The confirmation hearing of Isabel Guzman, Small Business Administrator, has begun and is the focus of the first blog of a series focusing on the importance of Latinos in the White House. Representation matters. Read below.

As 2020 came to a close and a new administration entered the White House, our nation witnessed many firsts. Among them was the nomination of Isabel Guzman to lead the Small Business Administration, making her the first Latina — if confirmed — to hold a presidential Cabinet position.

Guzman, director of California’s Office of the Small Business Advocate, served as a deputy chief of staff and senior adviser to the administrator at the SBA during the Obama administration, has run her own small businesses.

As the Biden-Harris administration kicks off their efforts at mitigating and rolling back the COVID-19 pandemic, entrepreneurs, small business owners, their employees, and their communities continue to suffer. The pandemic has also further amplified economic inequities, especially those faced by Latinas.

Guzman should advocate for and represent Latina immigrants who, according to Census data, start businesses at a higher rate than non-Hispanic white women. She will be reflecting the aspirations of more than 11 million women in the U.S. workforce who look like her, speak like her, and come from a culture like hers. And with her confirmation by the Senate, she will help ensure that the Biden-Harris administration not only looks like America, but also includes Latinas.

The work does not stop there, however. Guzman’s appointment and confirmation can serve as a catalyst for America’s Latinas to recognize their potential. Her confirmation will be a stepping stone toward reaching 20 percent Latino representation in the Biden-Harris administration, and it will signal that Latinas are ready to take their seat at the political table.

By: Dr. Herman Gallegos

Dr. Gallegos is a pioneering civil rights activist and was founding executive director of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR)—now UnidosUS—and is a cofounder of Hispanics in Philanthropy.

“When someone with the authority of a teacher, say, describes the world and you are not in it, there is a moment of psychic disequilibrium as if you looked into a mirror and saw nothing.” — Adrienne Rich, “Invisibility in Academe” 1

The COVID-19 pandemic and Black Lives Matter protests have exposed hard truths about the long history of racism and ethnic prejudice in U.S. society, truths that have long been purposely ignored, leaving Blacks and other people of color disproportionately vulnerable to negative consequences for their health, economic security, class, and power. This paper offers a perspective about where Latinos fit in the national conversation on race as the United States confronts anti-Black racism. This paper also queries the role philanthropy plays in hindering or abetting the meaning of equity in American life.

Over a period of six decades, I served as a trustee on such preeminent boards as the Rosenberg Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the San Francisco Foundation, and the California Endowment. I also served as an outside director of several publicly traded corporations. I have researched and coauthored several books about Latinos and foundations and have had the privilege of working with such inspiring and visionary foundation executives as Paul Ylvisaker, Ruth Clouse Chance, John Gardner, and Dr. Robert Ross.

In 1965, Paul Ylvisaker, then national affairs director of the Ford Foundation, opened the door of the foundation to the support of Hispanic causes. This profound initiative enabled Latinos to engage nationally with foundations. Ruth Clouse Chance of the Rosenberg Foundation was among the first supporters of Mexican American programs in California, and by enabling my election as a trustee to Rosenberg, she helped me become one of the first Latinos to serve nationally on a foundation board. Working with John Gardner for Common Cause and Independent Sector gave new meaning to the ideal of citizen activism, public service, and effective leadership. As a founding trustee, serving with the California Endowment’s CEO, Dr. Robert Ross, I was a part of a unique and enduring model showing how during periods of great ferment and complexity, philanthropy can effectively advance multi- racial community progress while working closely with vulnerable populations left behind because of racism and exclusion.

As a trustee and witness to the generosity of American philanthropy nationally and internationally, I have learned and observed with marked interest that foundations have not probed sufficiently inward to examine the weaknesses that mar the quality of philanthropy as a life-giving force aimed at reducing inequality and injustice. While my commentary will focus on the problems rather than the strengths of foundations, I include achievable suggestions for strengthening the sector. It is out of a duty of care and respect for the field of philanthropy that my comments are presented, including data on the status and condition of Latinos as a way to call attention to the human costs caused by systemic racism and discrimination. In this paper, my use of the term Latino is meant to be gender neutral and inclusive of other terms including Latinx, Latino/a, Hispanic, and Mexican American, to name a few.

The two premises of this paper are:

1. With a few notable exceptions, charitable foundations have been largely insulated from the broad-reaching public debate accompanying the spate of recent inquiries about racism in American institutions. In particular, foundations have rarely been examined for their responsiveness to the concerns of Latinos. As I will indicate, grants to Latino-led organizations are scarce, and Latino representation on staffs and boards remains woefully inadequate.

2. While foundations should be among the most flexible and innovative agents for advancing social progress, most foundations, with some exceptions, remain laggards and not leaders in the support of Latino causes. Foundations enjoy broad tax privileges; it follows that foundations must live up to these privileges by working toward the nebulous ideal of the “public interest.”

That the Latino community supports Black Lives Matter is not an issue for debate. Recently, 40 national Latino organizations signed a letter pledging their support for Black Lives Matter and their commitment to further multiracial solidarity with the goal of addressing racism and colorism, including anti-Blackness in the Latino community. I’m proud that two national organizations I cofounded, Hispanics in Philanthropy and UnidosUS, are signatories to the pledge. 2

Strong actions by the Latino community in support of Black Lives Matter are also reflected in a recent Siena College poll, cited in the New York Times, that “found 21% of Hispanic voters said they had participated in Black Lives Matter protests, nearly identical to the 22% of Black voters who said they had done so.” 3

Although racist police violence disproportionately affects Blacks, the recent death in Tucson of a Latino, Carlos Ingram Lopez, as reported in the New York Times, “was a jarring reminder that Latinos as well as African Americans have a troubled history with police, even though Latinos’ struggles do not get the same attention.”4

According to Janet Murguía, President and CEO of UnidosUS, “A 2017 study found that 78% of Latinos believe they face discrimination in this country. Another survey found that 68% of Latinos fear police will use excessive force against them.” 5

In November 2019, the FBI reported that the number of anti-Latino or Hispanic hate crimes rose by more than 21% in 2018.6 Another study showed that hate crimes increased by 17% against Latinos in California. 7 The bloody history of lynchings of Mexican Americans in the Southwest United States from 1848 to 1928 is another tragic but overlooked footnote in the history books about racism in this country — books that have long excluded Latinos.

Increasingly, COVID-19 is ravaging Latino, African American, and Native American communities that are infected and dying at a disproportionately higher rate than Whites. According to the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, “Among cases with known race and ethnicity, 33%were Hispanic, 22% were Black and 1.3% were American Indian or Alaska Native.” 8

A New York Times article reported the following: “While it’s clear Black and Latino people are more likely than white people to be exposed to the virus, many of them have frontline jobs that keep them from working at home, and they rely on public transportation, live in cramped apartments or live in multigenerational homes.” 9

The ability to access safer, affordable housing is affected by poverty, the glaring wealth divide, and racist housing policies that prevent communities of color from enjoying the full benefits of home ownership as a way of acquiring wealth and resources to end intergenerational poverty. Poverty rates of 20.2% for Blacks and 20.3% for Latinos are more than twice as high as that of Whites at 8.7%. 10

The already large wealth disparities (shown below) between White households and households of color continue unconstrained:

• Median net worth of White households: $171,000
• Median net worth of Hispanic households: $20,700
• Median net worth of Black households: $17,000 11

Richard Greene, a USC professor and real estate and urban economist, observed that “if all discrimination ended today, it would take more than 20 decades for families of color to equal the wealth of whites.” The following is an example of why this inequality persists. Fueled by decades of redlining that has been enforced by racially based covenants and exclusionary zoning, California’s climate change regulators, under the pretense of “saving the environment,” are implementing a new version of redlining through unjust interpretations and distortions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970. In a research brief entitled “California, Greenhouse Gas Regulation, and Climate Change,” David Friedman and Jennifer Hernandez, land use and environment attorneys with Holland & Knight LLC, explained the use and abuse of CEQA and its negative impact on housing:

“CEQA allows anyone — even anonymous entities, such as business competitors and labor unions seeking to advance non-environmental objectives — to file lawsuits alleging inadequate environmental evaluation of any type of project requiring any discretionary approval from any state, regional or local agency…The top targets of CEQA lawsuits statewide are housing projects in California communities…The delays and uncertainties caused by CEQA lawsuits against environmentally benign or even beneficial projects typically disqualify projects from receiving construction loans or government funding.

