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.

The differences among us certainly come out in politics -- some are Republican, while others are Democrat and in our viewpoints as to how sensitive we are when it comes to what people say about Hispanic immigrants.

That point was made very clear to me when a longtime friend posted on my Facebook page that instead of trying to orchestrate a national campaign to convince CNN to get rid of Dobbs we should be defending his right to "political speech."

As someone who is a firm believer in free speech and that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I respect both my friend and Lou Dobbs that they each have and express their own opinion.

Yet, I can't support someone who uses his national platform of influence to distort facts and create a false impression of a group of people who can't defend themselves.

Because undocumented immigrants can't speak for themselves openly, it's up to advocates and others who recognize that Dobbs, a commentator who has become drunk with his own power of influence, needs to be challenged -- not for expressing his opinion but utilizing his CNN show as a vehicle to spread that opinion as fact, when as even the CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl told Dobbs, even they couldn't confirm some of the allegations he had made regarding undocumented immigrants.

Now that there is news that Dobbs' house in rural New Jersey was shot at, though the bullet didn't penetrate the siding of the house and local law enforcement says it is more than likely a result of hunters due to the hunting season starting, Dobbs' rampage against everyone trying to force him off the air is bound to get uglier.

In the process, it's the undocumented immigrants who will get caught in the middle yet again.

I wonder just how far will Lou Dobbs' free speech have to go before those resisting to censor him will recognize that free speech is just as lethal a weapon if not used responsibly.

Historically, in this country, Hispanic media has been used to refer to Spanish-language media. Yet, with the rise of news sites, like Latina Lista, that target English-speaking Latinos and the growing presence of bilingual and/or English-language cable programs featuring Latinos -- think George Lopez -- the proverbial face of Hispanic media is changing.

So, when Sen. Reid decided to draft a resolution honoring Hispanic media, who would have thought it would have triggered a silent boycott among his GOP peers?

Yet, that's exactly what appears to have happened and if so, then the depth of antagonism that the Republican party feels towards Latinos is unprecedented in this nation's history.

As a matter of protocol, Sen. Reid's office contacted three GOP Senators to see if one of them would co-sponsor the resolution. According to a source in Sen. Reid's office, while at least one Republican Senator's office agreed it was a good resolution and said they would do something; they did nothing.

According to the source, when Sen. Reid's staff saw they were not getting any cooperation from any of the three GOPers they had approached, they sent the resolution to the Republican Cloakroom where there is a hotline system set up and calls are issued to the senators of that respective party telling their offices of the resolution and the need for a co-sponsor.

Well, calls from the Republican Cloakroom's hotline went out to every Republican Senator's office but didn't seem to get very far. Sen. Reid's office never heard back from any Republican Senator. So, without a Republican co-sponsor, the resolution was brought to the floor and passed on Tuesday night, Oct. 27.

The source said that Sen. Reid had wanted the resolution passed on Friday, Oct. 23, so that a full week could have been observed but because of the delaying tactics it wasn't adopted until three days into the week.

Hearing this story, and coming from Texas, where Hispanic media rivals mainstream media, I couldn't believe this was quite true. So, I called the offices of both senators from Texas -- John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison.

At the time, I didn't know that the job of finding a Republican co-sponsor had been turned over to the Republican Cloakroom hotline. So, I posed the same question to the press contacts of each senator: Was the Senator approached by Sen. Reid's office to co-sponsor the Hispanic Media resolution and if so, why didn't he/she do it? And if they were not approached, would they have co-sponsored it?

The press contacts at both offices were very nice and answered my questions.

The response from Sen. Cornyn's office was:

Sen. Reid never reached out to Sen. Cornyn regarding this resolution. This is not out of the norm, either. Sen. Reid has made little or no effort to work with Sen. Cornyn on any of the pressing issues before Congress - most notably health care reform. Sen. Cornyn has high regard for the members of the Hispanic media and frequently does interviews with outlets such as Univision and Telemundo, as well as Hispanic newspapers in Texas. He and his staff regularly issue releases and columns in both Spanish and English to Hispanic media outlets, and we enjoy a positive and productive working relationship with the Hispanic media.

Sen. Hutchison's office responded:

I checked around my office, and we were not approached about Reid's resolution. However, I would point you to a resolution of which Sen. Hutchison was recently a cosponsor along with Sen. Menendez. It was in recognition of Sept. 15 to Oct. 15 being Hispanic Heritage Month.

