Search This Blog

Sunday, November 04, 2007


I più recenti / The Latest (November)

Dall'11 settembre alla Casa Bianca? La speranza di Rudy, America Oggi anche a ICNNews e Italianos de Argentina


La riscossa dei liberal. Un sistema sanitario efficace, America Oggi, anche a Opinione delle Libertà, Italianos de Argentina, Agenzia Radicale

Hillary-Obama: Il ticket ideale, America Oggi
Anche a Agenzia Radicale, Europa Sera, Pontediferro, e Italianos de Argentina

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

I Più recenti / The Latest: Ottobre 2007

USA: Licenses for Illegal Immigrants? New American Media

La realpolitik dell'immigrazione illegale, Europa Sera, anche a Nuova Agenzia Radicale, ClandestinoWeb, Notizie USA, e Italianos de Argentina

Elezioni Usa: si parla spagnolo, Italiano de Argentina, anche a ClandestinoWeb , Notizie Usa, Italia estera, Agenzia Radicale, e Europa Sera


La patente ai clandestini, sogno dei liberal, Opinione delle Libertà
Anche a Clandestinoweb, Italianos de Argentina, e Notizie USA

Il moderatismo di Hillary non frena i Liberal, Ponte di Ferro

Arnold: repubblicano di sinistra, Opinione delle Libertà anche a Europa Sera

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

I più recenti / The Latest


Población en declive: ¿Solución a la inmigración ilegal? EL Tiempo

Population decrease: Solution to illegal immigration? El Tiempo

Newt Gingrich: da ipocrita alla Casa Bianca? Gazzetta di Sondrio

Stampa e libertà condizionata. Pontediferro

Population Decrease: Solution to Illegal Immigration? Banderas


Immigration laws: Federal or Local? Banderas

Clandestini, fra accoglienza e rifiuto. Opinione delle Libertà

Immigration Reform: Waiting Until Next. Times Korea Times

Blog, supplemento della carta stampata. Opinione delle Libertà

Richardson por presidente. Primo candidato ispanico alla Casa Bianca. America Oggi