While there have been repeated calls to end the abuse of CEQA lawsuits for non- environmental purposes, CEQA reform faces fierce opposition from entrenched special interests including California’s environmental advocacy groups and some unions such as the Building Trades Council.” 12

The Two Hundred, a multiracial civil rights minority-led advocacy group, supports California’s commitment to be a global leader on climate change, but it believes minority communities should not become collateral damage in the state’s war on climate change. For this reason, The Two Hundred seeks to persuade the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and other state climate leaders to avoid exacerbating California’s housing and poverty crisis and instead to align climate change priorities with civil rights, public health, environmental protection, and consumer protection laws. After CARB’s refusal to negotiate a resolution, The Two Hundred’s advocacy effort has continued, with a civil rights lawsuit against CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan that challenges CARB’s expansion of CEQA to further increase the litigation risks and costs of new housing as well as of electricity and transportation fuels, all of which disparately harm California minorities already burdened by the state’s acute housing and poverty crisis.

Challenging entrenched bureaucracies requires perseverance, especially when well- funded, environmental elitist special interest groups, devoid of meaningful representation of persons of color on their staffs and governing boards, continue to enjoy robust support from charitable foundations. One of their own leaders, the immediate past president of the Sierra Club board of directors and the club’s first Black president, Alan Mair, stated, “White privilege and racism within the broader environmental movement is existent and pervasive.”

A recent announcement by the Sierra Clubs executive director, Michael Brune, notes the naming of the first Latino in its 128-year history to lead its board of directors. 13

Mary Creasman, CEO of the California League of Conservation Voters, in a recent call to action, pointed out that: “The origins of the white-led environmental movement left little room for people of color in leadership positions (as recently as 2014, fully 89% of leadership positions in environmental organizations were held by white folks), which in turn perpetuated institutional racism and created massive blind spots for the environmental movement.” To this I add attorney Jennifer Hernandez’s statement that “Racism must be rooted out, even if camouflaged in green rhetoric and ideology.” 14

The problem behind this inequity lies mainly with the foundations themselves. They frequently operate within a constricted compass, promulgating social programs that favor the status quo and continue funding white-led organizations without raising affirmative action questions regarding gender and composition in the leadership of potential and funded grantees. The result is the exclusion of minorities in foundation-funded environmental groups, think tanks, and other organizations that influence, monitor, frame, speak to, and influence critical policies affecting important aspects of American life.

Bishop Robert McElroy, San Diego Diocese, astutely notes that, “Attacks upon solidarity do not merely place people on the margins of society and Church, they exclude them entirely from meaningful participation.” 15

One measure for increasing foundation responsiveness is the impact that foundations might achieve external to their own organizations through grantmaking guidelines promoting greater diversity and pluralism in actual and potential grantees by instituting an external affirmative action policy. Such a policy would describe the foundations’ expectations that grantee organizations demonstrate diversity within their boards and staffs, and explicitly address civil rights and equity in grant proposals and reports. In such instances, foundations may ask these applicants or grantees to inform the foundation of their efforts, supported, as appropriate, with data on the gender and minority composition of the leadership of the institution.

John Nason, in his book Trustees and the Future of Foundations, made a strong case for greater balance in terms of race, gender, and age in the composition of boards. He argued that “differences in viewpoint, properly presented, considered, and synthesized, can lead to wider choices.” 16 Such diversity, Nason argued, should make foundations more accessible to the general public and less vulnerable to charges of elitism. Without encouraging the increased diversity of boards and staffs of the programs they fund, foundations will continue to be seen as stragglers, not forerunners, in acknowledging and furthering the dignity and worth of all people in American society.

Ever since Nason wrote his far-sighted comments in 1977, a growing number of advocacy nonprofits now exist to challenge the status quo and push foundations towards needed reforms. Here are several examples:

Hispanics in Philanthropy (HIP) is a transnational fundraising and grantmaking organization that seeks to strengthen Latino leadership and voice through a network of more than 600 funders, nonprofits, and community leaders. HIP’s PowerUp Fund is working to balance the scales of economic justice and ensure that Latinos have equal access to opportunity.

For more than 40 years, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), has pushed philanthropy to be more accountable, transparent, and responsive to the needs of communities with the least wealth, opportunity, and power.

In theory, foundations should be among the most flexible and innovative agents in support of positive social change. With some exceptions, foundations remain especially dilatory in support of Latino-led causes. Forty-five years ago, grants in support of Latino causes and Latino-led organizations were few and far between. As the data below indicates, the disparity continues.

In 1975, I directed a study, supported by the National Science Foundation, entitled “U.S. Foundations and Minority Group Interests.” 17 Based on Foundation Center data from 1972 through 1974, the study revealed that Latino-led organizations received 0.8% of all tabulated funds disbursed in 1972–73 by American foundations. During this period, Latinos accounted for 5% of the total population. According to a report commissioned by Hispanics in Philanthropy with CANDID/Foundation Center, philanthropic funding to Latino organizations for 5 years (2013 through 2017), “hovers at 1.3% even though Latinos comprise 18% (58 million) of the U.S. population.” 18

A letter dated November 26, 1975, from Robert Goheen, then chair of the Council on Foundations, informed me that the council’s executive committee spent a full half-day discussing the issues raised at the utilization conference held to discuss my research. Bob outlined a number of commitments, including giving prominent attention to having a speaker on diversity at the council’s next annual conference, to develop articles on issues I raised, and to keep in touch with the Donee Group and other advocates such as Black Foundation Executives. The Goheen letter also clarified the role the Council could play in affecting foundation behavior:

“As you know, our membership encompasses enormous variation, and their lines of connection to us tend to be informal and loose. Thus our powers are those of education, persuasion and exhortation, not fiat or binding authority. Moreover, we must often substitute patience and gentle prodding for moral fervor simply to stay in touch with those we hope to move eventually to higher standards of performance.” 19

I trust Bob Goheen meant well, but after 45 years, other measures of foundation responsiveness remain inadequate and lack “higher standards of performance.” Today, about 2% of private foundation CEOs are of Latino heritage. 20 According to an opinion article in the Chronicle of Philanthropy by Rodney Foxworth and Antony Bugg-Levine, “data shows 76% of full-time staff members and 88% of foundation executives are white.” The authors also commented that “inequality is clearly baked into philanthropic norms.” 21

Unless there is better data to show otherwise, Latino inclusion on philanthropic boards has been slow to improve. A 2015 HIP report on “Latino Leadership: Foundation Boards” cites 2009 foundation data “that Latinos accounted for 4 percent of foundation boards, up from 3 percent in 2000.” 22

It is noteworthy that as early as 1970, The Commission on Foundations and Private Philanthropy (The Peterson Commission), “encouraged diversity within foundation boards to promote varied perspectives and insights when seeking solutions.” 23 Is the problem benign neglect, structural racism, or White privilege? Given these circumstances, it is not surprising that foundations would have a history of ignoring Latino and people of color.

