When the United States of North America annexed a third of Mexico’s territory following the Mexican War, nearly 77,000 Mexicans became U.S. citizens. For generations, these citizens were to be plagued by a prejudicial attitude which would result in overt acts of discrimination and segregation which in turn brought about the curtailment of many of their civil rights, privileges, and opportunities. The sign, “No Mexicans Allowed” was found everywhere.

In Texas, prejudicial attitude and discrimination acts had reached such extreme proportions that Mexican Americans started organizations as defensive measures against such anti-American practices. Outstanding among these were three organizations: The Order of the Sons of America with councils in Sommerset, Pearsall, Corpus Christi, and San Antonio; The Knights of America in San Antonio; and The League of Latin American Citizens with councils in Harlingen, Brownsville, Laredo, Penitas, La Grulla, McAllen, and Gulf.

There were serious doubts as to merger because of personal reasons and ill feelings that existed between the leaders of The League of Latin American Citizens and the President General of The Order of the Sons of America from San Antonio. With this in mind, The Order of the Sons of America and The Knights of America made an agreement to unite themselves even if The League of Latin American Citizens did not. For a year, Council #4 of The Order of the Sons of America and The Knights of America waited for the proposed merger. In the meantime, Alonso S. Perales was in constant contact with Ben Garza to bring about the merger. The fact that the long awaited unification convention was never called by the President General of The Order of the Sons of America resulted in the withdrawal of Council #4 from The Order of the Sons of America at a meeting held February 7, 1929. Also, at this meeting in which Alonso S. Perales was present, it was voted to have a uniting convention on February 17, 1929, at the Obreros Hall, on the corner of Lipan and Carrizo streets in Corpus Christi.

LULAC is not only the oldest, but their rich history of activism in advancing the economic condition, educational attainment, political influence, health and civil rights, but also makes them the most successful Latino civil rights organization in the country.

LULAC’s name and its membership policy deliberately emphasized the importance of citizenship – only American citizens could be full members of LULAC. The founders of LULAC believed this gave the group added leverage in seeking to reform American society to accept Mexican-Americans as full and equal citizens. Furthermore, it also put forward a particular identity for the new organization, one its leaders hoped that would change common assumptions about Mexican-Americans in American society at large.

Legacy
The philosophy and tactics LULAC in its first decade believed in a practice of negotiation with local leaders to bring change. If negotiation failed, they encouraged communities to pressure, investigated and documented charges brought by parents, brought evidence to the attention of higher authorities, and publicized the differences between facilities for Mexicans and those for Whites.

LULAC has played a role in the formation of several important related organizations. They created La Liga Pro-Defensa Escolar (the School Improvement League) in San Antonio, and formed a veterans’ committee to address the rights of G.I.’s before LULAC member Hector P. García organized the American G.I. Forum. LULAC members established Little School of the 400, the model for the federal educational program Head Start.

Ironically, LULAC’s early view of oppression parallels with conservative’s reason for dismantling affirmative action. LULAC believed Mexican Americans were not victims of oppression but by a lack of initiative to take advantage of the opportunities they had and to make themselves into citizens that the rest of society would have to respect. In all, LULAC equated Americanism with middle-class success and believed that true leadership could emanate only from the middle class – speak English, dress well, encourage education, and be polite in race relations.

Post-WWII: Change in Vision
LULAC’s vision for Mexican-Americans was forced to change during the postwar years. Renewed immigration from Mexico changed the socio-cultural context and turned America’s attention to the Southwest and immigration issues.

One of the most misunderstood and oversimplified views was LULAC’s position on immigration. It is true groups like LULAC opposed immigration, more specifically temporary workers to America. Their argument arose out of concern they would force Mexican-Americans to find work elsewhere while temporary workers would be used as a captive labor force to lower wages; employers rarely treated Braceros according to the protections included in their contracts. LULAC leaders had the foresight to see the dangers of importing labors.