In response to what both Senators' offices told me, I asked Sen. Reid's office about it. The answer from a Senate Leadership aide was:

Every Republican office was contacted through the standard procedures for resolutions of this type. No one was left out. And there was plenty of time for every office to respond."

So, I went back to the office of Sen. Cornyn. The press contact wrote me in no uncertain terms:

None of our staff was contacted by Sen. Reid's office regarding this resolution.

Yet, if the hotline was the one doing the calling then technically, no, Sen. Reid's office didn't contact Sen. Cornyn's office and I will give the benefit of the doubt that perhaps the press office was out of the loop when the call came in from the Republican Cloakroom hotline -- for both offices.

The only way to see for sure if the calls went out is to call the Republican Cloakroom and either ask or do a Freedom of Information request to see if the calls went out and when and to whom.

But at this late hour of the day, I have to look at the facts which lead me to believe that the last thing Republican Senators wanted to do was co-sponsor a resolution honoring Hispanic media which they perceive as being hostile towards them.

I base this assumption not only on the fact that not one Republican Senator voluntarily took the initiative to sign on to a resolution that was known to be looking for a co-sponsor, via the Republican Cloakroom hotline, but because of the avoidance of the second part of my question: Would they have co-sponsored the resolution?

Silence speaks volumes.

While not a lot of the statistics cited in the report were new -- Latino students still lag behind their peers when it comes to high school graduation rates, college completion, high Latina teenage birth rates, etc. -- there was one small difference.

It was found that Latina students outperformed the boys when it came to graduating from high school and entering college. Why is that?

I attempted to offer my reasons in an op-ed which was published in USAT last week. Unfortunately, not the whole column, due to length, was printed. This subject is such an important issue, not only facing the Latino community, but the entire country, that I thought I would share the column in its entirety.

For several years, reports on the educational progress of Hispanics have been loaded with frightening statistics outlining the pathetic educational future of Hispanic students, especially girls. Last month, the National Women's Law Center released the latest report, which recycles the sad news of the past: 41% of Latina students don't graduate from high school, and many still internalize negative stereotypes that harm their career paths.

To be fair, these reports have not fallen on deaf ears. Early on, Latinas from all professional walks of life answered the call to change those outcomes. And their efforts are beginning to pay off.

But their progress raises another question: Has too much emphasis been placed on helping young girls to the detriment of the boys?

The report found that 44% of Latinas with a high school diploma went on to enroll in college vs. 34% of the boys with diplomas. The report also cites a decline in teenage pregnancy among Latinas. Compared to 1970 when 35% of Latinas, ages 16-25, were mothers, the numbers have decreased to 21% reported in 2007. Researchers found that of those young Latinas who were not mothers, almost 60% were enrolled in college or school in 2007.

These modest milestones may be attributed to a number of programs specifically created to help young Latinas boost their self-esteem, steer clear of early sex and stay in school.

In California, Hispanas Organized for Political Equality (HOPE) created in 2004 the Youth Leadership through Literacy Program that annually targets 300 low-income high school-age Latinas with college readiness skills, along with, financial empowerment activities.

Ninety-eight percent of the program's participants have graduated from high school with 80% enrolling in college.

For the last nine years, Washington D.C.-based National Hispana Leadership Institute (NHLI) has operated the Latinas Learning to Lead program.

Bringing to Washington 22 college-age girls from across the country, the Institute provides activities to foster leadership development and encourage the girls to stay in college to receive their degrees.

An impact study commissioned by NHLI revealed that since 2001 the program has graduated 198 young Latinas. As of 2007, 57% were expected to receive a graduate degree. On top of that, of the Latinas involved in the program two-thirds (66%) have returned to their home communities and have mentored two or more Latinas.

Since 2002, Austin, Texas-based Latinitas has focused on empowering young girls from 4th-grade through high school to become successful adults by involving them in after-school programs, workshops and media camps. They created the first digital magazine for and by U.S. Latina youth. The organization also hosts bilingual girl empowerment programs throughout Texas.

Latinitas serves over 3,500 girls annually through their clubs and workshops through their headquarters in Austin and El Paso. Though they haven't been able to keep track of all their girls, Latinitas has an alumni group, of which, several are currently in college or are college graduates.

In Idaho, the Mujeres Unidas women's group oversees the 12-year-old Stay in School Quinceañera Program.