Il dollaro premia Obama. Opinione delle Libertà
Anche ad Aprile Online

USA: Bilingual or Multingual? Banderas

Schwarzenegger: insegnante d’inglese? Italia Estera

Bush grazia Libby: spinoso ma non troppo. Italia estera

L'oscar per la Casa Bianca? Gazzetta di Sondrio

Gli Usa e la stampa indipendente. Agenzia Radicale

Hillary Clinton: veramente liberal? Agenzia Radicale

GOP: Anti-Family and Anti-Latino? New America Media

Dear Arnold: Immigrants Do Want to Learn English. New America Media

Sunday, February 18, 2007

You can’t abuse immigrants

“Hopefully this sends a message that you can’t point a gun at little kids,” stated Ronald Morales.
Morales was referring to a jury’s verdict which convicted Roger Barnett of threatening a hunting party with an assault rifle. The group included Morales, his father, his two daughters and a friend of theirs.
Barnett took them for illegal immigrants who were trespassing on his property. He yelled at the hunting party, insulted them with racial slurs, and threatened to shoot them.
Because of his actions, Barnett will have to pay $98,000 in damages.
The jury in Bisbee, Arizona, included seven whites and one Hispanic. It deliberated only for three hours and then reached its verdict. It convicted Barnett of unlawful imprisonment, assault, negligence and inflicting emotional distress.
Barnett has a great deal of experience with people trespassing on his property in Arizona, 22,000 acres of which he leases form the government. Typically, trespassers have been illegal immigrants.
Barnett is very concerned about illegal immigration. He told the ABC program “Nightline” that illegals are “flooding across, invading the place.”
Barnett has boasted of having captured 12,000 illegal immigrants. He has become one of the most visible vigilantes who patrols the U.S.- Mexican border. Barnett likes to dress in military garb and caps with insignia which resembles the United States Border Patrol uniform. Some people consider him the “godfather of vigilantism” and an inspiration for the Minutemen group, who have patrolled the U.S. border with Mexico and whom president George W. Bush labeled vigilantes.
The lawsuit which Barnett lost is not the only one causing him legal problems. Another lawsuit alleges that he, his wife, and his brother pointed guns at 16 illegal immigrants, threatened them with dogs, and also kicked one of the women in the group.
In another lawsuit which Barnett won, he himself was accused of trespassing as he pursued illegal immigrants in a fellow rancher’s land. And in still another case a lawsuit against Barnett was dropped. The plaintiff returned to Mexico and decided not to press charges.
When Morales asked the county attorney to bring charges against Barnett, he was told it’d be pointless because no jury would convict Barnett.
Eventually the lawsuit against Barnett was brought forward by the Border Action Network and the Southern Poverty Law Center, two civil rights groups which hope to set legal examples that migrants will not be abused.
The civil rights groups were encouraged by another case in Texas in which two Salvadoran illegal immigrants won a case against Casey Nethercott who had held them at gun point in 2003. Netehrcott lost his ranch to the Salvadoran immigrants.
Jesus Romo Vejar, Morales’ attorney, was encouraged by the verdict. He hopes others who may have been abused by Barnett will now come forward. He also hopes that the government will reconsider leasing him land given his conviction.
It’s unlikely that others will come forward. If indeed there have been other abuses, victims are probably long gone, back in Mexico. If they are in the U.S. and have no legal papers, they are probably very reluctant to come forward. The Morales are American citizens and sued because they felt strongly that their rights had been violated. Had the Morales been undocumented workers, they might not have pressed the case.
Yet, Morales’ victory can be an example to others who somehow think that undocumented workers can be abused because of their illegal immigration status.
The verdict clearly says that no one’s humanity can be abused regardless of immigration status. It also serves as discouragement to other ranchers on the border about letting militant civilian groups on their lands because of potential lawsuits that may arise if abuses are reported. In essence, the message of the Barnett verdict is that abusing illegals is in itself illegal in the U.S.
© Domenico Maceri
Back to the Top

Switzerland: Too Many Languages?

“Our schools put too much weight on languages at the expense of science and creative activities,” stated Remo Largo, a Swiss author of books on education.
Largo was concerned about the fact that some Swiss cantons introduce English in primary schools in addition to another foreign language. Too many languages for Swiss kids to handle.
With four national languages Switzerland is often mentioned as the model of multilingualism that works. Unlike some other countries which try to stick to one language, the presence of several languages in the country has not prevented the Swiss from establishing a strong economy and a high standard of living for its citizens. The Swiss, in fact, have used their multilingualism and multiculturalism as a strength.
But now English is making inroads and may be displacing some of the four national languages.
In Zurich, a leading Canton in the Swiss Confederation, a proposal would teach one foreign language—English— in primary schools. This would represent a change since Zurich’s elementary school kids now study English and French. Voters will decide whether French will be dropped.
Some educators believe that two foreign languages are too much for kids. Supporters of having one foreign language believe that kids fail to reach strong fluency in German which is supposed to be the mother tongue for schoolchildren in Zurich.
In fact, Zurich kids speak Swiss German which is primarily an oral language. In school they have to learn standard German which in some ways is a foreign language. Thus when you add it all together Zurich kids are learning a total of four languages. Too many languages, according to some teachers and some political leaders.
Regardless of what happens, Swiss kids will be fluent in more than one language which is a definite asset in today’s global economy. It is also a definite asset in learning any other subject. Studies conducted in American universities have found that kids who study in dual language schools outperform their counterparts who are taught in English only. Apparently, kids educated in two languages develop a mental agility that monolingual kids lack.
All of Switzerland will watch what Zurich voters will decide because Zurich is an influential canton and others may follow suit. Yet some German-speaking cantons have already decided to reject plans to reduce the number of foreign languages in school.
Language in Switzerland goes beyond practical purposes. The country has a history of four national languages which have served the country well. English is an outsider since it’s not a native language and does not have a section of the country where natives live in.
In spite of its “outsider” status, English is very popular because of its practical aspect. When you add the number of people who speak English as their native language and those who speak it as their second or third language around the globe, you come up with more than a billion people. In addition to that, the “value” represented by English is far greater than that of any other language.
It’s certainly a lot more valuable in practical terms than Romansh, a Latin-based language, and one of Switzerland’s four national languages, spoken only by 50,000 Swiss citizens.
Of course, French, the language the Zurich canton is considering dropping, is significantly more valuable than Romansh, although not nearly as much as English. Thus Zurich’s voters will have to decide if they want their kids to retain a significant linguistic edge or just an edge over kids in other countries, particularly in English-speaking countries where most kids grow up with just their mother tongue.
Regardless of what they do, Switzerland is a linguistic model that could be studied and some countries, particularly English-speaking ones, might want to adopt some of its programs. Maybe four languages are too many in elementary school, but two is not unrealistic at all.
© Domenico Maceri
Back to the Top

Sunday, February 04, 2007

Illegal Children or U.S. Citizens?

