few supporters, news and anecdotal reports that Latina Lista has received show that the majority of Hondurans are saying "good riddance" to the guy.

Also, contrary to how military coups played out in the past, the president appointed to replace Zelaya was not someone from the military but rather, the next in legal line to the presidency -- the President of the Congress since those who came before him to assume the presidency had quit or were removed by Zelaya.

The Honduran people didn't like how Zelaya shot the finger at the country's Constitution and democratic government to attempt to mold the political system to fit his goals.

And so now the people of Honduras are left to face a global condemnation for the very act that we justify declaring war for -- preserving and defending democratic ideals.

There's something wrong with the picture when Hugo Chavez stands side-by-side with President Obama in declaring that an injustice has occurred. Obviously, both men are defining that injustice differently.

The people of Honduras did the right thing and it's a safe bet that many in Venezuela wish they could turn back the clock when Chavez first started accumulating his power.

A regular Latina Lista contributor from Venezuela recently wrote a post entitled We are in God's Hands that illustrates just how smart the Honduran people were in thwarting Zelaya's attempts at gaining greater power.

The real injustice in this affair is that the United States and other political powers are not seeing this ouster for what it is.

It is clearly the will of the people in defense of their democracy and they deserve to be heard -- and defended!

New Haven firefighters, along with their lawyer, speak to the press after Supreme Court verdict.
(Source: NY Times)

It's heartbreaking when ANYONE is denied a promotion, a job or program placement based on their race or ethnicity. News that the lead plaintiff Frank Ricci is dyslexic and paid someone to record study materials so he could learn by listening underscores how all applicants work hard to achieve their life's goals and should be allowed to attain them.

To say affirmative action policies are not flawed would be a mischaracterization of the truth.

However, there is nothing flawed in the ultimate goal of affirmative action policy -- creating diversity. More than ever, diversity in the workforce, at all levels, and in higher education is imperative for the health of this country.

Yet, the playing field has never been equal -- not even when there is obvious talent.

That point was brought home to me this morning as I learned that in the early 1980s, MTV almost didn't play Michael Jackson's first music videos (Billie Jean and Beat It!) because they didn't fit with the channel's music format which was rock'n roll.

In fact, so few black musicians were featured on the music cable channel because so few blacks were into that genre. By purposely narrowing their music selection, MTV was excluding a whole group of artists, especially a very talented and proven star. It wasn't until the higher-ups were convinced that it was the right thing to do to air Michael Jackson's videos was he given a shot -- and the rest is history.

And ultimately, isn't that what affirmative action is -- to give people, who historically have never been given that opportunity, that chance to "assimilate" into the larger group?

Yet, the playing field is still far from equal and the New Haven firefighters' test proves that.

For some reason, it's always assumed, and has been accepted, that people of color aren't "very smart" compared to their Anglo counterparts. It's an assumption that is somehow established in elementary school and by the time high school is reached becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for too many students.

Most people of color are smarter than to believe that crap but it doesn't help when people of authority hold to that tired assumption. Because that assumption is subconsciously, if not consciously, believed it feeds into the notion that people of color are second class citizens when it comes to intelligence.

How ironic that critics of affirmative action always tout that job promotions and school placements should be colorblind processes. Yet, nobody talks about how the tests or evaluations in those processes are far from colorblind -- to the point it impacts the success of students/applicants of color.

The New Haven firefighter's test was 60 percent written and 40 percent verbal. While we don't know what the final test scores of the black and other Latino applicants were, it has to raise a red flag that not one black and only two Latinos even passed the test.

Is it because they didn't study hard enough or studied the wrong things?

More likely, it's because of how they responded in writing to the questions that set their scores apart from the top.

Educators have noticed that most students of color need extra help in training to be critical thinkers and good writers. In 1998, professors at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) saw that their students who were applying to law schools around the country were not having much success.

From 1988 to 1998, only seven UTEP students a year were admitted to the nation's 50 top law schools. It was clear students needed extra help.

Begun in 1998 in response to the Hopwood decision -- a federal court ruling that prevents universities in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi from making admissions decisions based on race or ethnicity -- the Law School Preparation Institute was successful from the start.

The first of its kind in the nation, the program helps students develop persuasive writing, critical textual analysis and logic skills. Students also prepare for the Law School Admissions Test and become familiar with the law school application process.