The three-month program is unique in that it is one of the few programs in the country that targets both 14-year-old girls -- and boys.

Using the lure of teaching the students the waltz, the traditional dance at Latina coming-of-age parties, the program incorporates Saturday workshops where the importance of staying in school is stressed.

So far, the program has serviced over 200 students and touts an 80-90% high school graduation rate among its participants, with 50% going on to college.

Unfortunately, the Stay in School Quinceañera Program is one of only a handful of programs widely known to target young Latinos.

Aside from the Boy Scouts, which recently started a Hispanic outreach campaign, the Latino Outreach Initiative of Boys & Girls Clubs of America and private initiatives by local churches or men's groups, the same abundance of programs to keep boys in school are not known to exist.

Dr. Luis Ponjuan, assistant professor in the College of Education at the University of Florida, Gainesville, FL is the co-author of the January 2009 study the "Vanishing Latino Male in Higher Education." He said that the emphasis on Latinas stems from seeing Latina success as a gender issue where the historical perspective is that Latinas have been neglected.

As a result, Dr. Ponjuan and his co-author, Dr. Victor Saenz, assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin's College of Education found that folks doing programs are not placing the attention on Latino males and for that reason boys are less targeted. It has reached a point said Dr. Ponjuan where there exists a "silent crisis" among young Latinos.

"In our research, we saw a lack of attention to Latino males. We found there was not a unified voice to understanding the plight of Latino males who have less participation rates in higher education than Latinas, blacks, Asians or whites," said Dr. Ponjuan.

Until the same aggressiveness to create programs to help Latino youth are applied, as with Latinas, educational disparities between the two groups will continue to grow as will the rate of lost potential among young Latinos.

(Editor's Note: Dr. Ponjuan tells Latina Lista that since the release of his report, the "Vanishing Latino Male in Higher Education," he and Dr. Saenz have been working to elevate awareness of the "silent crisis." So far, the College Board has conducted forums on the topic and plans to release a report in January 2010.

Come to find out there are about 20 overzealous officers -- and they're not new recruits.

It's been discovered that since 2007, officers from five different patrol divisions, have issued tickets to 38 Latino drivers for not speaking English.

The thing is, the woman whom the rookie targeted, could speak limited English. I would bet that the other people stopped could also speak limited English but combine a lack of proficiency with nervousness for being stopped by the police -- and we're not talking undocumented here -- then anyone with limited proficiency would forget everything they knew in their new language.

In essence, these officers took it upon themselves to be the "Language Police." The Dallas Police Dept. is dismissing all the tickets, reimbursing those people who have paid the $204 fine and investigating the officers who issued the tickets and those who signed off on them.

Yet, a much more troubling question remains -- What exists within the Dallas Police dept. that a rookie and veterans would think that ticketing Spanish-speaking drivers is not just legal, but an accepted practice?

It was members of the Dallas Police in 2002 who framed and scapegoated innocent Latinos in what has become known as the "Sheetrock Scandal."

In that instance, 18 bogus cases were created by Dallas Police Drug and Narcotics officers against all Hispanic defendants, claiming that the Latinos were involved in the distribution of cocaine. It wasn't cocaine - it was ground up sheetrock packaged to look like cocaine.

Several Latinos wrongfully accused of being cocaine distributors spent months in jail, lost their jobs and businesses, and some, even their families.

Why?

Because some Dallas Police officers didn't just think Latinos were easy prey, but that they were there to be abused and terrorized at their whim.

One would have thought the lessons learned in 2002 would have stuck with this dept. but some officers seem more intent enforcing their own brand of justice against Latinos, whether or not it's legal.

Somehow, it gives new meaning to the so-called "silent code of brotherhood" we always hear about among the ranks of the police.

There is still discussion as what to do to the officers and those who signed off on the tickets -- suspend them? Fire them? Make them attend sensitivity training?

Unfortunately, none of that will do any good until there is a thorough and honest investigation -- not into who is writing the tickets -- but why there exists the mentality that it's ok to do it and nobody says anything to the contrary when they find out.

This problem is much deeper than just writing tickets. Because there was only a few officers, compared to the overall number in the force, who committed this act, it makes for a curious case as to why these particular individuals did it?

Hard questions must be asked.

Do they have an aversion to Latinos? Do they feel superior to Latinos that they don't feel they should be held accountable for mistreatment? Are they racist?