“By virtue of being born in the United States, a child is a U.S. citizen. What more proof does the federal government need?” asked S. Kimberly Belshe, secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency.
Belshe was questioning the new federal policy which states that children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants with low incomes no longer qualify automatically for health insurance through Medicaid.
In the past when a woman received coverage during labor and delivery from Medicaid the child automatically qualified for coverage also.
The new policy requires that parents fill out forms to prove the child was indeed born in the U.S.
Doctors are concerned that many kids, U.S. citizens, will go without the necessary care because their parents may not fill out forms, fearing that they will be deported.
It’s a reasonable assumption since undocumented workers in the U.S. tend to stay away from offices that require documents because the fear of deportation always hovers over them.
Hospitals and doctors oppose the new law since they believe it punishes innocent kids. The concern is that kids need care from the very beginning of their lives.
Everything should be done to make sure they receive proper care. If medical care is not provided in the first year, it will not only be the kids who will suffer. Preventive care means avoiding more costly situations later on. That expense will be something we may all have to cover since these kids will grow up in the U.S.
Even those Americans who believe illegal immigrants should be deported would not go as far as saying that the kids are guilty of a crime and deserve no care.
It’s a difficult situation because the kids are U.S. citizens and should have the same rights of any American.
Bureaucracy should not stand in the way of healthcare. Yet, Rep. Charlie Norwood, R-Georgia, believes it’s a simple procedure to notify the federal government. Norwood was instrumental in passing the new bill which is part of the Deficit Reduction Act, signed into law by President George Bush. One the features of the law is to prevent undocumented workers from using Medicaid by claiming falsely that they are U.S. citizens.
The law attempts to do what many other pieces of legislation across the country have been doing—restricting those few rights undocumented workers have. Many municipalities and a number of states have passed laws which make it difficult for undocumented workers to obtain services. At the root of these laws is the idea that illegal immigrants committed a crime by entering the U.S. without proper documents. It’s also hoped that the increase in difficulties to obtain services will eliminate or at least reduce illegal immigration.
These laws fail to take into account the main reason why people come to the U.S. illegally—jobs.
There is a myth that people come to the U.S. illegally to use our social services. It’s just that, a myth. Undocumented workers come here to work. What they know is that wages are much higher in the U.S. and jobs are available.
It’s not the benefits that attract people to come to the U.S. Nor is the elimination of benefits going to force people to leave once they are here.
For those who have been here a long time and have created families, benefits become important but they are also deserved. When people work, pay taxes, and contribute to our economy, it’s important to recognize that realistically they’re part of our society. The fact they have American kids is perfect proof and pushes them toward inclusion as well.
Eliminating or reducing the benefits of these kids may be legal but should not be. All Americans should have the same rights. And these kids are Americans in spite of what the parents may have done.
© Domenico Maceri
Back to the Top

Friday, January 26, 2007

Barack Obama: An African-American for President?