Although larger, well-established Latino groups have gained better access, small and medium-sized organizations engaged in social change struggle to get foundation grants. One reason is access — 72% of foundations do not accept unsolicited proposals from nonprofits. Smaller foundations may attribute such a policy to an absence of staffing; a belief that publicity would bring an unmanageable flood of applications, and perhaps for some, an intrusion into the prerogatives of “private” property.”

According to the Castellano Family Foundation’s research and listening sessions with grantees, “Latinx nonprofits in particular report feeling under-valued by philanthropy, over- taxed by the demand for their services to their communities in need, and largely invisible and irrelevant when it comes to new wealth donors.” 24 Technical assistance for excluded groups is especially important in light of a pervasive feeling that personal contacts are the most important determinants of grantsmanship success.

Pablo Eisenberg, former Executive Director, Center for Community Change, one of the more astute and courageous advocates for making philanthropy more open, more accessible, and accountable, suggests one reason foundations behave the way they do is that with few exceptions, nonprofits, “are afraid to forcefully state their real needs, or to insist on fair treatment by their potential supporters.” 25

The reality is most foundations expect nonprofits to tailor their approaches and activities to inflexible structures and priorities, no matter how irrelevant or inappropriate they be. Anecdotal evidence suggests if too assertive, grant makers may label the nonprofit as “contentious,” or “too militant” to deal with, however, the importance for persons of color of disseminating programmatic and procedural information (access) on foundations cannot be overstated.

One structural alternative that could enhance the philanthropic arena and responsiveness to Latino and other communities of color would be to adopt a system of community ascertainment, much like the former ascertainment process once required by the Federal Communications Commission for broadcast license applicants, in a format requiring applicants “to dig beneath the surfaces of majority opinion and conventional wisdom to discover and deal with needs that might not otherwise be exposed.” 26

A defense of the feasibility of a system of community ascertainment is not included in this paper, but I suggest that former requirements made by federal government upon holders and applicants of broadcast licenses be considered in addition to the present personalized system in which priorities are set by boards on the recommendations of program staff and often on the basis of recondite or nonexistent rationales. The purpose here is not to strain an analogy, but to accommodate portions of the rationale and some of the techniques of ascertainment which seem applicable to foundations.

Most foundations are loath to provide transparency about the types of grants and dollars allocated to minority-led nonprofits. A recent, rare exception was the announcement by Bob Ross, CEO of the California Endowment, committing “to improve tracking reporting and transparency of our funding to communities of color-led and Black-led organizations, with complete public reporting by October 1, 2020.” 27 This indeed is courageous grantmaking and reflects one kind of transformational reform needed by foundations.

As an alternative, here is an example of how legislative power has attempted to deal with this issue. On February 15, 2017, California State Assembly Bill 624 was introduced in the legislature, requiring foundation transparency on data about the diversity of foundation boards and grants to minority-led nonprofits. After intense negotiations between the bill’s author, then member of the California State Assembly, the Honorable Joe Coto, and a coterie of foundation representatives, the proposed legislation was withdrawn when a compromise was reached to allocate a one-time $32 million grant in foundation dollars to minority-led nonprofits.

I do not favor a legislative solution to this problem but urge careful consideration to this cautionary perspective presented by Paul Ylvisaker in 1976:

“Among those of us who feel minority concerns, there is a tendency to threaten philanthropy when it is slow to respond by saying, “Shape up or we’ll sic government on you.” I believe that minority causes are the natural and appropriate agenda of philanthropy and ought to be explicitly so declared. But we’ll have to think twice about using government as a club, because government is run under democratic rules {that} make it basically a friend of the majority; and by definition, that majority would rather ignore those concerns than activate them. Which is not an argument against using government as a prod — but {it should be used} as a caution.” 28

The question remains: how much longer before voluntary action and transformational change is taken by foundations to speed the participation of Latinos and people of color into the lifestream of the community? Without action, the Latino community and communities of color will continue to be left behind and in so doing, will hinder the social, political, and economic regeneration of American society. This is about making meaningful room for intellectual diversity, ending a form of intellectual apartheid, and helping foundations make better decisions to solve society’s ills, and furthering the promise of a multiracial and multiethnic nation based on mutual respect and understanding but one not entirely dominated by White terms. Any consideration by foundations to address this issue of diversity and equity will surely require what Benedictine Sister Joan Chittister entreated in the title of her book, The Time is Now: A Call to Uncommon Courage.

I do not dispute that private philanthropy serves a variety of expressed needs in a commendable and inimitable fashion: The core of my position is that foundations have not sufficiently provided for the needs of the Latino community. The question is one of relevancy and of allocation of resources. In the face of pervasive problems facing Latinos and people of color by the coronavirus, impacts on the economy and racism, what significant contributions are foundations uniquely equipped to offer American society which justify their protected existence, i.e., how do they relate to today’s society? Given current democratic mechanisms to distribute funds in the “public interest,” how are foundations, which have an essentially elitist mechanism for accumulating and distributing tax-protected funds for the “collective good,” made legitimate?

Foundations must look inward and align their priorities to today’s realities and move away from the perception that they are agents of continuity by preferring grants to low-risk, familiar programs that preserve the status quo while giving fewer grants to programs that seek institutional change, challenge accepted mores, and correlate with the needs of disadvantaged groups.

The nation’s ongoing struggle to become a more just and equitable society will surely test philanthropy’s place in handling concerns about racism. Pleas in defense of human rights and democracy in society must apply to the foundations themselves. Support for Latino concerns is long overdue. Maximizing the internal resources and organizational capability of Latino-led organizations and people of color seems very much in keeping with philanthropy’s noble desire to bring about meaningful action and the capacity to act as a powerful catalyst for positive social change in American society. As Latinos, we must ask, when will we finally see ourselves in a mirror of equity and justice?

________________________________________

1 Renato Rosaldo, Culture and Truth: The Remaking of Social Analysis (Beacon Press, 1989 Preface).

2 Somos Latinos and We Demand that Black Lives Matter. Somos for Black Lives. See https://www.somosforblacklives.com

3 Jennifer Medina, “As U.S. Confronts Anti-Black Racism, Latinos Wonder Where They Fit In.” New York Times, July 3, 2020.

4 Simon Romero, Giulia McDonnell, Nieto del Rio, and Nicholas Burroughs-Boglel, “‘Another Video, Another Death’: Tucson Latinos Aren’t Surprised,” New York Times, p. A-1.

5 Janet Murguia, “Latino and Black Americans Are Allies in the Fight for Racial Justice,” Opinion Contributor, The Hill, July 13, 2020.

6 “Victims of Anti-Latino Hate Crimes Soar in U.S.: FBI Report,” Reuters, November 12, 2019.

7 Araceli Cruz, “Hate Crime against Latinos Have Increased in California Since Trump’s Election.” mitú, June 16, 2020.

8 Hollie Silverman. CDC’s Morbitity and Mortality Weekly Report. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/politics/cdc-coronavirus-demographics-report/index.html. CNN August 23, 2020 pp1–2

9 Robert Oppel Jr., Rebecca K.K. Lai, Will Wright, and Mitch Smith, “Racial Disparity in Cases Stretches All Across Board.” New York Times, July 6, 2020, p. A-l.

10 “Aid Prevented Spike in Poverty But 2 Million Face a Crisis If It Expires.” New York Times, June 22, 2020, p. B-4.

11 Lauren Leatherby, “Black Business Owners Are Hit Hard by Virus.” New York Times, June 19, 2020, p. B-4.

12 David Friedman and Jennifer L. Hernandez, California Green Gas Regulation and Climate Change, Center for Demographics & Policy (Chapman University Press, 2018); Jennifer L Hernandez, “California Environmental Quality Act Lawsuits and California’s Housing Crisis,” Hastings Environmental Law Journal Winter (2018).