Whatever the source of the problem, it must be discovered, discussed and eradicated -- before the reason for issuing such a ticket manifests itself into another form of targeting Latinos.

Cited for not speaking English

Well, too many families, especially Latinos, are finding they have no choice but to use their credit cards to survive these uneasy times. Unfortunately, usage is rising, along with debt.

From 2005 to 2008, Latino households went from having the lowest rate ($7,091) of credit card debt by race/ethnicity to having the highest rate ($10,002), an increase of 41 percent.

In addition, Latino borrowers have been targeted for costlier credit cards with high fees and interest rates, increasing their probability of accruing additional debt from late fees and penalty interest rate hikes.

When debt increases, it makes it more difficult to pay those bills on time. A National Foundation for Credit Counseling/MSN Money study found that 32 percent of Latinos reported credit scores below 700, "which often translates to less favorable loan terms on major purchases from automobiles to homes."

It doesn't help that credit card companies are suddenly targeting users and upping the interest rates to unbelievable levels. Just recently, I received a statement notice, from a credit card company that I've done business with for over 15 years and with whom I've had a 22% interest rate, now inform me that my interest rate will be 29% come the first of the year.

My decision - to pay off the account and use that card for extremely small purchases. Yet for low-income families, just trying to keep up with the accrued interest on those monthly bills is going to be tough.

Just like the country blamed the subprime mortgage fiasco on the backs of minority and low-income consumers, this trend of raising interest rates on those who can least afford it has the potential to be just as damaging for our economy and communities of color.

It seems Sen. Dodd and his colleagues have noticed "some credit card issuers have jacked up fees to try to maximize their revenues before new rules kick in."

This is Wall Street greed that isn't just hitting Main Street U.S.A. but right into the heart of households everywhere. Because of what the credit card companies are doing, Congress is shedding their glacial practice of passing legislation and reacting:

Dodd's bill arrived just days before an expected vote by the House of Representatives, possibly on Thursday, on a bill to advance by almost three months to Dec. 1 the effective date for strict new rules on credit card fees and interest rates.

The new rules can't go into effect soon enough. It's bad enough to have to make ends meet on less money but to have to pay increased fees and interest for nothing more than having the card, is nothing short of abuse of power and trust between that company and its consumers.

When it comes to donating blood, the Latino community has a poor track record. In 2008, it was estimated that less than 4 percent of Latinos donate their blood. That fact is never appreciated until someone in the Latino community needs it.

While we think that anyone's blood will do, there are certain elements in the blood unique to Latinos that makes it imperative that more Latinos hold out their arms.

As a result, he was diagnosed with a blood disorder called Hereditary Spherocytosis.

The doctor said that my son inherited this disorder from one of his parents. My husband and I were both tested, and my husband was diagnosed as the carrier.

I went straight to my in-laws and questioned them about this. I found out that this was a very silent illness in the family that was in my father-in-law's genetics. Somehow this blood disorder didn't affect my husband as severely as it did my son.

Ten days later, Julius was born with Hereditary Spherocytosis as well. He stayed in the hospital for several days and received the Phototherapy Light treatment to keep his jaundice down.

What is Hereditary Spherocytosis?

I was on a mission to get as much information about this disease, but couldn't find much about it at the time. In laymen's terms, and based on my personal research, the red blood cells are sphere-looking instead of round, and when they flow through the spleen, and are destroyed.

This causes the person to have severe anemia (lack of oxygen) and feel exhausted at all times. Any minor cold, flu symptoms or infection will trigger the blood count to drop and therefore require an immediate blood transfusion.

This fatal blood disorder affects about 5% of the population and affects the liver, spleen, gall bladder and kidneys. There is no home blood kit that could determine the state of Hereditary Spherocytosis like diabetes. The individual must see a hematalogist monthly to be tested.

I'm happy to report that Vito is now 10-years-old, loves basketball, enjoys drawing and is writing his third book. He also plays piano and guitar.

Julius is 8-years-old, has an interest in politics, would like to be the first Latino President of the United States and loves to read books. His future goal is to visit the White House -- and perhaps live in it one day.

I didn't mention Nico Giovanni earlier, but he is my 5-year-old son who also has Hereditary Spherocytosis and received a blood transfusion three weeks ago. He loves to sing and play guitars and plans to be a rock star!

To date, my children have received several blood transfusions, a spleenectomy and continue to have a tough time fighting illnesses like colds and asthma. Overall, I do consider myself blessed because there are people out there that have given blood and saved my children's lives several times over.