Before the passage of the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 was passed, the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization held a hearing, Temporary Admission of Illiterate Mexican Laborers, to address the labor shortage in the beat-sugar industry. The farmers argued importing Mexican laborers would be the best solution to address the labor shortage because they were considered disposable labor. Speaking in their behalf, TX Rep. John Garner explained the farmers would be able to save three times the amount of work a “negro and white man would do” because Mexican laborers are considered “peon labor,” people “who knows nothing about the question of money other than to get enough to live on.”

In 1942, facing labor shortages caused by World War II, the United States initiated a series of agreements with Mexico to recruit Mexican men to work on U.S. farms and railroads. These agreements became known as the bracero program. LULAC leaders felt the discrimination towards the foreign workers would threaten their desire for an educated Mexican-American population because the presence of cheap foreign labor would force Mexican-American families to move in search of work. In a letter to President Truman written by LULAC national president Raul Cortez, Gus C. Garcia, and George I. Sanchez expressed that thousands of resident families would be consigned “to live in slums, in extreme ill-health, in ignorance, and in a squalor that is spiritual as well as physical … . What does this promise to the coming generations, to the citizens of tomorrow, to the assimilation of a rapidly increasing number of “Mexicans,’ to the Four Freedoms, to the American Way?”

Once Bracero Program was established, it brought brought millions of temporary, contract laborers to the United States from 1942 until its termination in 1964. The use of Mexican immigrants as cheap manual labor on the great Southwestern farms is not a recent occurrence. It is a thoroughly entrenched system, a systematic exploitation of an underprivileged class of humanity as cheap labor. Crossing the border was a major hurdle in the journey north. Braceros were often subjected to humiliating exams and bureaucratic procedures. If they did not pass the medical exams, they were sent back to Mexico. Those who did make it across, found out their bracero contracts did not always deliver on their promises.

Poor housing conditions, disputes over pay, discrimination, inadequate health care, and a lack of worker representation were some of the braceros’ common grievances. There living condition usually consisted of a shacks or they were sometimes housed in converted barns and makeshift tents with limited water, heat, and sanitary facilities. They were often transported in unsafe and poorly operated vehicles. Although the work was grueling and housing substandard, many braceros endured these conditions, hoping to make more money than they would at home. Health and social services are non-existent. The diseases bred by such conditions are spread by rapid migration. As a result the braceros suffer a disease-death rate much higher than that of the native populations.

Click here to view the embedded video.

They realized that continued immigration would make complete assimilation. The increase in immigration forced LULAC to rethink their view and the approach the as a policy problem. The late 1940s through the 1950s LULAC had reach new heights with their activism. LULAC councils were established throughout the Southwest, and no other group could match LULAC in size of membership or influence.

Same Phenomenon, Different Era
Today, once again, we are confronted by a rising tide of anti-migrant sentiment. The arguments are the same, the view in the USis that “illegal immigrants” are violating of US immigration law; therefore Congress seeks to address this problem through anti-crime legislation. While the view in Mexico is that Mexican migrants are filling jobs Americans don’t want. What is intriguing, the need for temporary labor can be found over several decades in congressional testimony yet the solution has always been the same.

Latinos are now the largest minority in the US, but Latino community is no longer homogenous as in the past. It is now made up from many different countries with very different cultural backgrounds. However, like previous generations of immigrants and minority groups, anti-immigrant views have not changed. Once again, the Latino community will to look to LULAC and the National Council of La Raza to be their voice. Hopefully, they will not ignore the lessons of the past and not prove George Santayana, the Spanish-American poet and philosopher, correct; those of who do not know our history, are condemned to repeat it.

According to a new study conducted this year by the New Democrat Network, the Hispanic electorate preferred the Democratic Party to the GOP by 70 percent to 30 percent. The million-dollar question going into the 2008 election is can the Republicans, because of their nativist stance on immigration, make up their lost Hispanic votes?