13 Susanne Rust, Bettina Boxall, and Rosanna Xia, “Sierra Club Calls Out the Racism of Founder John Muir,” Los Angeles Times, July 26, 2020. p. 3.

14 Jennifer L. Hernandez, “Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction CIV-DS 1938432,” December 19, 2020, p. 15.

15 Robert W. McElroy, “Homily for Ordination of Aux. Bishop Bejarano,” The Southern Cross, Diocese of San Diego, July 23, 2020, p.6.

16 John W. Nason, Trustees and the Future of Foundations (New York: 1977), p. 2.

17 U.S. Human Resources Corporation, “U.S. Foundations and Minority Group Interests, A National Science Foundation Study,” Mexican American Cultural Center (1975). p.12

18 Seemah Shah. Foundation Funding for Hispanics/Latinos in the United States and for Latin America. The Foundation Center with Collaboration with Hispanics in Philanthropy. foundationcenter.org/gain knowledge/research/pdf/fc hip2011.pdf or at hiponline.org

19 Goheen, Robert F. Letter to Herman Gallegos. Council on Foundations, Inc. New York, November 26, 1975, pp

20 Castellano Family Foundation, “Blueprint for Change, 2020,” http://castellano-for,org/ blueprint/.

21 Rodney Foxworth and Antony Bugg-Levine, “Opinion,” Chronicle on Philanthropy, June 29, 2020.

22 Seema, Shah and Grace Sato, “Latino Leadership: Foundation Boards.” Foundation Center

and Hispanics inPhilanthropy, New York. Fall 2015.p.ii.

23 , The Commission on Foundations and Private Philanthropy. www.learningtogive.org/ resources/commissions — foundations — and private philanthropy. Grand Haven, MI 2020. p. 3.

24 Castellano, op. cit. p. 7.

25 Pablo Eisenberg, Challenges for Nonprofits and Philanthropy (Tufts University Press: Medford, Massachusetts, 2005), p. 9.

26 “Federal Communications Commission — Community Problems; Ascertainment by Broadcast Applicants,” Federal Register 40, no. 98, part II (May 20, 1975), p. 22101.

27 Dr. Robert Ross, “Grief. Rage. Outrage. Frustration. Hurt,” California Endowment, Yahoo email, June 2020.

28 Ylvisaker, Paul, “the filer Commission in Perspective.” Address before the Council on Foundations, Atlanta, Georgia, May 11, 1976. P.290.

As former Board Chairs of UnidosUS (formerly the National Council of La Raza), we applaud Cecilia Muñoz’ appointment to the Biden transition team. Latinos could not have a more qualified, authentic, and effective voice at the Biden transition table than Cecilia Muñoz.

For two decades Cecilia represented our community with distinction before joining the Obama Administration in 2009. She left UnidosUS with a distinguished record, having led the advocacy that preserved family-based immigration and created Temporary Protected Status for 800,000 Central Americans in 1990, restored billions of dollars’ worth of safety net benefits to millions of legal immigrants after they were eliminated in the 1996 welfare reform, ensured inclusion of Latino and other English Learner children in 2001 education reforms that nearly closed the White-Hispanic high school completion gap by the late 2000s, and helped hundreds of thousands of previously undocumented immigrants achieve lawful status through the “245i” program in the mid-2000s.

Unsurprisingly, her service as Domestic Policy Director in the Obama Administration has led to some controversy about her appointment to the Biden transition team. To be clear, we strongly opposed the Obama record on immigration policy, but some criticism we’ve seen of Cecilia’s selection is ill-informed and incomplete at best and reflects either ignorance or demagoguery at worst. Those who equate her official public statements on behalf of the administration with her internal views (a) weren’t in the room and couldn’t possibly know what she said privately; and (b) don’t know the first thing about how government works in the real world. And to invoke her name in the same sentence as Stephen Miller’s is outrageous. It reflects either willful ignorance of the totality of the Obama Administration’s domestic policy achievements or worse, a deliberate and cynical conflation of the track records of the Obama and Trump Administrations, just to get a clever soundbite. That’s the textbook definition of demagoguery.

Cecilia Muñoz has defended the Latino community for a professional lifetime and we believe that our highest traditions are best preserved by modeling the behavior we ask others to follow. And, in the transition to the next Administration we couldn’t ask for a better model than our longtime friend and colleague Cecilia Muñoz.

___________________________________________________________

Andrea Bazan is Chief Development Officer for the Los Angeles-based After School All Stars

Monica Lozano is former CEO of Los Angeles-based La Opinion

Ramon Murguía is at attorney in private practice in Kansas City, MO

Daniel Ortega is an attorney in private practice in Phoenix, AZ

Jose Villarreal is an attorney in private practice in San Antonio, TX and Washington, DC

All formerly chaired the Board of Directors of the National Council of La Raza (now UnidosUS)

Of all the people who have surrounded Donald Trump since he began his run for president in 2015, the one who has alarmed us the most is unquestionably Stephen Miller. Prior to his stint in the White House, Miller was a long-time staffer and point person on immigration for then Senator Jeff Sessions. In that role, Miller was the driving force behind Sessions, the most anti-immigrant and anti-Latino member of the U.S. Senate, and the primary reason that, in 2014, the best chance in recent history for comprehensive immigration reform was defeated.

Though Miller’s extensive ties with the most extreme anti-immigrant organizations are well-known to us, we always used a qualifier when describing him — saying, for example, that he “was linked to White nationalists” rather than calling him an actual White nationalist. Those days are over. A trove of emails sent to the Southern Poverty Law Center by a former Breitbart reporter unequivocally confirm what we have long suspected: Miller is not just linked to White nationalists and bigots; he is a White nationalist bigot himself.

The emails revolve around Miller’s attempts to get Breitbart to write stories furthering his hateful and bigoted agenda not only on immigrants, but on Latinos and other communities of color. He defends Confederate statues. He disparages refugees, DACA recipients, temporary protected status holders, and Mexican victims of a hurricane. He insisted that Breitbart cover dubious studies linking immigrants to crime (sound familiar?).

The examples are too numerous to mention but several stand out. One, he touts the writings of Jason Richwine, a researcher who was fired by the Heritage Foundation after UnidosUS and other Latino civil rights organizations found out that he conducted “research” claiming that Hispanics have lower IQs than Whites. Two, Miller recommended the notoriously racist French novel, the Camp of the Saints, to the Breitbart reporter despite the fact that even Miller’s allies in the anti-immigrant movement had disavowed the book 30 years ago for its overtly White supremacist content.

And most disturbingly, the emails show that Miller is a fan of President Coolidge’s 1924 Immigration Act, long cited by historians as one of the most egregiously racist federal laws in American history. The law was passed at the behest of the eugenics movement because eugenicists and Coolidge believed that Italians and Jews were not only inferior but could never really assimilate into American society. Chillingly, Adolf Hitler later said that the 1924 law was an “inspiration” to the Nazi party on how to treat foreigners in Germany.

These are the beliefs and opinions of the man who has spearheaded the Trump administration’s immigration policy efforts. Is it any wonder that we got the Muslim ban? The separation of children from their families? The end of DACA and TPS? It is now beyond dispute that the Trump administration’s actions are not based in sound immigration policy, but in hate and cruelty.

And that hate has resulted not only in the demonization and mistreatment of Latinos, but also in violence. I saw that firsthand last week when I visited to El Paso, the site of the largest mass shooting of Latinos in our history, and had the chance to meet with some very courageous and inspiring people who were victims of that senseless tragedy.