Please give blood and don't think that you're doing it for nothing. Believe me, I've lived several times through the nightmare of almost losing a child, but someone with a big selfless heart donated their blood to save my children.

For information on giving blood, check out the Red Cross web site.

For some reason, media when dealing with ethnic groups tend to dwell too much on the hard-luck stories in their search for Horatio Alger-type scenarios. The problem is that in these kinds of stories, amid any given situation, there is only one heroine/hero while the rest of the players are the villains.

Media doesn't seem to realize that in their zest to portray the "true" picture, they inadvertently perpetuate negative stereotypes that the whole community is trying to overcome.

Because of this, most people unfamiliar with Latinos think we all just arrived in this country, we don't speak English, don't care about education and what's worse -- that we're all drug dealers or cartel gang members.

While it's pretty easy to prove our proficiency in English or our degree of assimilation, it's nearly impossible to shake the stigma of being labeled a drug dealer.For the uneducated, being Latino is synonymous with drugs.

It's hard to prove innocence because the assumption of guilt has already been so deeply planted in the minds of people.

No one is a fan of drug cartels. We've heard the stories and seen the bodies they leave behind. We know how drug cartels corrupt, intimidate and prey on law-abiding citizens of any country.

So when I heard today's news that 300 arrests were made of people in the U.S. who were thought to be members of the Mexican drug cartel, La Familia Michoacana, I had mixed feelings.

On the one hand, I was thankful that people who condone and commit the level of violence we've seen in Mexico were apprehended before they could do anymore damage here.

On the other hand, I was skeptical that law enforcement hadn't rounded up innocent people, along with, the cartel members.

Don't think it doesn't happen?

Try telling that to the Castaneda brothers sitting in the Shelby County, Alabama jail who are accused by local law enforcement of murdering five men all because they're also accused of having ties with drug cartel members -- and no matter what they say, they can't convince anyone of their innocence.

I agreed to meet the sister at a Denny's two hours away from my home. She arrived with her sister, toddler son and a friend. For more than 3 hours, she told me the story of her brothers.

Her family was originally from San Antonio and moved to Shelby County, Alabama when their mother was undergoing cancer treatment there. Her brothers decided to open up a mechanic shop and life was good until five men were murdered in what has become known as the Cahaba Lake murders.

Before the brothers knew it, they were embroiled in a nightmare and have been publicly declared guilty by the local Shelby County sheriff.

The family is at its wit's end because the lawyers they hired don't tell them too much and one of the jailed brothers is so depressed because no one believes in his innocence he is considered suicidal at this stage.

It would be easy to dismiss this story if Shelby County, and this sheriff, didn't have a history of questionable ethics, as documented by the local newspaper and blogs. Or the fact that a couple of suicides of Latino inmates have occurred at the jail.

It would be easy for me to dismiss this story if the evidence against the men consisted of more than just other people's statements.

It would be easy for me to say this is another Latino family who was seduced by drug money if a 7-month pregnant woman didn't drive over 12 hours just to meet a journalist with a blog in the hopes that she could help her.

It would be easy for me to dismiss this story if two members of the family didn't sit down and write out an excruciatingly detailed timeline of events of what happened on the night of the arrests of their brothers.

It would be easy for me to dismiss this story if I hadn't looked into the eyes of two sisters trying with all their might to find help for their brothers.

I don't know for sure that these guys are innocent. In fact, journalist colleagues of mine, who have done stories on the drug cartels, have cautioned me saying that the depth of involvement can run so deep and the players are just ordinary folks that even their own family members don't know they are involved.

I know this. But I also know that my gut instinct is telling me that something is not right with this story.

And the most nagging feeling I get is that by virtue of being Latino, it is these guys' death sentence.

I'm not a lawyer and have told the family that I can only write about what I discover and they seem to be alright with that. They say they just want the truth to be told because right now their family has no voice -- and they desperately need one.

This is just one of those untold stories of being Latino in America.

For those people, if they watch it, this show could open a lot of eyes and hopefully many minds. The problem is I'm not sure just how heavily marketed the program was with other ethnic groups.

Beyond commercials publicizing it on CNN, I haven't seen anything like the push that happened in the Latino community with the program's host, Soledad O'Brien, making the rounds of events winding up Hispanic Heritage Month and the show itself being given pre-screenings in select cities in front of Latino audiences -- all for a TV special.