Historical Preceptive
Things began eroding for the Republican Party soon after Bush’s re-election. However, things started to unravel when the debate over immigration reform divided the Republican Party. When the House passed the “Sensenbrenner Bill,” which criminalized all undocumented immigrants. The bill sparked an immigration movement that led to the huge marches in the Spring of 2006. These marches were considered to one of largest civic demonstrations in the US in more than a generation. In some states and cities, one of the largest civic demonstrations in the state’s and city’s history. Soon after these marches, in GOP led states, many ads began appearing, comparing Mexican immigrants to Islamic terrorists.

Key Republican strategists began voicing their concern that the GOP was alienating their Hispanic base on the immigration issue. In August 2007, top Hispanic Republicans in Texas began voicing their distrust of both the state and national Republican Party. One of Texas’ biggest Latino Republican backers, Latino Republican Massey Villarreal, Hispanic vice chair of the Bush/Cheney campaign and deputy vice chair of the Republican National Convention, announced he would be supporting Democrat Rick Noriega instead of Senator Cornyn in the 2008 elections. Reggie Gonzales, President of the Texas National Hispanic Republican Assembly, urged his fellow Republicans to “vote independently” this election year to send the Republican Party a message. Moreover, if they are still unwilling to listen, then they should consider starting their “own party,” reminiscent of the La Raza Unida Party of the late 1970s.

In a run up to the 2006, general election, a Pew Hispanic Center survey revealed that Hispanics in general had felt “significantly discontented” with both national political parties, but more so with the Republican Party. Many expressed there was an increase in discrimination as a result of the immigration debate. Later that year, the Republican Party paid the price in the November 2006 general election.

In wake of their defeat, which led to a Democrat control congress, Florida Senator Mel Martinez, a first-generation Cuban American, was appointed Chair of the Republican National Committee, hoping to smooth things over with their Hispanic base. However, Latino fears were confirmed as some conservatives objected to Martinez’s selection due to his positions on immigration. One year later, following the resignation of another top Latino official, former Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales, Martinez resigned from his position after he had expressed his frustration over the hard-line stands his party had on immigration. Robert de Posada, president of the Republican-leaning Latino Coalition, was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying, “The message that it sends is Latinos are not welcome. The radical conservative base has a temporary victory right now.”

It’s all about the Veep
This leads back to our starting question: can the Republicans, because of their nativist stance on immigration, make up their lost Hispanic votes? Many would argue that it would take a political miracle to win back the Latino vote; however, there are a few Republican diehards that do have faith that the new Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, can bring them back.

The system of selecting a vice president can assist a party win an election. The vice presidential choice often is made to balance the ticket. Sometimes the vice presidential candidate is chosen because the person is thought to appeal to a large bloc of voters. Now that John McCain won the Republican nomination, whom would he choose as his running mate?

Recently, McCain was asked if he was willing to consider sharing the ticket with Senator John Kerry, since Kerry had approached McCain about being his running mate in 2004. McCain quickly said no.

“He is, as he describes himself, a liberal Democrat,” Mr. McCain said, adding that he meant no offense by the term. “I am a conservative Republican. So when I was approached, when we had that conversation back in 2004, that’s why I never even considered such a thing.”

As many Americans seem eager to rally behind the President, due partly to the dramatic shifts in the public mood triggered by the latest crisis in the credit markets, high unemployment, a housing bubble that has burst, and a likely recession.

Republicans have a history of throwing a curve balls when choosing their running mates. This dates back to Ronald Reagan’s selection of George Herbert Walker Bush. With the advise of Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, everybody expected the creation of a “dream ticket” with former president Gerald Ford running as Ronald Reagan’s vice president, however, Reagan did a 180 and selected his primary opponent, George H W Bush instead.