I met a woman who was outside the Walmart fundraising for her daughter’s soccer team when the shooting started. She was so consumed with finding her daughter in the chaos that she did not realize she had been shot in her arm and in her ankle until she was reunited with her child. I heard from two Walmart employees who were working what they thought would be a normal Saturday morning shift. And in spite of everything, what they are most eager about is the opportunity to go back to work — at that very same store.

Beyond their courage and resilience, what also struck me about my conversation with them is the emotional toll it has taken. Not only the expected trauma of being part of a mass shooting, but also that they were targeted because they are Latino. One of them said that was obvious because there are dozens of Walmarts in El Paso, but theirs was the one the Latino community relied on. They know that what happened to them was an act of hate and that the rhetoric that helped lead a gunman to travel 12 hours just to attack Latinos is coming from the highest levels of government.

That concern is shared by the overwhelming majority of Hispanics in this country. A Univision poll of Latino registered voters released in September 2019 found that 87 percent believe racism and bigotry against Latinos and immigrants is a major problem, and that 74 percent believe that growing White Supremacy was a factor in the El Paso shooting. Another factor? Sixty-nine percent believe that president’s rhetoric and tweets bears either a lot or some responsibility for what happened.

Words matter, and hateful words have hateful consequences. Last week, the FBI released its latest hate crimes statistics report, which found a rise again in violence against Latinos. According to the report, the number of violent hate crimes against Latinos rose 13 percent in the last year and 48 percent in the last five years — a period that tracks with President Trump’s emergence as a national political figure.

There is an expression in Spanish, “dime con quién andas, y te diré quién eres.” Roughly, “tell me the company you keep and I will tell you who you are.” We have inconvertible proof that Miller is a White nationalist because of his ties and the beliefs unambiguously expressed in these emails. If President Trump and his administration continue to claim that they disavow bigotry, have any interest in starting to combat the rise in hate and bigotry they have unleashed, and don’t want to be tarred with the same White Nationalist brush, they should fire Miller immediately. On the other hand, it will be incredibly telling — and of great concern to communities of color and other Americans — if they do not.

In 2018, family separation entered the American zeitgeist. For most of us, the term immediately conjures mental images of children, crying for their parents at the border, deprived of basic needs. We collectively mourned the children who perished in our care, scared and alone; and we were outraged to learn infants as young as one-year old were being tried in immigration court. And on August 7, 2019, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducted workplace raids across Mississippi, we confronted a dark reality: the heart wrenching separations at our southern border are only the tip of a vast iceberg.

Because in truth, family separation happens everywhere in our country, almost every day. Millions of American families live in constant fear of separation. The related chronic stress and anxiety this causes is endangering the health and development of nearly six million American citizen children and undermining our social fabric. In 2017, more than one in four American children under the age of 18 had at least one immigrant parent. Sixty-seven percent of children in immigrant families in the United States are Hispanic; 95% of Hispanic children are American citizens born in the United States.

Among these vulnerable children in immigrant families are the nearly six million children who are U.S.-born or who are otherwise lawfully present, who live with a loved one (mostly a parent) who is undocumented or has Temporary Protected Status (TPS) or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). These are the children who live in constant fear of family separation. Toxic stress, which can occur in children who experience traumatic events, is common in children in mixed immigration status families. Toxic stress places children at high risk of mental health harms, impairs sleep, and interferes with education outcomes. The American Academy of Pediatrics recently warned the chronic stress of fearing separation from a parent or loved one that immigrant children experience could disrupt their developmental processes and lead to long-term health concerns.

For many immigrant families, the stress and anxiety of separation is being magnified by a new Trump administration rule. On August 12, 2019, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) — the agency responsible for processing immigration visas and naturalizing citizens — announced it will expand ‘public charge,’ making it more difficult for eligible immigrants to renew their visas or obtain green cards if they might access government assistance. Although the rule is not yet in force, it is already harming American families. Confusion about the rule is causing ‘chilling effects’, i.e. eligible residents are avoiding necessary public programs out of fear. These effects are spilling over to citizens, as well; in New York City, Hispanic citizen enrollment in food assistance (SNAP) dropped 6.4% after the public charge rule was announced, despite rising child food insecurity across the United States.

Chilling effects have also been observed in health care. The public charge rule will not apply to health care for children under the age of 21, but Georgetown University found nearly 800,000 children dropped from Medicaid in 2018, following a large rise in enrollments in 2017. Leading pediatricians fear drops in enrollment due to confusion could lead to as many as two million children with serious medical needs going uninsured, possibly resulting in long-term disabilities and premature deaths.

This change comes on the heels on other administrative action directly targeting American children in mixed status homes. In May 2019, for instance, the Housing and Urban Development Agency (HUD) proposed a rule that would force mixed immigration status families out of federally subsidized housing. If enacted, the rule would force thousands of families to choose between separating from a loved one to keep their home, or eviction as a family unit. HUD’s analysis of the rule estimates at least 55,000 American children are at risk of eviction or homelessness under this rule. Roughly 85% of families at risk under this rule are Hispanic. There is a large, historic body of evidence — including HUD-funded research — showing unstable housing in childhood, even briefly, has lifetime negative consequences.

And all this for what?

The Trump administration seems to embrace risking the health and well-being of millions of children to achieve an ever-harsher environment for immigrant families, even as its enforcement efforts have not produced any concrete results; apprehensions may be rising, but more migrants are seeking entry at our southern border than at any time since 2005. Indeed, inside reports describe an administration “singularly obsessed” with limiting all immigration, especially low-income and low-skilled immigration, regardless of the consequences. As noted above, the children impacted by these policies are disproportionately Hispanic.

At best, American children are being harmed as collateral damage under this combination of punitive, anti-immigrant policies. At worst, the suffering is part of the plan — an effort to reshape the face of America and ‘clean’ it of those who might “appear deportable.” While it may not be self-evident to the administration, the truth is that American children and their parents are created equal, with the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as all Americans. As a nation, we face economic and structural costs if we do not reverse these harmful trends.

If we act now, with luck, this period will be contained to a brief, ugly chapter in the history books read by our grandchildren. If we do not act, if we do not protect and uphold the right of every American child to pursue the American Dream, regardless of color, income, or origin, we betray our most sacred values and the wells of our democracy will run dry.

By UnidosUS President and CEO Janet Murguía and National Urban League President and CEO Marc Morial

Having campaigned on a platform based on fear and hatred of undocumented immigrants of color, this administration wasted no time shifting its focus to curbing legal immigration. A proposal to radically change the existing “public charge” policy would punish law-abiding, legal immigrants and restrict family-based immigration, one of the cornerstones of our nation’s immigration system.

UnidosUS on Twitter

Do you understand the proposed changes to the "Public Charge" rule? Learn more, and help us stand for America's working families, including their immigrant and U.S. citizen members. #ProtectFamilies https://t.co/KrsqrGTCIt

Public charge is a decades-old term and policy that forms part of the green card application process and examines an applicant’s means to support themselves over the long term. Yet, Trump’s proposed rule takes the policy well beyond its original purpose in an effort to block the door to the legal immigration system for America’s working families.

The administration’s proposed change would rework the policy unnecessarily, broadening the criteria by which an individual is deemed a “public charge” to include participation in critical programs for which they are both eligible and pay for in taxes, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid. Further, it would tack on new family income barriers that would disproportionately impact green card applicants from working-class backgrounds. What’s tragic is that this proposal will hurt all Americans in the long run, by depriving families of support they need to weather hard times so that they will be to continue contributing in the future.