While there's no doubt that a show like this can be great for community morale, it seems like "preaching to the choir" if only Latinos tune in. We know most of these stories and we certainly know the heartache that many in the community endure because of a variety of reasons.

If this special is to introduce Latinos to the rest of the country, I hope its ratings are sky-high but if it's a show to only hold a mirror up to the Latino community to see who we are and what we're facing, then CNN is the least qualified entity to do that -- as long as they continue to give a national platform to a man who vilifies Hispanic immigrants.

Because CNN management has neatly ignored the appearance of hyprocrisy in dedicating two nights to the one demographic that is on one of its most popular host's daily hit list, Latino groups organized protest rallies across the country today pointing out to CNN management that they can't have it both ways.

The frustration with Dobbs is not that he is voicing a different opinion than what most of us hold in the Latino community; it's that he's voicing his opinion, hidden within the context of news, on a national platform day-in and day-out on a network that has built its reputation and credibility on delivering unbiased, factual news.

No one, from either the left or right, should be given that powerful a platform, on a national cable network, to say what he wants unchallenged. For radio, it works fine because the listener has only the voice of the commentator. TV is a much more powerful and influential medium.

There have been rumors that FOX News is trying to lure Dobbs over to their new business channel. Yet, even some people over there don't want him.

Thanks to ThinkProgress who caught FOX News' newest anchor, John Stossel's comment about Lou Dobbs on Glenn Beck's show:

... in a radio interview today with fellow Fox colleague Glenn Beck. Stossel indicated that he doesn't support conservatives like Dobbs who rail on immigrants. Beck asked Stossel whether he is willing to "throw his vote away" and not vote for a Republican. Stossel firmly held that if "conservative means stop all immigration and some other things that conservatives say," then he will not vote Republican:

STOSSEL: If it means the Lou Dobbs-kind of rants about immigrants wrecking America, I don't subscribe to that. I think immigrants by and large do good things for America.

BECK: I think immigrants I think we need more immigrants, ones that want to be Americans because those immigrants are the only ones that are reminding us that we better get off our ass, we've got liberty here and we forget about it all the time.

Yes, CNN management should be thanked for allowing Soledad O'Brien to do this special and giving that valuable air time, but they also need to show the Latino community that they learned something from this show and that they understand the problems that face the Latino community -- one of which is on their payroll.

How wrong we were.

In almost every major policy bill up for review and passage, congressmen have forcefully inserted undocumented immigrants into the debate.

From healthcare and the U.S. Census to border security, a.k.a. domestic terrorism, the specific subject of undocumented immigrants rises to the surface as never before.

Whoever cared what your citizenship status was when you filled out the US Census? The assumption was people living in this country chose to be here and had to be counted.

Whoever cared about the citizenship status of someone suffering from so much physical pain that only a doctor could relieve it? Any decent and rationale person feels some level of empathy to want to help that person that the last thing on anyone's mind is if the sufferer is in the country legally or not.

Whoever believed that a wall built along the southern border, or even the northern border for that matter, would make one bit of difference in stemming people's desire to come to this country to work?

Since it's been documented that most immigrants who are here illegally originally came over with a valid visa and overstayed their allotted time, the wall was always a curious imaginary fix to a real problem.

Each of these cases underscores how the issue of undocumented immigrants has been made central players in debates that most Americans don't even care or think twice about -- and finally Washington congressmen are getting the message.

A border wall provision offered by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), included in the Senate bill, was stripped during conference with the House of Representatives.

According to Sierra Club Washington Representative Michael Degnan:

"Today's action marks the first time that a border wall proposal has been defeated in Congress. We congratulate the Congress for rejecting an irresponsible proposal to build more than 300 more miles of unnecessary border walls.

"Our government has already poured billions of dollars into building walls and barriers across 600 miles of the U.S./Mexico border. Although the effectiveness of these walls has never been measured, the negative impacts to communities and wildlife is clear. Border walls have separated families, caused damaging floods and erosion, and fractured habitat and migration corridors vital to wildlife that has been pushed to the brink of extinction.

"We hope that this historic action signals a readiness to permanently move our country's border policy beyond construction of costly and destructive border walls."

The next issue where people hope Congress sees the reality of the situation rather than trying to scapegoat undocumented immigrants is with the U.S. Census.