In 1999, a year after the LSPI was in operation, 20 LSPI graduates were admitted to one or more of the top 50 schools in the country. All in all, LSPI has graduated 350 students who have attended more than 60 different law schools across the nation. Sixty percent of LSPI graduates who apply to law school attend first-tier schools and nearly 20 percent enroll in one of the nation's top 12 law programs.

Eighty-four percent of the student body is Hispanic, 13 percent are Caucasian and 3 percent are African Americans.

The two-month, two summers program is intense with a heavy emphasis on writing and critical thinking exercises and a curriculum that stretches from 8 a.m.-5 p.m. Monday-Friday.

The program has been so successful that it's being duplicated at other universities and illustrates that there are learning differences among ethnic groups -- but that they can successfully be addressed with stunning success.

If people are serious about a colorblind society then we have to start where differences are highlighted and reinforced -- elementary school. As we reform our educational system, we need to acknowledge that the old style of teaching, curriculum and expectations are no longer acceptable.

Erase the teaching and expectation differences in elementary and junior high school and students will be set on a path to not only succeed but excel -- at whatever test they take.

In a press release issued by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU):

Pending court approval, DOS will train its staff on how to fairly weigh all the evidence provided in passport applications and how to avoid improperly subjecting people whose births were assisted by midwives in Texas and along the U.S.-Mexico border to heightened scrutiny in reviewing their passport applications.

All denials will be automatically reviewed by a three-member panel comprised of experienced DOS staff members, and if that panel also denies an application, DOS must communicate the specific reasons for the denial to the applicant. The applicant can then challenge the denial and ask DOS to reconsider its decision.

Additionally, anyone birthed by a midwife who has filed an application for a passport between April 2003 and September 15, 2008 and, with a few exceptions, whose application was not expressly "denied," can re-apply for free. DOS will be setting up mobile units across the border on specific dates to assist those reapplying.

On its website, the ACLU has a copy of the settlement agreement, the complaint and audio testimonials of the people who were wrongly denied a U.S. passport because of the misfortune of being birthed by a midwife.

Dallas Chicana civil rights pioneer Adelfa Callejo

Whenever these old-timers dared to relive the past, the rebuttals came swift and hard.

At least that was the case in Dallas, Texas when 86-year-old, Adelfa Callejo, Dallas trailblazer for Latino civil rights, and a Hillary Clinton supporter, dared to say at the height of the presidential election that "Obama simply has a problem that he happens to be black."

Immediately, Callejo was criticized not just by blacks and whites but from her own local community, especially the younger people who accused her of living in the past.

Though Callejo is credited with advancing the civil rights of Dallas Latinos, and is often recognized when it comes to the history of civil rights in Dallas as being a major player, none of that is being remembered now as Callejo is fighting a new fight -- to keep her legacy alive.

Because of her comments, there are some Dallas Independent School Trustees who have voiced that they will not name a school after her until she apologizes for her comments about Obama. Some say they will refuse to vote for her regardless.

The whole issue has become so politically radioactive that the local public radio station even refused to allow a commentary (written by this author) based on the grounds the topic was too "hot" and might somehow implicate the station in trying to sway the vote scheduled for tonight.

If historically there has been tension between blacks and Latinos, this is a cause that is resurrecting old feelings in some camps and forcing a new generation to choose sides.

• Challenged the system of at-large elections in electing Dallas City Council members -- a system that diluted minority voting power and won.
• Lobbied six Dallas district superintendents until there was finally a dropout prevention program implemented in the school district.
• Got more women and minority-owned businesses a fair chance to win a concessions contract at DFW International Airport.

Since it was announced that trustees may vote against Callejo, her supporters and family have waged an all-out campaign sending press releases to "clarify" her statement on Obama.

It's reported that Callejo herself called one of the trustees to try and persuade her to change her vote.

While Callejo's supporters may feel they are pursuing the right course of action by appealing directly to public opinion, it is having the opposite reaction. Too many, who sympathized with Callejo initially, are now interpreting these actions as desperate attempts for a shallow reason -- just to get a name on a school.

In the process, Callejo is tarnishing her own proud record of achievement. Yet, given Callejo's character, it's not surprising that she is not going to go down without a fight.

It's why she was so effective in the early years and why she is a woman accustomed to speaking her mind without considering the consequences -- because the consequences were always worse than doing nothing.