There are times selecting a vice present does not necessarily produce the person best qualified to serve as vice president. When George H W Bush selected Indiana Senator Dan Quayle as Bush’s running mate, he totally caught the media and political pundits off guard. Like his father, the younger Bush also surprised everybody with his Vice President selection. When political pundits figured it would be Missouri Senator John Danforth who would get the nod, like his father, Dubya also did a 180 and selected Dick Cheney, the man responsible of Bush’s selection process for Vice President.

Will John McCain pick be a surprise too? It is possible. In 2005, the Washington Post ran an article about the possibility of a McCain/Jeb Bush ticket. The article laid out a series of events (scenarios) that would need to occur for this to happen.

Scenario 1: Iraq shows will have to show no sign of turning around quickly. Bush would like to hand over power to a president committed to his Iraq policy. — From the time the article was written, the situation in Iraq has worsen. In an interview with NBC News, President George W Bush stated that the US “could easily” stay in Iraq for ten or more years. As for seeking a successor who is willing to continue his Iraq policy, it seems John McCain has decided to step up to the plate. In January, McCain was quoted as saying the US could stay in Iraq for “maybe a hundred years” and that “would be fine with me.”

Scenario 2: Income growth for the Middle-class will continue to be sluggish, – McCain has shown he is not a total Bush clone. He has been vocal on Bush’s tax policies. Before Mitt Romney dropped out of the race, Romney criticized McCain for opposing President Bush’s tax cuts. However, he is considered to be the most fiscally conservative members of the Senate.

Scenario 3: Bush would well come to see McCain as the only Republican with a chance to push a Republican era forward. McCain, in turn, knows that his only way around the Republican right is to run with either Bush’s blessing and/or endorsement. — Last month, the whole Bush family had welcomed John McCain with open arms. The first Bush to publicly endorsed McCain was former Gov Jeb Bush. Soon after, Former President George H.W. Bush, the Republican political dynasty’s patriarch, publicly endorsed Sen. John McCain for president. Finally, President Bush endorsed Sen. John McCain for president saying that McCain has the “character, courage and perseverance” to lead the country.

From the look of things, all three scenario have actually occurred.

What does Bush bring to the table
Jeb Bush was considered one of the most sought-after endorsements ahead the presidential primary season, now that John McCain has received Bush’s blessing, this could be considered as a way winning over George W. Although Jeb Bush has indicated he has no intentions in running for president in 2008, however, he still has not ruled “in or out” if would consider running for vice president in 2008. It is no secret that the elder Bush has been planting seeds for a possible Jeb campaign.

Last year, after his last public event speech, Jeb Bush, was asked by Spanish-speaking reporters what were his plans for the future. His response “Yo no tengo futuro.” He retracted a week later, saying he “misunderstood” the reporter’s question, according to the New York Times.

As the campaign season kicks into gear, one would think the Republican Party would try to distance themselves from the Bush name, especially when voters have plenty to take out on Republican candidates – financial crisis, rising gas prices, and Bush’s unpopular war. Even though the American people may be experiencing “Bush fatigue,” Republican insiders would most likely have no problems running Jeb Bush, who had a 60% approval rating when he left office. Strategically, running Jeb Bush now could be seen as a win-win situation for him. If McCain won, once McCain leaves office, Jeb would have made a name for himself allowing him to run either in 2012 or 2016. If McCain lost, Jeb would still have enhanced national recognition for him to run in 2012.

The Republican Party knows they will not be able to win without the Latino vote. If a John McCain/Jeb Bush ticket were to come into fruition, their secret weapon in their fight for the Latino electorate would be Jeb Bush’s is his 31-year-old son, George P. Bush or just “P.,” as his family calls him. The son of Florida governor Jeb Bush and his wife, Columba Bush, a native of Guanajuanto, Mexico, George P is one of the grandchildren President Bush referred to as the “little brown ones” during his presidency.

During his uncle’s 2000 campaign, P. was everywhere and was considered to be on his way to becoming the family’s biggest star. It is true politicians have used their children for such ends, but P. has a WOW factor. With a John McCain/Jeb Bush ticket, George P. Bush would once again be utilized as a symbol of diversity to court young and Latino voters.