"I believe that it remains possible to salvage an acceptable outcome to this long and misguided war,” stated Senator Barack Obama, D-Illinois, at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Obama believes that the first step would be to start withdrawing troops in the next four to six months.
Speaking on international affairs is a requirement for a potential presidential candidate. And Obama may be one.
Obama, a charismatic politician, would be the first African-American president if he were elected.
Obama would have to get the Democratic nomination which may not be easy. The major opponent would be Hillary Clinton who is most likely going to run.
Yet, Obama would be a strong competitor. A graduate of Harvard with a law degree, he won his senate seat in landslide, receiving 70% of vote.
He is recognized as having given an electrifying speech at Democratic National Convention in 2004. He’s been on the cover of Time Magazine and his books are best sellers. He can claim he did not support the now unpopular Iraq war since he was absent when the U.S. Senate voted its approval.
In the Democratic primary he’d be a tough challenger of Hillary Clinton because the New York Senator has been moving toward the center as she tried to shed her image as an ultra liberal.
The primary election always requires a more partisan position and in the case of the Democratic primary Obama would be well positioned at the progressive wing of the party that would have a significant impact. In particular, African-Americans who make a considerable part of the voting Democrats in the primary, would tend to support Obama.
Yet, Obama also has some areas which some people view as drawbacks. He’s only been in the U.S. Senate for only two years and making the jump to the White House at a very young age of 47 (he’s 45 now) would be unusual. He has very limited experience in international affairs.
Even these drawbacks are not insurmountable when you look beyond the surface. The limited experience in the Senate can be a positive since he has not accumulated a number of votes which could be used against him in the campaign.
The lack of international experience may not be a drawback and it certainly did not stop George Bush in going from governor of Texas to the White House.
Although he is not as well known as Hillary Clinton, he does not generate the high negatives that may hold back the former first lady.
As to his age, in 2008 he’d be one year older than Bill Clinton when he was elected president.
Obama may decide to wait for the next opportunity to run for president which could come in 2012 or 2016. But timing can be vital.
Running for president in 2008 could be very favorable since there will not be an incumbent president. The field is wide open in both the Democratic primary and the general election.
Some polls put Obama at the number two spot behind Hillary Clinton and ahead of “old” timers such as Al Gore, John Kerry, and John Edwards who have been nominated and lost to George Bush in 2000 (Gore) and 2004 (Kerry and Edwards).
In modern times two African Americans ran for president. Jesse Jackson and more recently Al Sharpton. Neither got very far. Obama can go far.
He may choose not to run in 2008 and wait until he’s built a more substantive record. However, if he decides to run, he’d have a good chance at getting the Democratic nomination. But even if he were to lose to Hillary Clinton, he might get picked as vice-presidential candidate and at the current age of 45 he’d still be young enough to run in future presidential elections. Whatever the case, Obama could very well be the first member of a minority group to become president of the U.S.
© Domenico Maceri
Back to the Top

Saturday, January 13, 2007

USA: A Living Wage?


“Sí se puede” (Yes, we can) chanted the hotel workers in a recent meeting at the Los Angeles City Council.
Workers were applauding the council’s vote which will require hotels near Los Angeles International Airport to pay a “living wage” of at least $10.64 an hour. These hotels benefit from the presence of the airport which is a public facility and therefore the city government can exert influence on business activities, including wages.
More than 120 American cities have passed living wage laws, often to force companies with government contracts to pay decent salaries. But in some cases these living wage laws have also applied to companies which have no government contracts. Typically, this occurred in union-friendly, liberal cities such as San Francisco, Berkeley, and Washington D.C.
Business owners hate these laws because they see the government telling them what to do. Executives in the Los Angeles claim that many hotel workers already make the living wage between salaries and tips.
In addition, business is concerned that this kind of legislation may apply to other services such as restaurants and other stores.
The impact of these living wages penetrates other salaries. So it’s not just the people at the very bottom that benefit. Business is concerned that other employees who now make $10 dollars an hour will also ask for raises.
Of course, raising wages increases the cost of doing business and corporations are concerned that in the long run, money will be lost to other cities which do not have living wages.
The other reason why business oppose living wage laws is that they are typically pushed by unions and are perceived as victories for organized labor.
Yet, these laws are necessary because the cost of living in many American cities is so high that without a living wage, it’s impossible to make ends meet, particularly when you consider that the minimum wage hovers around $6 dollars an hour.
It’s particularly difficult when many low wage jobs don’t even include health benefits.
Union officials claims that as many as 60% of hotel workers make less than $10 an hour.
The city council vote was a victory for hotel workers but to some extent also for the unions which have been trying to organize workers.
In the case of hotel workers near the Los Angeles Airport, unions have been trying to organize workers but so far have had limited success.
The passage of the living wage law may help them. In fact, unions have some close allies in the Los Angeles City Council. Two of them were arrested along with several hundred other demonstrators when they participated in a civil disobedience demonstration which aimed to highlight the plight of hotel workers.
Hotels affected may not be taking the city council action standing down. There is some talk about collecting signatures and putting the matter in the hands of voters. If enough signatures are collected, the ordinance would not take effect until after the result of the election.
The midterm election which gave Democrats majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate is another indication that workers will receive some help from legislators. One of the items in the Democratic agenda is raising the federal minimum wage which is currently $5.15 an hour, a figure which is lower than that of many European countries. In addition, someone making the minimum wage in the U.S. does not typically receive health benefits, which is not the case in Europe.
The ordinance passed by the Los Angeles City Council is a positive step since it means people may have a chance at more reasonable life, a living wage. It also means that raise people might get will be spent, generating more economic activity which will in turn benefit business, the same business which always opposes raises for its workers.
© Domenico Maceri
Back to the Top