Or in this case, being forgotten before you're even gone.

Media censorship

Regardless of the event, whenever it is heard that journalists are banned, the news always evokes undemocratic and tyrannic images of oppression, suppression, intimidation and control -- usually by force.

During a press conference, President Obama even chimed in on the press blackout.

Referring to the recent clampdown on the foreign media in Iran, Mr Obama said: "In 2009 no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to the peaceful pursuit of justice

Those governments that do ban journalistic coverage of any public event or proceedings certainly belong to the list of countries endangering democracy and the democratic ideals of all free societies.

Well, it seems that when it comes to banning journalists or the general public from certain events, the United States must unfortunately be added to the list.

The even sadder part is that it's happening in our immigration courts system which tries the most vulnerable of individuals in our country.

In her article, Secret Courts Exploit Immigrants, for The Nation, Stevens recounts her experience in trying to enter an immigration court only to be told that she had to do a number of things before being allowed in:

Two weeks prior to the proceedings, she should have submitted her name, date of birth, Social Security number, home address and the particular hearing she wanted to attend.

All of that had to be submitted before she would have to undergo the required background check.

And if for some reason Stevens had had a felony or misdemeanor conviction (which she doesn't) in the last five years, then she would have been prohibited altogether from entering the courts.

This amount of security is obviously less for the immigrant facing deportation and more for the federal government to keep deportation proceedings, which have received extensive criticism in the ways they have been conducted, out of the public view.

But that's not being transparent and runs counter to what the Obama administration has been striving for since occupying the White House.

As Lee Gelernt, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney stated:

"It is critical that the public and press have access to immigration proceedings to ensure that the proceedings are conducted fairly and consistent with due process principles. It is absolutely unlawful for the DHS to place unreasonable restrictions on access to immigration court."

Dora Schriro has been appointed by DHS Secretary Napolitano as a special advisor who will be evaluating policy, including immigration court access. In keeping with the spirit of the administration in moving swiftly to make all proceedings transparent, it should not be any different in this case.

For too long, the DHS has operated under their own rules and on their own time tables but reforming these practices doesn't have to wait for any comprehensive immigration reform bill to pass.

It just takes someone in Washington to notice and send out one memo to change it.

Free speech is always heralded as a hallmark of democracy but also the openness and transparency of our court system is another admirable hallmark.

When one is suppressed, it can't help but affect the other.

That their protests have been met with retaliatory violence has given everyone cause to pause and reevaluate Iran's role in global politics.

John H. Liechty Middle School, the site of a civil disobedience protest by 65 middle school students.

Yet, as bad as the retaliation has been, it's something that was not entirely unexpected. After all, a country that calls its leader the "Supreme Leader" doesn't leave too much doubt that democracy is a dream ideal.

Yet that's not the case in the United States, or it shouldn't be.

From the time US students get their first class in civics, they learn about democracy and they're exposed to how to work within the system to create change.

US students are taught that civil disobedience is much more desirable than riots in the streets to instigate change or show their displeasure with a certain policy. And as long as they respect the property rights of others, student protesters should not have to suffer any retaliatory actions.

Try telling that to 65 graduating middle school students who practiced a very sedate form of civil disobedience and got their diplomas withheld from them by the school principal.

"In 2008, John H. Liechty Middle School had 26 students for every full-time equivalent teacher. The California average is 21 students per full-time equivalent teacher."

Maybe that's one of the reasons why 65 students at the school decided they were going to show their support of their teachers in the wake of the school district's planned cutbacks and layoffs by standing and turning their backs on Monica Garcia, the graduation speaker and LAUSD board president.

Needless to say, their actions did not go over very well with Principal Jeanette Stevens, who not only withheld the students' diplomas, but is now reported to making students sign a letter of apology before they are allowed to receive their diplomas.

While the students' actions could be construed as "bad manners," it was clearly a protest to show that they stood in solidarity with their teachers.

In this new age where even the youngest child knows that he/she has rights, and students have taken the lead in organizing protests, whether it be Iran or the U.S., the actions of this principal send the wrong message to students who are practicing democracy.

Standing with their backs to the speaker is more desirable than having rocks thrown or insults shouted. To deny them their diplomas is denying them the basic right of every democratic society -- regardless of their ages.

The mothers of the students who didn't receive their diplomas had a press conference at the school yesterday where they demanded the principal apologize and issue the diplomas.