P. will obviously have factor in his favor: He’s eye candy. During the 2000 campaign, the media would lob him softball questions. Even more valuable is his performance: P.’s is a natural on the stump, and this was seen during the GOP’s national convention. Before his uncle accepted the Republican nomination P. delivered a bilingual speech about inclusion and diversity.

“I am an American,” Bush said to a delighted crowd, “but like many, I come from a diverse background. And I’m really proud of it, and I respect leaders who respect my heritage.”

He also spoke of the commitment both he and his uncle have to education. “My uncle and I share emails,” George P. said, “and they’re not about the Florida Marlins or the Texas Rangers. They’re about education. It’s an interest that I share with my uncle and my dad.”

George P. called George W., “a good man, un hombre de grande sentimientos, who loves his family and his country.”

As he concluded his brief remarks, he exhorted the cheering delegates with a message that combined family and country: “Now is the time to restore a sense of honor and decency to the White House. We can do that by electing my uncle the next president of the United States. Que viva W! Que viva Bush! Que viva los Estados Unidos.“

Before George P. Bush married his law school classmate, Amanda “Mandi” Williams, P. was No. 4 on People magazine’s list of the “Top 100 Eligible Bachelors.”

During Dubya’s re-election campaign, George P. was barely seen on the campaign trail. This was done on purpose because the then 28-year-old would have been asked why George P. wasn’t serving in Iraq if he so much of a patriot. No doubt, these were legitimate questions. However, he has answered his anti-war critics. Last year, Politico reported that George P. Bush joined the Naval Reserve. He also called the death of Pat Tillman, the NFL player and Army Ranger who was killed in a friendly fire incident in Afghanistan in 2004, “a wake-up call.”

What will make P attractive to Latino voters is his pride in his Latino heritage and the fact he is the grandson of a Mexican migrant worker, Jose Maria Garnica, who separated from his wife and still lives in Mexico. If played right, he will once again serve as a new face for the GOP. Another reason why Hispanics may be willing to vote for a McCain/Bush ticket, he is also very outspoken about the immigration issue, actually sounding more like a Democrat than a Republican does.

In a four-day swing through Mexico in 2004, P criticized the Border Patrol’s use of guns which fire plastic pellets packed with chili powder.

“If there has been American approval for this policy, that is reprehensible,” Mr Bush said. “It’s kind of barbarous.” He blamed the use of the guns on “some local INS [immigration service] guy who’s trying to be tough, act macho.” In fact, the use of the guns is federal policy.

There is not doubt that the Hispanic population is booming and is considered to be a swing vote this election season. Using the Texas Democratic Primary as a barometer, the Latino vote proved to be a significant voting bloc. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama can equally claim that the Latino vote were factors in their electoral gains. The Texas border region was the determinant factor in Hillary Clinton’s victory in the Texas primary. Whereas, “Urban Latinos” helped Obama “push the margin of difference between him and Clinton to just three points.”

While it is being reported that Republican insiders are are urging McCain to choose a female running mate as a way to counter a possible Democratic Dream Ticket, history has shown these are just tactics to distract the public and media alike. I would not be surprised if John McCain were to surprise everybody and pick Jeb Bush and neither would James Carville.

If McCain were to ask Jeb Bush to be his running mate and if he were to accept, the Democratic Party will surely have a battle to win the hearts and minds of the Latino electorate. If the only way to counter this, I would recommend that either Clinton or Obama find some way to utilize New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson to the fullest extent.

In an effort to confront the “immigration problem,” both parties have been walking a very thin rope, which could bring monumental, long-term damage to both Democratic and Republican Parties. These effects have already been felt. During last years, Congressional election, when Democrats swept control of Congress, it is widely believed that the current Republican tone toward immigrants widely cost the GOP the Latino vote. Things can get worse for the Republican Party during the 2008 elections. According to Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, 12 million new immigrant voters will now be able to participate in the 2008 elections.