CLUES on Twitter

The big fear is this will lead to parents not applying for health and nutrition benefits," said Ana Pottratz Acosta. "You could draw a straight line from this policy to children going hungry and not getting necessary medical care." #ProtectFamilies https://t.co/bnqucD0iJ0

Conexión Américas on Twitter

The public can submit comment on the proposed #PublicCharge policy change until Dec 10th, just in time! See you Saturday! https://t.co/LRvO3NtfIL

The administration’s initial efforts to undermine legal immigration were so outrageous that they went nowhere, even in a Congress controlled by the Administration’s party. Having failed legislatively, the administration has attempted a long list of agency regulations, including banning screened asylum seekers, attacking diversity visas, bottlenecking the process for eligible immigrants to become citizens, and attempting to terminate the status of holders of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Central Americans, Haitians, and the Sudanese. Never mind that those with TPS and others represent some of the most vetted immigrants living in our communities or in line to come to our country. The common thread? They are overwhelmingly people of color.

The proposed rule change is another example of Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda, now taking aim not only at legal immigrants who played by the rules but also their U.S. citizen family members. As expected in the dog-whistle politics playbook, this new regulation is accompanied by copious misinformation, led by the false pretense that immigrants pose a burden to American taxpayers despite clear evidence against it.

The thin veneer of “it’s about legality” with which the Administration tried to cloak its immigration agenda has been duly exposed. The false pretense of public charge is yet another point of proof that the problem isn’t documentation, but the color of one’s skin and the size of one’s wallet. The issue of immigration is one of a long list of issues that have been used as proxies to divide America and scapegoat America’s poor and working families, especially those from communities of color.

If the latest election was any indication, far too many politicians have made use of dog-whistle politics to foment anxiety, fear and hate. They’re trying to distract Americans into blaming each other rather than holding policymakers accountable for the impact of their policy decisions.

We are heartened that voters see these tactics for what they truly are. In the American Election Eve poll, released on November 6, 86% of voters in congressional battleground states agreed that politicians are pointing the finger at the poor, immigrants, and communities of color to distract us from policies that result in huge tax cuts only for the wealthiest of Americans, defund our schools, separate families, or threaten seniors with cuts to Medicare and Social Security, and that it was important to vote to stand up for Americans of all backgrounds and against attacks that divide us.

Given this administration’s track record so far, we don’t anticipate that it will ever see the light on scapegoating immigrants or communities of color, if left to its own devices. It may be the season of giving, but when it comes to working-class immigrants of color, Trump is only interested in taking away. Which is why, as civil rights organizations, we are working with our networks, sister organizations, and partners to raise our voices, and urge even more concerned Americans to weigh in during this proposed regulation comment period to ensure that our policies reflect our country’s values. We are uplifted by the thousands of comments pouring in from many organizations, asking the administration to desist from this damaging course. If it cares for the well-being of millions of American families, the administration should listen.

See how you can take action here.

By Janet Murguía, UnidosUS President and CEO

Right before an election, like clockwork, articles start appearing in which some Democrats (and the occasional Republican) loudly lament the apparent apathy of Latino voters.

This year’s crop of stories has arrived right on schedule, epitomized by a recent front-page New York Times’s headline, “As Democrats Court Latinos, Indifference is a Powerful Foe.”

This is literally a headline that could have appeared in the New York Times in any election over the last two decades. Not because Latino voters are actually indifferent but because when faced with the specter of less than overwhelming enthusiasm on the part of Hispanic voters, both parties in this country, for the most part, have always just responded with a gigantic “shrug” emoji.

That shrug is code for “we just don’t get why Latino voters aren’t voting or are not completely onboard with our agenda.” It is an excuse for their often abject neglect of Latino voters in between election cycles. And it is a pre-emptive strike to focus blame on any shortfalls to Latino voters themselves. This is both unfair and untrue.

A NBC-Wall Street Journal poll found that 71% are very interested in the 2018 midterms. Our sister organization, NALEO, estimated recently that one million more Latinos will vote in November than voted in November of 2014.

And our own experience belies this myth about our community — UnidosUS has just surpassed the 80,000 mark in new voters we have registered this year, already higher than our numbers in 2016, a presidential election year and which means that we will have registered nearly 700,000 voters since 2008.

And all of this happening in spite of the fact that a Latino Decisions poll has found that as much as 60% of Latino voters have yet to be contacted during this election.

Like they do with other groups of voters, notably Black women, too many Democrats are simply taking the Latino vote for granted. As we have argued for years, this is not a sustainable strategy, nor is it an accurate one.

And not to let Republicans off the hook, doubling down on their vociferously anti-Latino agenda is also not sustainable and will be a millstone around their party’s prospects far sooner rather than they realize.

We would note that a Pew Research Center survey on Latinos in America released last week shows the damage the president’s and most of the party’s embrace of anti-Latino rhetoric and policies have already taken.

UnidosUS on Twitter

Our families came to this country to give us voice, let's uncover the power of the Latinx vote. https://t.co/YYxhKwboFT

First, Latino voters are not a monolith. A significant portion has and will support Republican candidates. For our community, candidates and issues matter, not party. Second, our ethnicity has nothing to do with whether we vote or not. What does is our youth and our likelihood to have lower incomes, the key characteristics of low-propensity voters.

So, to make Latinos an enthusiastic, engaged voting bloc will take effort and it will take investment. And not only by our political parties. The investment in this community by those who fund nonpartisan voter registration is small and in decline, at a time when our community has experienced exponential growth and nearly a million potential new voters turn 18 every year.

This is not rocket science. As with anything, you get back what you put into it. And what Democrats are getting back for their shrugs are perhaps some shrugs back from our community.

If, on the other hand, you make investments — like UnidosUS and our sister organizations have done — you can get record numbers and record turnout.

Imagine if Latino voters had been treated like groups of voters such as soccer moms, NASCAR dads, the left-behind Trump voters, and others who have gripped the imagination of the political world. There would have been a deep dive into understanding this group of voters and a slew of analysis into their voting behavior. There would have been multi-million dollar voter outreach, voter engagement, and voter education efforts.

So, when Latino voters get a trendy nickname, ironically that’s when we will know that we are being taken more seriously as voters and as Americans.

People all over the country aren’t just outraged. They’re getting engaged. And thousands have already registered to become voters. From Philadelphia to Miami and Texas to Arizona, UnidosUS and our Affiliates are working hard to ensure that these new voters are able to advocate for the issues they care about.

The major political parties do not invest large resources into voter registration or education. That is why the nonpartisan voter registration work of community-based organizations is so important.

At UnidosUS, we recognize the need and have acted. Since 2002, our Latino Empowerment and Advocacy Project (LEAP) has registered more than 100,000 new voters. We provide community-based organizations and our Affiliates with resources and training to strengthen their voter-registration and education efforts. There are currently 20 UnidosUS Affiliates and partners in 12 states that are implementing LEAP.

One of these is Texas Affiliate Su Clínica, which has been a member of LEAP for more than a decade. Since 1971, the nonprofit community health center has been serving thousands of people in the mostly rural, overwhelmingly Hispanic community in the border towns of Harlingen and Brownsville. The organization has certified counselors like Javier Araiza and Julio Santana who conduct nonpartisan voter registration and outreach. They do this in their clinics and as part of the services they offer at events such as community health fairs.

At a time when it may seem like national issues take up all the attention, Julio and Javier have noticed that local concerns and circumstances are making many people in our communities aware that they have to become voters and participate in the process.

(ALMOST) ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL

“I spoke to a lady last week that had never had an interest in voting. But now that her grandkids are in school, she has an issue with teachers carrying guns into campuses,” Julio says.

“She’s diehard against it. I told her that’s a local decision, that if she registers and votes, she would have a part in it. So, she was excited about that,” he adds.

This is just one example of the renewed energy Javier and Julio agree they’ve been seeing leading up to the November midterm elections.