Unfortunately, the real issue at heart here has devolved now into a power struggle between the principal and the students.

Since there will be no winners in such a scenario, it would seem Ms. Garcia needs to make a return visit to the campus and do something that every democratic leader should endorse -- sit down with both sides and come to a consensus.

In a decision that many have expressed as "disturbing," the Supreme Court justices voted to not force states to let prisoners get access to genetic evidence that might prove their innocence.

In other words, for prisoners in Alaska, Oklahoma and Massachusetts -- the only states that don't give convicts access to genetic evidence -- these prisoners will be forever doomed to sit in jail because the Supreme Court justices ruled that:

New technology that was not available at trial should not throw fairly won convictions into doubt.

That's not just disturbing, it's inhumane and arrogant on a scale beyond reason.

According to the Innocence Project, thanks to those states that do allow for convicts to have access to genetic evidence, 240 convicts have been exonerated. If it had not been for access to the genetic evidence, these 240 individuals would have spent their lives begging someone to believe their innocence.

There probably cannot be anything more frightening than being locked up behind bars and repeating you're innocence but no one believing you, and not being able to prove that innocence even with evidence that existed at the time of the crime.

Yet, that is what is happening and will continue to happen in these three states for which the Supreme Court ruled. By not requiring these states to give access to these prisoners, the national judicial system is complicit in those cases where people were convicted erroneously.

Does the fact that the vast majority of people who would benefit from the testing of genetic evidence are of color mean that their lives are more dispensable in order to making the judicial process seem infallible?

It would seem so. That the Supreme Court believes this reflects on how disconnected these justices are from humanity.

By virtue of Sotomayor's nomination, the public is learning more about how the Supreme Court is supposed to arrive at their decisions. According to some, the Supreme Court interprets the law; it doesn't make it.

Yet, this case clearly proves the opposite.

If there is a silver lining to this case, it's that the number of people who will truly be affected will be very small but even one person deprived of proving their innocence is too many.

To say that judicial process supersedes the sanctity of life is repulsive and underscores just what happens when empathy is not included in the process.

When I met Tim, I was living in Oklahoma City where my family had relocated. I had accepted a job as a bilingual assistant in an elementary school while going to college. The teacher I reported to was the mother of Tim's best friend Mark.

Tim and Mark were inseparable high school friends who took it upon themselves to be the little brothers I never had. Every week when I would have to go to the teacher's house to make something for our class of kindergartners, Tim and Mark would coincidentally be there too.

For hours on end, I would be subjected to the awkward flirtations of both boys as Tim would crack one joke after another to get my attention. Over time, I found a boyfriend and before long was planning my wedding. Those two got more involved with school, finding prom dates and figuring out what they were going to do with the rest of their lives.

I felt sure Tim was on his way to a career as a stand-up comedian. He felt sure I was on my way to being a bilingual teacher. We were both wrong.

It wasn't until last year that we finally reconnected.

Life was not going good for Tim. He was divorcing his wife, his mother had died and he felt pretty abandoned by the women in his life. Our conversations were, at first, reminiscing about all those good times we had sitting around the kitchen table at Mark's house.

Tim filled me in on the years we had lost contact and vice versa. He started calling or emailing me on a bi-weekly basis just to check in and see how I and my family were doing.

It wasn't long before our past relationship as a quasi brother and sister resurfaced. Never good at speaking Spanish, Tim told me he wanted to call me his "hermana grande" because he wanted me to his big sister.

I told him it was one thing for me to his big sister and quite another to be his BIG sister. I convinced him to just refer to me as his hermana.

He would always start our conversations by telling me that he was the vice president of my fan club because he knew my mother was the president. From there, our conversations took different directions. From talking about our blogs to discussing politics to even telling me about how he was trying to adjust to living a single's life.

Yet, during this time, Tim had found a newfound devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe and with helping his local Latino community. He was even practicing his Spanish more.

Tim was very modest about the work he did in Nashville with the local community and I didn't realize his devotion to them until last December when he called me so excited about celebrating the feast day of our Lady of Guadalupe at a church he attended. He had donated some money to the church in his mother's memory and was so pumped about the celebration.

We never talked much about his illness. He always said that he knew God had given him a gift of a few more years that he shouldn't have had but he felt optimistic that he was going to overcome the leukemia in some way.