Louisiana Sen. David Vitter is proposing an amendment that would force the Census to include a question on immigration status. The Census then would exclude undocumented immigrants and legal permanent residents from the count.

Known as the Vitter Amendment, the idea that it's a bad thing to know just how many people live within a country's borders is such an asinine way of thinking that it leads to serious thought of an intelligence test being required of all elected officials before they assume office in Washington.

The argument is that undocumented and permanent residents inflate the numbers in certain states which allows them to have more representation in government. Yet, those numbers also let the federal government know that there is a reason why roads are traveled more often, why there are so many kids in public schools, why there are more businesses opening up, why...the list goes on. Not knowing is not going to make those people go away. If anything, it makes it worse for the country.

To not know how many people live in a given state is like a commander not knowing how many soldiers are in his platoon. Not knowing the exact number of people means less security and less information on how to plan for disaster relief or how much money to award to states to take care of their residents.

The Vitter Amendment is a glaring example of how politicians want to disrupt Washington as best they can. They know that all it takes is shouting "illegal immigrants" in a crowded Congressional hall.

It's time our government recaptured the sensibility that this country used to stand for and start looking at issues from the bigger picture of what is best for this country -- and not from the viewpoint of a select group who hold on to the idea that this is still the 20th Century.

One of the most egregious tactics for detaining and deporting undocumented immigrants is the use by local law enforcement of what is known as the 287(g) program. The 287(g), which empowers local law enforcement to act as federal officers in detaining undocumented immigrants and hold them over for deportation proceedings, has been the subject of much debate since lax oversight by the Department of Homeland Security allowed law enforcement officers, like Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, to abuse the 287(g) program.

As Latina Lista noted in an earlier post, such abuse of the program has led to racial profiling and the intimidation of people who "look" the stereotype of an undocumented immigrant.

It was widely believed, given the Obama administration's prior actions in getting tough with DHS officers who didn't follow protocol in implementing work site raids, that the program would be suspended. However, the opposite has resulted.

Offering stronger oversight measures, the DHS has actually expanded the program. Now, there are 67 state and local law enforcement officers who have partnered with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to find and deport undocumented immigrants.

ICE attributes the removal of approximately 24,000 undocumented immigrants because of the 247(g) program. Because one of the goals of the 287(g) was apprehending those undocumented immigrants who were violent criminals, federal officials credit the program for being successful in that arena.

In fact, because of the 287(g), federal officials say that 48% more criminal aliens have been identified so far this year as was identified in 2008.

That's a huge leap which leads many to believe that the government's definition of a criminal alien may not be totally accurate.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said Thursday that the arrests were focused on the foreign-born, although U.S. citizens were arrested, too...

Nationally, about 1,500 of those arrested were described as "gang members, associates or those otherwise criminally charged."

ICE said 905 of the suspects face criminal charges, including attempted murder, aggravated assault, drug and firearms violations and charges of re-entry into the U.S. after deportation. The other half face administrative immigration offenses, and a third of those arrested are U.S. citizens, ICE officials said of the operation, which included other federal and state agencies.

As one longtime researcher of gangs noted, the federal government has a bad habit of lumping everyone in the same pool and giving them the same label.

"I am no lover of gangs ... but I am also skeptical of a lot of ICE's claims," said Tom Diaz, the author of a book on transnational Latino gangs and a senior policy analyst for the D.C.-based Violence Policy Center.

"The majority of people swept up have been just ordinary, undocumented members," he said. "Given the past track record of just pumping up the numbers, I would really want to examine their numbers closely."

What would the government gain from inflating the numbers -- a couple of things: Justification for their methods and numerical proof that their methods are working.

The 287(g), along with the ICE campaign looking for gang members, run the risk of misidentifying some undocumented as "criminal aliens" or "gang members" when their only crime may be they re-entered the country after being deported.

Considering that a good percentage, and I don't have the exact numbers, of undocumented re-enter illegally to reunite with families, seems disingenuous and downright deceptive of the Department of Homeland Security to label these people all as hardened criminals out to kill Americans.

They don't have to word it like that. It's sufficient that they have planted that assumption in people's minds by calling them criminal aliens and purposely not making the distinction between the true violent criminals and those who just re-entered the country without a passport or visa.

It's a big difference and shows just how insecure the Department of Homeland Security is with Washington's reception of their tactics that programs designed to get the true hard-core criminal immigrants off our streets are still rounding up immigrants whose only crime is that they don't have the proper paperwork to be here.