“Registration has increased,” says Julio, who has been doing voter registration work for the past 22 years. “Midterms have always been flat, but right now we’re almost at the point we’d be in a presidential year” in terms of people registered.

“We are seeing an increase, definitely,” he adds.

CONVINCING PEOPLE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE VOTE

Javier has been doing voter registration work at Su Clínica for 11 years. He says they always stress that whatever side people are on, they should be registered to vote.

“If something is very important to you, it’s important that you are registered to vote,” he says. But Javier admits it’s not always easy.

“Some of the rejections [from people] are ‘I don’t vote, I don’t care’ or they don’t believe in politicians,” he says. “But we try to take the opportunity to talk about the issues we’re confronting to show why it’s important to vote one way or the other.”

Both agree that they’ve been seeing younger people than in other years interested in registering to vote. And they’ve found local issues are critical to get people interested in participating.

“We have a lot of issues here. We have a lot of military bases, we have the border wall, we have SpaceX, we have petroleum, we have resources — we’re like our own little nation,” Julio says. “So, a person may not be directly impacted by a national issue, but we always stress that politics begins at the grassroots and at the local level. That’s always a good sell.”

The work of Julio and Javier and the staff of all UnidosUS Affiliates is vital to getting our community registered and out to vote in November. No matter where you stand on the issues, we want you to register and get out and vote on November 6 — and in every election.

Since 2008, UnidosUS has registered more than 600,000 voters and motivated them to take their newfound power to the polls. This year’s Power of 18 campaign engages potential voters via on-the-ground canvassing concentrated in Florida and across the country, and through digital platforms. The campaign engages, educates, and assists eligible voters where they are, shows them the value in voting, helps them register when possible, and helps them advocate for voter registration and engagement in their communities.

Related UnidosUS initiatives such as the High School Democracy Project and LEAP integrate the values of civic engagement into school and community programs to build the next generation of voters.

ELIMINATING BARRIERS TO VOTING TURNOUT

There are some things people can do themselves to make sure they’re prepared to vote. One is to make sure you are registered — Julio and Javier say they helped many people who had previously voted but had not done so in a while to check their status on the voter rolls.

• Use this tool to get voter registration information for your area

There are also policy changes that can be made to help more people turn out at the polls.

“We’d like to see at least the presidential election be a holiday,” Santana says. “That would increase turnout. So, we’d definitely like to see something like that nationwide.”

This turnout is important not just in presidential elections. Every election counts.

“Right now, we’re about three months out. We’re going to start to see more advertising. Here in Cameron County we have on the ballot the Texas governor, our state senator, United States congressman, and county judge,” Julio says. “Those are the big hitters, beside the president, so I’m hoping for a good turnout.”

UnidosUS on Twitter

We are only 60 days away from the midterms! Are you registered to #vote yet? Head over to https://t.co/EDIDSFHze8 to make sure your voice is heard on November 6. When we vote, we win! #PowerOf18

Since the Trump administration attempted to end DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), the program has been repeatedly challenged in court. For example, this past January, a federal judge partially blocked the administration’s effort to sunset the program and allowed the 700,000 young people who had received temporary protection from deportation to renew their DACA status — but did not allow other young immigrants who may have been eligible to apply.

On August 4, a Washington DC District Court Judge ruled that the Trump administration must fully reinstate the DACA program on August 23, which would include accepting new applications. However, a Texas judge — an immigration hawk — is set to hear a case arguing that DACA should be terminated. If he moves to terminate the program, the Trump administration might find itself under two contradictory orders from two different judges at the same time.

Needless to say, there is a lot of uncertainty around DACA right now. However, it is important to note that today, you may still be eligible to renew your DACA if you haven’t already.

It’s more important now than ever to consult with a qualified immigration legal services provider to see what your options are. The organizations in the list below can help you or someone you know get trusted, certified immigration legal services.

ALABAMA

Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama (¡HICA!)

www.hispanicinterest.org

117 Southcrest Drive

Birmingham, AL 35209

(205) 942- 5525

ARIZONA

Campesinos Sin Fronteras

www.campesinossinfronteras.org

725 E Main St # 1B-1C

Somerton, AZ 85350

(928) 627–5995

Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.

www.cplc.org 1112 East Buckeye Road

Phoenix, AZ 85034

(602) 257–0700

Friendly House, Inc.

www.friendlyhouse.org

113 West Sherman Streete

Phoenix, AZ 85003

(602) 257–1870

Promise Arizona

www.promiseaz.org

701 S 1st Street

Phoenix, AZ 85004

(602) 288–3663

CALIFORNIA

Building Skills Partnership

www.buildingskills.org

828 W. Washington Boulevard

Los Angeles, CA 90015

(213) 284–7744

Casa Familiar, Inc.

http://www.casafamiliar.org/

119 W Hall Ave

San Ysidro, CA 92173

(619) 428–1115

Center for Employment Training

https://cetweb.edu/

701 Vine Street

San jose, CA 95110

(408) 534- 5360

Council for the Spanish Speaking, El Concilio

www.elconcilio.org

445 North San Joaquin Street

Stockton, CA 95202

(209) 644–2600

East Bay Spanish Speaking Citizens’ Foundation

www.sscf.org

1470 Fruitvale Avenue

Oakland, CA 94601

510 261–7839

La Maestra Community Health Centers

www.lamaestra.org

4135 Fairmount Avenue

San Diego, CA 92105

(619) 961–0813

TODEC Legal Center, Perri

www.todec.org

234 South D Street

Perris, CA 92570

(951) 943–1955

CONNECTICUT

Center for Latino Progress

www.ctprf.org

95–97 Park Street

Hartford, CT 06106

(860) 247–3227

DELAWARE

La Esperanza, Inc.

www.laesperanza.org

216 N. Race Street

Georgetown, DE 19947

(302) 854–9262

The Latin American Community Center

www.thelatincenter.org

403 N. Van Buren

Wilmington, DE 19805

(302) 655–7338

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Ayuda, Inc.

www.ayuda.com

6925 B Willow Street NW

Washington D.C., 20012

(202) 387–4848

Central American Resource Center (CARECEN)

www.carecendc.org

1460 Columbia Road NW Suite C-1

Washington D.C., 20009

(202) 328–9799

FLORIDA

Coalition of Florida Farmworker Organizations

http://www.coffo.org/

778 West Palm Drive

Florida City, FL 33034

(305) 247–4779

Hispanic Services Council

www.hispanicservicescouncil.org

7825 N. Dale Mabry Highway, Suite 102

Tampa, FL 33614

(813) 936–7700

Hispanic Unity of Florida, Inc.

www.hispanicunity.org

5840 Johnson Street

Hollywood, FL 33021

(954) 964–8884

Redlands Christian Migrant Association

www.rcma.org

402 W. Main Street

Immokalee, FL 34142

1 (800) 282–6540

IDAHO

Community Council of Idaho, Inc.

www.communitycouncilofidaho.org

317 Happy Day Boulevard

Caldwell, ID 83607

(208) 454–1652

ILLINOIS

Association House of Chicago

www.associationhouse.org

1116 North Kedzie Avenue

Chicago, IL 60651

(773) 772–7170

Centro Romero

www.centroromero.org

6216 North Clark Street

Chicago, IL 60660

(773) 508–5300

Erie Neighborhood House

www.eriehouse.org

1701 West Superior Street

Chicago, IL 60622

(312) 563–5800

Instituto del Progreso Latino

www.idpl.org

2520 South Western Avenue

Chicago, IL 60608

(773) 890–0055

Latinos Progresando

www.latinospro.org

3047 West Cermak Road

Chicago, IL 60623

(773) 542–7077

The Resurrection Project

www.resurrectionproject.org

1818 S. Paulina Street

Chicago, IL 60608

(312) 666–1323

KANSAS

SER Corpoation

www.sercorp.com

1020 N Main St D

Wichita, KS 67203

(316) 264–5372

MARYLAND

CASA de Maryland, Inc.