Since January, Tim and I got busy with our respective lives. Though we talked, it wasn't as often. Two weeks ago, something told me I should pick up the phone and call him. However, that thought was replaced with "I'll call him tomorrow" as I got busy writing something.

For Tim and I, writing was the lifeline we shared to make sense of people, who as Tim liked to describe, through the "poverty of their experiences" couldn't see the harm their rhetoric and actions had on a community that struggled to live equally.

Though there were many sides of Tim, the Tim I will always remember is the goofy, joking high schooler who blossomed into a brave defender of people's rights.

He was the kind of guy that made this big sister very proud.

Benita Veliz

Last week, Benita appeared in a San Antonio immigration court as a result of deportation proceedings being started against her after she was discovered to be undocumented during a traffic stop. She was granted a 3-month continuance.

In the following post, Benita shares with Latina Lista readers her feelings about the court's decision and what her plans are for the next three months until her next court date.

Latina Lista knows that among Benita's immediate plans is a trip to Washington DC next week to participate in a national graduation ceremony and advocacy event on Tuesday, June 23 held by the United We DREAM coalition.

The main graduation event will be in Washington D.C., with solidarity events taking place across the country providing support to a group of young people who are eager to work for this country by putting their college degrees to use.

Looking back over the past five months of my life, I stop and wonder, "Is this really true? Am I about to wake up at any moment?"

The reality of my circumstance sometimes seems so vague and unfamiliar. I can almost close my eyes and pretend like everything is still the same. I'm still the happy-go-lucky 23-year-old who dreamt of going to law school and getting married someday. I'm still the over-committed young woman with four odd jobs and three volunteer positions.

It takes only the smallest reminder for me to realize that things are not, and will never again, be the same. The nightmare I think I am dreaming is actually the reality in which I'm living.

I see a police car on the street and my eyes begin to water, remembering that flashing lights were the last thing I saw before the experience that has so dramatically altered the course of my life. I walk into a Subway restaurant and the smell of the soup nauseates me, conjuring up images of the last meal I purchased before being arrested.

In the first two months after my arrest, I spent much time wondering what to do about my situation. "Get married!" some suggested. Others were more realistic in their advice, "Start looking for a job in Mexico. Let me give you the number to my aunt's cousin's friend who lives in Saltillo..." But the one piece of advice that most impacted me came from my attorney, "Go to the media".

The media? Why? Why on Earth would anyone willingly expose themselves publicly at the most vulnerable, most humiliating moment of their life?

As she began to remind me about the DREAM Act, and about how helpful it would be to have faces to represent what it stood for, I made excuses in my mind. "I'm not the most qualified. I am not the prettiest. I have been out of school for three years". I did not even want my neighbors to know what had happened, let alone the entire world.

I was already very familiar with the DREAM Act, on paper. I could quote, by heart, its stipulations and its legislative history. I could tell you about the 65,000 undocumented students who graduate from high school every year.

I could talk about the sociological, legislative and budgetary impact of the DREAM Act on the United States. But what I could do now was not only talk about the facts behind the DREAM Act, or say that there were so many young people in America who desperately needed it to pass to be able to achieve their dreams but I could now talk about my own dream.

I could now tell you about how I spent years waiting tables, or tutoring, or making breakfast at 5 a.m. for a small Mexican restaurant, while my college degree sat in a drawer next to my bed.

I could tell you about how I dreamt of going to law school, becoming an attorney, advocating for civil rights, helping bring peace to the world...

It was with this frame of mind that I sat in front of my computer and began to write my story. Tears rolled down my cheeks, slowly at first, building up into a sob that turned into a fervent cry that made me realize, for the first time, that my life would never be the same.

It was this image that came to my mind when I stepped out of the elevator last week at the immigration court to find myself surrounded by reporters and cameras. After appearing before the judge, I was granted a continuance on my case for three months.

Three more months at home. Three more months to fight for the DREAM Act.

I have made up my mind that three months from now, when I return to court, I want to be able to say that I have done everything possible to help the DREAM Act pass. I am going to tell everyone I meet to call his or her Senators and Representatives and ask them to please support the DREAM Act. I am going to be as involved as I possibly can be in helping to push forward, not just for me, but for so many other young people across the nation.

The DREAM Act is my only hope of being allowed to remain in the country. If it does not pass, the only thing I can do is ask for another continuance and hope to be granted more time. My future is still uncertain.