In 2007, times seem to have gotten nastier. When the subject of immigrants and their children comes up, Republican Presidential candidates are more interested in building walls and deporting undocumented workers then creating a pathway to citizenship. It is safe to say the Republican candidates will be lukewarm this election cycle when it comes to courting Latinos. But where did this xenophobic rhetoric originate.

Some feel, like Roberto Lovato, this sentiment originally began with California’s Proposition 187, the 1994 ballot initiative that would deny social services, health care, and public education to undocumented children. True, most Republican candidates historically ignored the broad Latino voting community. Sadly, 1994 was a prime example where the Republican Party used Latino and immigration issues as wedge issues to gain support of white conservatives. It was a dark year for the state of California, because the electorate consciously decided that it would be the only state in the Union to roll back the welcome mat for the “tired,” the “poor,” and the “huddled masses.”

One would have assumed the Republican Party had learned its lesson after the Prop 187 debacle, since President George W. Bush was able to capture about 40% of the Latino vote in his presidential bin in 2000. In order for him to accomplish this task, Bush, while Governor of Texas, had to work hard to create a favorable Hispanic image prior to the 2000 election campaign.

In a strategic move, in 1994, Bush proclaimed that he was against CA’s Proposition 187. It would be this move; Hispanics began to see Bush in a different light. Throughout his governorship, Bush slowly gained more recognition and trust from the Latina/o community. Last year, the Los Angeles Times explained how Bush challenged Pat Buchanan in the 1996 Presidential race to avoid anti-immigration attacks. All this would later aid Bush in the 2000 presidential election.

During Bush’s presidential bid, Lionel Sosa, GOP political and advertising consultant, would create an image that emphasized Bush’s openness, respect and acceptance towards the Hispanic community. According to the LA Times, Sosa created several “emotion-laden” campaign videos to woo the Latino vote. One video included Bush waving a Mexican flag during a Mexican Independence Day parade in San Antonio in 1998, when was running for reelection as governor.

It would seem the Republican Party finally realized the importance of the Latino vote. They were able to tap into the emerging Latino voting community successfully then they stop using wedge issues that were perceived as hostile and antagonistic by most of the Latino community. So why aren’t they continue this formula? More importantly, where and how did this current xenophobic rhetoric arise within the Republican Party?

This xenophobic view has arisen with the belief that Latinos/as do not have the values that the Americans see as central to the entire political system such as Patriotism and economic self reliance. These sweeping generalizations were popularized by influential political scientist Samuel Huntington, where politicians such as Colorado’s Rep. Tom Tancredo are now expressing similar views. Huntington’s simplistic and politically-motivated conceptualization distorts the reality on the ground. Huntington wrote:

The persistent inflow of Hispanic immigrants threatens to divide the United States into two people, two cultures, two languages. Unlike past immigrant groups Mexicans and other Latinos have not assimilated into mainstream US culture forming instead their own linguistic enclaves- from Los Angeles to Miami- and rejecting the Anglo protestant values that build the American dream. The United States ignores this challenge at its perils.

It is this statement captures the essence of the fear that exists in the US. Using an anti-immigration position in the past has been used by many Republican politicians, such as former Gov Pete Wilson, to gain votes from Anglo Conservatives.

For the most part, Democratic strategists have done little to challenge latest change in Latino voting behavior. Instead of countering it, the Democratic leadership would rather take advantage of the political fallout as a result of the actions of antagonistic Republicans that would push conservative and independent Hispanic voters back into the Democratic Party. Truthfully, this is what is occurring. In a recent poll, the Pew Hispanic Center found that “Hispanics returning to Democratic Party.”