www.wearecasa.org

8151 15th Avenue

Hyattsville, MD 20783

(301) 431–4185

MASSACHUSETTS

East Boston Ecumenical Community Council (EBECC)

www.ebecc.org

50 Meridian Street

East Boston, MA 02128

(617) 567–2750

MICHIGAN

Hispanic American Council

www.hispanicamericancouncil.org

930 Lake St, Suite A

Kalamazoo, MI 49001

(269) 385–6279

Hispanic Center of Western Michigan

www.hispaniccenter.org

1204 Grandville Avenue SW

Grand Rapids, MI 49503

(616)742–0200

MISSOURI

Mattie Rhodes Center

www.mattierhodes.org

1740 Jefferson Street

Kansas City, MO 64108

(816) 471–2536

NEW YORK

La Fuerza Unida, Inc.

www.lfuinc.org

40 Glen Street Suite 1, 2nd Floor

Glen Cove, NY 11542

(516) 759–0788

Make the Road New York

www.maketheroadny.org

301 Grove Street

Brooklyn, NY 11237

(718) 418–7690

NORTH CAROLINA

Latin American Coalition

www.latinamericancoalition.org

4938 Central Avenue, Suite 101

Charlotte, NC 29205

(704) 531–3846

PENNSYLVANIA

Esperanza Immigration Legal Services (Nueva Esperanza)

http://www.esperanza.us/

4261 North 5th Street

Philadelphia 19140

(215) 324–0746

TENNESSEE

Conexión Americas

www.conexionamericas.org

2195 Nolensville Pike

Nashville, TN 37211

(615)269–6900

Latino Memphis, Inc.

www.latinomemphis.org

6041 Mt. Moriah Extended, Suite 16

Memphis, TN 38115

(901) 366–5882

Tennessee Immigrant & Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC)

www.tnimmigrant.org

2195 Nolensville Pike

Nashville, TN 37211

(615) 833–0384

TEXAS

Proyecto Inmigrante Immigration Counseling Services, Inc.

www.proyectoinmigrante.org

6850 Manhattan Boulevard

Fort Worth, TX 76120

(817) 922–0280

UTAH

Comunidades Unidas

www.cuutah.org

1750 W Research Way, Suite 102

West Valley City, UT 84119

(801) 487–4143

VIRGINIA

Ayuda, Inc.

www.ayuda.com

2755 Hartland Road , Suite 100

Falls Church, VA 22043

(703) 444–7009

WASHINGTON

Rural Community Development Resources

http://centerforbusinessdevelopment.org/

24 South 3rd Avenue

Yakima , WA 98909

(509) 456–5133

SEA MAR Community Health Centers

www.seamar.org

1040 South Henderson Street

Seattle, WA 98108

(206) 763–5277

WISCONSIN

Centro Hispano of Dane County

http://www.micentro.org/ ​

810 West Badger Road

Madison, WI 53713

(808) 255–3018

Council for the Spanish Speaking, Inc

www.centrohispanomke.org

614 West National Avenue

Milwaukee, WI 53204

(414) 384–3700

UMOS, Inc.

www.umos.org

802 West Historic Mitchell Street

Milwaukee, WI 53204

(414) 389–6500

The Constitution mandates a “count of all persons” to determine not only an accurate population count of the United States, but also to determine accurate political representation.

It is not a “count of all citizens” — it is a “count of all persons.”

It’s clear that the U.S. Census is vital to our democracy. And as we get closer to the 2020 census, there are two key issues that are relevant to the Hispanic community.

The first issue pertains to the 2020 census asking separate questions about Hispanic identity (one question for ethnicity and another for race). This likely means that ‘some other race’ will become the second biggest group in the 2020 census, and research suggests that the majority of people who self-identify as “some other race” are Latino.

The second issue is that the Trump administration wants to include a question on citizenship. There is no evidence to suggest this is a relevant or effective question, making its inclusion on the response form suspect. This is a question far more dangerous than it may initially appear, and it’s likely to deter immigrants — as well as U.S. citizens who live in mixed immigration status families — from responding to the census.

This could lead to Latinos being underrepresented in the 2020 census, which has the potential to impact political representation, voting rights, and allocations of funding for health, education, and housing programs.

In this difficult political time, UnidosUS is dedicated to defending and advancing the rights of the Latino community, and this includes speaking out about the importance of the census, and why it’s important to push back against this attempt to undercount members of our community. This was the focus of a workshop held at the 2018 UnidosUS Annual Conference earlier this month.

“Counting every person in the United States is extremely difficult under normal circumstances,” according to Corrine Yu, managing policy director at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and The Leadership Conference Education Fund.

Rosalind Gold, Senior Director of Policy, Research and Advocacy at NALEO reminded the audience that the 2020 Census is still two years away, which means the issues that have cropped up related to it are on-going. In particular, she noted that there are several outstanding lawsuits related to the citizenship question.

“Billions of dollars of funding are allocated on the basis of Census data,” Gold told the audience. “If we don’t have that data correct, then our communities won’t get the resources they need.”

[Source: U.S. Census Bureau]

POTENTIAL FOR LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES

“If the census in 2020 is not representative, this could be with us for 10 years, until the 2030 census,” said John Thompson, Former Census Director and Executive Director of The Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics.

The 2020 census has implications for the reapportionment of congressional districts, as well as the allocation of more than $600 billion federal funds each year. It’s used to support business investment in local communities, and it’s used as control data for virtually every demographic survey produced across the country.

Programs that could be affected by census funding include: SNAP, Medicare, the National School Lunch Program, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and more.

Teresa Palacios, Executive Director of the Eastmont Community Center in East Los Angeles, addressed the difficulties in getting the word out about the impact of the census. She noted that families she regularly interacts with aren’t connecting the dots.

“They don’t make the connection that not being counted can affect their own household, their kids,” Palacios said.

The undercount for young Latino children in the 2010 census was at 7.1% — already higher than the undercount rate of 4.3% of young non-Latino children. Five states accounted for 72% of the undercount: California, Texas, Florida, Arizona, and New York.

RESPONSIBILITY TO EDUCATE

“We represent our communities and we have a responsibility to educate them,” Palacios said, a sentiment that was echoed by the panelists.

For example, one of the biggest misconceptions mentioned by panelists — and by the audience — is that there is a concern in the community that data reporting citizenship could be shared with the authorities and lead to deportation.

However, the Census Bureau is prohibited from sharing data with any other agency. In fact, the Bureau’s employees are required to take an oath promising they will keep the data confidential. If that oath is broken, it could lead to a fine of $250,000, as well as jail time. However, this remains a fear that cannot be dismissed.

Palacios explained how messages from advocates may sometimes be confusing to members of the community: “They’re telling you to keep the door closed if ICE comes. But then telling you to open the door so that you can be counted,” she said.

One audience member brought up the example of Ancestry.com’s use of census records to highlight the confusion about the census’s confidentiality. Thompson was quick to remind the audience that census records do not become public until 72 years have passed, meaning that there is no danger that this data — accompanied with any identifying information — may be revealed.

Having accurate information like this is critical, especially for reaching members of the Latino community. Many are “hard-to-count”, given that they may be lower-income, immigrants, individuals with low-English language proficiency, people who live in rural areas, or very young children, which Latino families are less likely to count in their responses to census workers.

But if we focus on keeping our community informed and encouraging everyone to complete the response forms, we can help make sure that we are all counted.

By Stephanie Presch, Content Specialist, UnidosUS