But I do know that as long as I possibly can, I'm going to hope and believe that America is still the land of opportunity. America, my home, the nation I love, is still the place where DREAMs come true.

Unfortunately for me, as much as I love my home, it has always been a "golden cage". My whole life I've been trapped. At the end of this ordeal, I will be free.

The door to the cage will be open. I am going to fly.

In the United States, there are pockets of the country where this basic human right is being deprived because of the government's immigration policies. Immigrants from all over the world, not just Mexico and Latin America, are being held indefinitely in detention centers until their cases are heard.

They have little, if any, contact with the outside world.

Yet, among this group of immigrants being detained behind bars is one group that should not be there -- children.

One of the most notorious detention facilities, where the nation was first alerted to the fact that mothers with their young children were living under penal-type conditions, is the T. Don Hutto Family Residential Facility.

Since it was first discovered as detaining children within their walls, the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division, which oversees the facility, went into overdrive to address the many concerns that groups and international human rights representatives expressed when they saw the facility and the families incarcerated there.

Though it has come a long way in correcting many shortcomings, there's no good way to imprison children for any length of time.

So, this Father's Day weekend Amnesty Internatioinal, National LULAC and over 50 groups of concerned citizens will hold a two-day event culminating in a caravan from Austin to Taylor, Texas, home of the T. Don Hutto facility, to draw attention to the fact that no civilized country should be in the business of family detention.

Unlike past protests, there's a particular urgency to this weekend's march. In August, the lawsuit settlement that forced ICE to improve conditions at the facility for the families expires.

Advocates have strong reason to believe that ICE will revert to their former standards of detaining these families which included having them wear prison-style uniforms, limited outside recess for the children and separation tactics to intimidate the children to behave.

The idea behind these facilities was to stop the capture-and-release practice alleging that immigrants were not showing up for their immigration hearings. Yet, a study by the Vera Institute found that more than 90 percent of immigrants on a supervised release program attended their immigration hearings. The average cost of a supervision program is $12 a day compared to reportedly over $200 a day to detain a person at Hutto.

But demanding the end of family detention is only one element of this weekend's demands by supporters of the detained immigrant families. Another demand is that President Obama ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The United States shares the dubious honor of being one of only two countries that has not ratified the international document recognizing "a universally agreed set of non-negotiable standards and obligations, that provides protection and support for the rights of children, recognizing that people under 18 years of age often need special care and protection that adults do not."

Proclamation issued by Austin Mayor Will Wynn.

The only other country that shares our disregard for the document? Somalia.

In an extraordinary show of support of Saturday's march, the Mayor of Austin, Will Wynn, issued a special proclamation today that said in part:

We join in harmony with voices worldwide in support of reasonable and humane immigration policies, especially those that provide just and viable alternatives to institutional detention of children and families as they await resolution of their immigrant status;

Jay Johnson-Castro, one of the event organizers, emailed:

This is not just about the children imprisoned in Hutto. This is about treating immigrant families with kindness and dignity all across our land. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of children that are imprisoned around our country. This is about them too.

Our objective is to reach our lawmakers all the way to Congress and the Obama administration, including Napolitano. There is no reason that we cannot. Freeing innocent children from "for profit" prisons should be considered the kind of "Change that we can hope for and believe in". If Obama is serious about the immigration issue...he should start with Hutto! It should not take a comprehensive immigration reform act to free children from the grips of corporate and inhumane greed.

... Hutto started three years ago under Bush and Chertoff. Six months into 2009...children are still imprisoned under the Obama and Napolitano leadership.

The weekend's event begins Friday night (June 19) in Austin with a concert fundraiser. On Saturday, the vigil protesters will meet outside the gates of the Hutto facility beginning at 2 p.m. for a two-hour program and rally that will include speakers, music and a petition drive.

Organizers of the event are pleased to know that a flyer outlining the weekend activities has made it all the way into the hands of President Obama.

The bigger wish now is that he takes the flyer's message to heart rather than rolls it up to swat flies.

(For complete information on Friday's concert and Saturday's vigil, click here.)

To add our two cents, it boils down to personal preference.

Yet, there is a far more interesting trend arising among Latinos (personal preference) which is only accelerating a debate beginning to form in communities as more and more Latinos enter public office -- Is it right for Latino candidates to appeal to Hispanic voters using their ethnicity?