Although, they may appear to be returning to the Democratic Party, in reality, they really nothing more but DINOS – Democrats in Name Only – whose only interest is in tugging the party to the right for cold cash and to punish the Republican Party for their betrayal. Once they have settled into their new home, it should be expected these newly converted Democrats to start whispering in the ears of prominent Democrats, advising them to contort themselves to fit a centrist view, so they will be better accepted by the US mainstream.

What if there are some Democrats who are getting advice from people who wish them no good, advising them to say whatever they believe will help them win political currency. For example, Lionel Sosa, after a lifetime serving as a Hispanic outreach consultant for the GOP, is now supporting Democratic candidate New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s presidential bid. Sosa’s reason for supporting Bill Richardson is the same reason many latino civil rights organizations supported Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General, but in this case, as Sosa put it, “Blood is thicker than party.” Although this may seem logical because this would help Democrats win back a major segment of conservative and independent Hispanic, one must, however, be aware that Sosa continues to be a “Bush backer and a Republican” according to Cox News Service.

Because of the current Latino backlash, other pro-Republican organization, such the Latino Coalition, are adamant at sending their Party a message by supporting Democrats in competitive races. The coalition is chaired by Hector Barreto, the former administrator of the Small Business Administration under Bush and former strategist for the Republican National Committee.

Another blow to the Republican Party is the recent defection of Rev. Luis Cortes, a Republican who founded the annual National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast that has featured Bush every year since. While close to Bush, Rev. Cortes latest move proves he is more than willing to prostitute himself out to the highest bidder. Recently, Cortes met with Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean to discuss how the Republican presidential candidates are using immigration as a wedge issue and scapegoating immigrants.

What is more troubling; the Democratic leadership is willing to overlook Rev. Luis Cortes close ties with the Bush Administration and other conservative Republicans. According to the National Council on Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), Cortes was awarded a $2.5 million grant in the first round of President Bush’s Compassion Capital Fund grants for faith-based organizations in 2002 ; and $2.76 million as the first installment of $11 million over three years from the Bush Administration’s Department of Labor in 2004. It was already found that these funds are spent with little or no oversight, and unfortunately, with the latest Supreme Court ruling, no possible avenue to challenge them.

In 2005, Associated Press revealed that former Senator Bill Frist’s AIDS charity, World of Hope Inc, paid nearly a half-million dollars in consulting fees to members of his political inner circle, which included Cortes.

World of Hope gave $3 million it raised to charitable AIDS causes, such as Africare and evangelical Christian groups with ties to Republicans — Franklin Graham’s Samaritan Purse and the Rev. Luis Cortes’ Esperanza USA, for example.

It is no surprise the Baptist minister has long sought to build a national network of Hispanic churches, one that would bring new power to an emerging minority. Operating in North Philadelphia, Cortes’ organization, Nueva Esperanza Inc, has one of the largest contracts of the 44 groups chosen to provide the training to smaller organizations and distribute the federal cash. Cortes is one of the most prominent Hispanic evangelicals in politics. One does have to wonder if Rev. Luis Cortes will say or do to insure his faith-based organization is not cut from future funding.

What makes a person like Rev Cortes, loyalty is thrown out the window at the drop of a dime. In 2005, Pensacola’s Independent News reveals Rev Cortes true colors when it comes to partisan loyalties.

“This is what I tell politicians,” he adds. “You want an endorsement? Give us a check, and you can take a picture of us accepting it. Because then you’ve done something for brown.”

Even as Mr. Dean criticizes Republicans, many Democrats in Congress have adopted the same enforcement-only approach Republicans advocate. The Democrats’ silence on the brutal raids on immigrant workers shows how much they intend to do about it.

Realizing they cannot win without a large Latino/a turn-out, Democrats tend fail to understand the impact DINOS like these have on the Latina/o community. Right now there is a large infusion of Republican Latinos/as into the Democratic Party, but be forewarned, they will change when the immigration debate dies down. And once immigration debate dies down, as history shows, it was the Democrats’ assumption of Latino support that provided the Republicans the opportunity to attract significant levels of Latino voters around the nation.