Saturday, January 06, 2007

Bush e la lingua dei latinos

“Quiero sus botas” (Voglio le vostre stivalette) disse George W. Bush a un gruppo di latinos durante la campagna elettorale del 2000. La poca destrezza in spagnolo fece uscire “botas” invece di “votos” (voti) dalla bocca di Bush.
Ciononostante Bush fece buon uso del suo limitato conoscimento linguistico. Il suo interesse nello spagnolo formò parte della sua riuscita strategia di raggiungere i latinos e ricevette il 44% del loro voto, ottimo risultato per un repubblicano, quasi il doppio di quello che aveva ricevuto Bob Dole quando fu sconfitto da Bill Clinton nel 1996.
Nella recente elezione di midterm dello scorso novembre il partito democratico ha ricevuto il 70% del voto latino mentre il GOP (Grand Old Party, i repubblicani) si è dovuto accontentare del 29%.
Bush non parlerà spagnolo molto bene ma lui ha capito il messaggio. La sua recente nomina di Mel Martinez a capo del partito repubblicano manda un chiaro segnale che il voto dei latinos è importante. La nomina di Martinez non è piaciuta all’ala destra del partito repubblicano perché il senatore della Florida, nato a Cuba, ha idee moderate sull’immigrazione. Il gruppo duro dei repubblicani ha visto la nomina di Martinez come prova che Bush è un debole quando si tratta di immigrazione. Di fatti si tratta di un’ottima mossa da parte di Bush dato che il numero degli elettori latinos continua a crescere e i loro interessi saranno di somma importanza specialmente nell’elezione presidenziale del 2008.
Le questioni che interessano i latinos non sono diverse da quelle degli altri americani, cioè a dire l’economia, l’Iraq, la sanità ecc., ma i latinos hanno anche un forte interesse nell’immigrazione. Benché gli elettori latinos siano già cittadini, alcuni da parecchie generazioni, altri naturalizzati recentemente, l’immigrazione ha un impatto molto forte su di loro.
La retorica stridente del GOP contro i clandestini non avrebbe dovuto influenzare gli elettori latinos ma infatti si è riversata sui cittadini di origine ispanica. Le manifestazioni gigantesche pro immigranti avvenute in parecchie città americane a maggio del 2006 hanno incluso lavoratori clandestini ma anche immigrati legali ed altri latinos che sono già iscritti nelle liste elettorali.
Le prese di posizioni estremiste del GOP sono venute a galla per mezzo di azioni. In un caso in particolare, Tan Nguyen, candidato repubblicano alla camera nella zona di Santa Ana, California meridionale, mandò una lettera a 14.000 elettori con cognome ispanico avvertendoli che gli immigrati che voterebbero nelle elezioni potrebbero essere arrestati.
La lettera fu condannata da politici democratici ed anche repubblicani ma fu interpretata come un’offesa non solo contro elettori latinos ma anche immigrati di altri paesi. Inoltre la voce stridula di Tom Tancredo, parlamentare italo-americano del Colorado e leader del Congressional Immigration Caucus, un gruppo di parlamentari di destra, fu decisiva all’approvazione del disegno di legge chiamato Sensenbrenner Bill. Si tratta di una proposta dai caratteri draconiani che renderebbe i clandestini criminali da potere essere arrestati e messi in prigione invece della semplice deportazione. L’approvazione del Secure Fence Act (Atto dello steccato sicuro) che ha autorizzato la costruzione di un muro al confine con il Messico è un’altra azione del GOP mediante la quale i repubblicani si sono dati un pugno nell’occhio nella mente dei latinos.
Se l’ala destra dei repubblicani si è allontanata dai latinos alcuni moderati invece sono riusciti a ottenere una buona percentuale dei voti di questo gruppo etnico che da qualche anno ha sorpassato il numero degli africani-americani. L’esempio più chiaro è Arnold Schwarzenegger, rieletto recentemente a governatore della California. Benché Schwarzenegger abbia alzato la voce in supporto dei Minutemen, un gruppo di estremisti che vuole chiudere il confine con il Messico, l’immigrato austriaco, si è poi allontanato dall’estremismo e nei suoi ultimi discorsi ha parlato di una linea immigratoria moderata. Ha ricevuto il 41% del voto latino che per un repubblicano è proprio un risultato molto positivo.
Il messaggio sembra essere chiaro. A mano a mano che la popolazione latina continua a crescere a causa dell’immigrazione e dell’alta fecondità ispanica gli interessi di questo gruppo etnico avranno un parallelo aumento di importanza politica. Bush ha capito nelle sue campagne politiche che il voto dei latinos può essere cruciale soprattutto in elezioni con margini di vittoria molto ridotti che si sono visti in tempi recenti. I suoi sforzi di “corteggiare” i latinos con la loro lingua e le sue prese di posizione moderate gli hanno permesso di ottenere buonissimi risultati. È ora per altri candidati repubblicani di imparare lo spagnolo?
© Domenico Maceri
Back to the Top