The question has never really been a big problem in the past since there were so few Latinos running for political office. Those who did run were pretty much in sync with their local communities. In other words, they shared the same political beliefs and cultures.

And for the most part, those local communities were largely homogenous -- Cuban Americans in South Florida, Puerto Ricans in New York, Mexican Americans in the Southwest, west coast, etc.

Yet, because of assimilation and Hispanic population growth, Latino groups are really starting to integrate in numbers never before seen.

According to Pew Hispanic, from 2000-2007 in Camden County, North Carolina, there was a 241 percent growth rate in the Hispanic population.

In Palm Beach County, Florida, there was a 56 percent growth rate in the local Latino population and in Broward County, Florida a 52 percent growth rate.

It is more obvious in Florida, than in other parts of the country, of the integration of different Latino groups that is evolving on a national scale. It's reported that the Cubans' share of the Hispanic electorate has shrunk from 75 percent in 2000 to 58 percent in 2008.

What does this mean?

It means that not all these Latino subgroups share the same political beliefs or even the same party and electing a Latino candidate, from an integrated area, to public office doesn't mean that person will necessarily represent the political beliefs of all the Latinos in her/his region.

Marco Rubio

For example, in Miami, former Florida State Representative Marco Rubio is running for the 2010 State Senate. Rubio who is Cuban American and fully bilingual would appear to represent the voice of Latino constituents. He may but certainly not all of them.

Rubio supports making English the official language of the United States -- while he campaigns in Spanish. Of course, it's hypocritical of Rubio to do so but he knows to reach voters who most identify with him that he has to speak the language they most like to use, which in that part of Florida is Spanish.

Rubio has been accused by critics of hoping "to appeal to Florida's Hispanic voters simply because he is Hispanic" and it would appear that way. Otherwise, why not campaign in English and English only if he feels English should be the official language of the country?

Rubio's underscores an accusation long hurled at the Latino community -- that we tend to vote for candidates on the roster based less on qualifications and more on whether or not they share our culture.

With so many Latino subgroups integrated into the same communities and more Latinos running for political office, that accusation will be increasingly harder to make because as time goes on there will be more of a choice among Latino candidates which will necessitate the need to look beyond ethnicity and actually determine what kind of Latino/a he/she is.

U.S. Supreme Court

If there is one silver lining to this black cloud it's that the Obama administration doesn't appear to share the same gusto in disregarding people's feelings about the fence and the local environment and personal properties.

Though there are many in Congress who still equate the border fence with securing the United States, that logic is more equitable to weapons of mass destruction being in Iraq than having to do with the reality of the border situation.

According to news accounts, the Border Patrol is reporting its third year of declining numbers of apprehensions of undocumented immigrants at the border and because of an increase in customs inspections record seizures of guns and cash heading south have been confiscated to prevent the real threat to this country -- drug cartels -- from gaining anymore power than what they already have.

Yet, it would have been nice to have the highest court in the land deal with the issue of just how much power any one administration can have when it comes to waiving federal laws (36 in this case) to expedite a political agenda.

It seems the question was too hard for our current roster of justices.

But that's not what happened.

According to the news site The Hill, the justices met several times to discuss this case.

The justices themselves took a considerable amount of time in mulling the case. The subject was brought up in conference eight times, most recently last Thursday, before justices voted not to accept the case.

Strange but it's the second time that the justices have declined to hear challenges to the border fence. In fact, when it comes to anything remotely touching on immigration reform or border security, the justices are not implementing the kind of interpretation to the laws that they should -- and what the people need to hear.

While the justices decided that ruling on the border fence was not worthy of their time, they saw no problem with accepting a case regarding "examining the constitutional limits on states when it comes to restoring storm-eroded beaches."

Obviously, deciding just how much responsibility rests with a party in restoring beaches eroded by Mother Nature versus reinstating federal laws eroded by government action is an easier case to solve and much less politically radioactive.

The Court's inaction can be interpreted as evading any kind of issue dealing, however remotely, with immigration reform and/or not being able to come to a consensus of just how much power any one administration can have when it comes to disregarding state and local laws and people's property rights to push through political policy.

I would say this court needs a wise Latina judge who is not afraid to make a decision that impacts people's lives and explains how government bully tactics are for the good of the people.