Bush Speaks Latinos’ Language

"Quiero sus botas" (I want your boots) said George W. Bush to a group of Latinos in the presidential election of 2000. Bush meant to say "votos" (votes) instead of "botas," his mistake reflecting a weak knowledge of the Spanish language.
In spite of his gaffes Bush made good use of his language skills. His interest in Spanish was part of his successful efforts to reach out to Latinos. He received 44% of the Latino vote in the 2004 presidential election, a little more than double the number received by Bob Dole in 1996 when he lost to Bill Clinton.
The midterm election of 2006 saw Republicans losing the Latino vote as Democrats were favored 70% to 29%.
Bush may not speak Spanish very well but he got the message. His nomination of Mel Martinez to the post of Chair of the Republican National Committee sends a clear signal that the Latino vote is important.
The nomination of Martinez did not please the right wing of the GOP because the Florida Senator, a native of Cuba, has moderate ideas on immigration.
In a way, to the GOP hard core, the nomination was further proof that Bush is weak on immigration.
In fact, it was a smart move since the Latino vote keeps increasing and their concerns are going to have a significant role in future elections, particularly the presidential election of 2008.
Issues affecting Latinos are no different than those of most Americans—economy, Iraq, healthcare, etc. Yet, Latino voters also have strong interests in immigration.
Latino voters are already legal citizens but they remember well the issue of immigration since it affected them and now affects people they might know.
The strident GOP rhetoric against illegal immigration should not have had an impact on Latino voters, but the fact is that it inevitably spilled over to Latino citizens. The pro immigration rallies which occurred earlier this year included not only undocumented workers but many other legal immigrants as well as Latino registered voters.
The GOP extremist position on immigration became manifest through actions. In one case, Tan Nguyen, a Republican congressional candidate, sent a letter to 14,000 voters with Spanish surnames in Santa Ana, California, warning them that immigrants could go to jail if they voted in the next election.
The letter was condemned by Democratic and Republican leaders but the message offended not just Latino voters but also legal immigrants from other countries.
In addition, the loud voices of Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and his Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus were instrumental in passing the Sensenbrenner Bill in 2005. The draconian legislation made criminals of undocumented workers and would have even penalized anyone aiding illegal immigrants in the U.S.
The passage of the Secure Fence Act which authorized the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border was another action which gave the GOP a black eye in the minds of Latino voters.
While the right wing of the GOP moved away from Latinos, moderate Republicans managed to stay away from strident rhetoric against immigrants and succeeded in not being painted anti-Latino.
The clearest example is California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Although he made some statements in support of the Minutemen, a fringe group that wants to close the border, Schwarzenegger was very conciliatory in his latest speeches and embraced a moderate stance on immigration. He received 41% of the Latino vote in his reelection this past November, which is very good for a Republican.
The message seems to be clear. As the Latino population increases and their voter registrations also go up, politicians have to look very carefully at the needs of this group.
In his political campaigns Bush understood that the Latino vote can be crucial. His efforts of reaching Latinos through language and moderate stances on issues dear to Latinos enabled him to reap significant political results. Is it time for other GOP politicians to learn Spanish?
© Domenico Maceri
Back to the Top