In The Name of The Lord, Eloi Yahweh, I am coming!

Just another WordPress.com site

I am really frustrated: No cell phone means no phone because there is no public phone available!

on December 1, 2012

Tired of many corporations abuses which forced me to drop, lost or damaged my cell phone or as lately with my IPHONE with AT & T which was turned off as people were going by and because they were wicked talent mean brats or just because they were denying my right to tell you about the government crimes as I discovered serving the only God, eloi Yahweh in his real name not Jehovah as we, majority know him.

They had been removing the public phones all over.  and the ones that have sound just take your money as happening to me in San Francisco.  Others like the one on 19th Ave. was vandalized to keep me away from my children.  Not even through the phone line I do have a right to talk or communicate with them.  My baby’s 10th B-day is not looking so charming because I do have a preparation for finals on Tuesday and when I can I have no one to go with me just because Honor Greenberg, Jakubowski and MC Kenna do not like God and my service to him.

INDEX
PAGES DESCRIPTION
2 – 4 INTRODUCTION
5 – 9 HOW PERKINS NEW PHASE OF STEREOTYPES CAN OR IS BEING APPLIED TO THE HISPANIC COMMUNITY, BUT HISTORICALLY NOT ONLY TO THEM.
10 – 12 HOW PERKINS NEW PHASE OF STEREOTYPES CAN OR IS BEING APPLIED TO THE HISPANIC COMMUNITY, BUT HISTORICALLY NOT ONLY TO THEM.
12 – 24 APPLYING THE PEW HISPANIC CENTER DATA TO FIGURE OUT, INTERACTING THE FRAGA ET ALL IDEAS AS WELL AS NALEO INPUTS
25 – 32 2012 ELECTION RESULTS FROM PEW HISPANIC CENTER DATA FOR YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION BASED ON ABOVE COMMENTS
32 – 33 RECOMMENDING THIS ARTICLES FOR YOUR ENHANCEMENTS ON THE MATTER
33 – 38 Conclusion (35) and references (36-38)
INTRODUCTION
At the beginning of this semester one of our first assignments was to read The Huntington Article and the Zepeda response. Huntington in the Foreign Policy article stereotypes Mexicans, and the Hispanic Community in many negative ways. First of all, described as the divider of the native pop culture of the United States and among other a group of people who are highly hot, biological highly productive and who is not assimilating and integrating into this society. Instead we are spreading our language and having the Spanish not the English language. He couldn’t see the value of having two languages as in many other countries. Huntington’s word transpare that the Hispanic community is not likely to wish to learn the language, and is having their own religious believes and orientation among many other things and they are a threat. ._For me, Huntington just played a trick known as witchcraft; he suggested through his article the proliferation of this community and he gave them a negative narrative. The work of the mind and body computer and as he wrote his book in 2004 he set up this community as many others had been set up in the past to be rejected, to be seen as the ones abusing the system and the ones who are coming just to get the benefit of the people in this country.
Profesor S. P. Huntington said “The persistent inflow of Hispanic immigrants threatens to divide the United States into two peoples, two cultures, and two languages. Unlike past immigrant groups, Mexicans and other Latinos have not assimilated into mainstream U. S. culture, forming instead their own political and linguistic enclaves – from Los Angeles to Miami- and rejecting the Anglo-Protestatnt values that built the American dream. The United States ignores this challenge at its peril.” (2004, p. 30)
This is not the first time the leaders and others supporting them in this country set a race under the same pattern of rejection and persecution as done before to Blacks, Asians, gays, and/or women. . . through ideological stereotypes that creates conditions for hatred against this negative image or group of people that enable them to divert the attention away from the real problems and creates conditions for further explotation of the group that they are targeting as they opened racial resentments against this group. It had happen in the past and still happening against other groups like Black people to the point in which they slave them just because they were easily recognizable or as happened in 1930 with many other people in the Hawaiian island:
“Plantation labor was segregated according to a racial hierarchy;” (Imada, 2004, p. 125) “as the Hawai’i women mainly were the preferred exploited group in the market as other were not having any benefits or protection.” But this was not for free because as she wrote at public schools, some teachers punished Hawaiian children for speaking their native tongue.2 or as the males images were substracted from their typical traditions and beautiful dances performance by them as Adria L. Imada wrote through University of California, Los Angeles (2004, p. 118) Or as written on page 137 that stated that “Japanese were the largest single segment of Hawai’i’s population in 1930, at almost 38 percent, or 140,000 people.94 Although members of the haole oligarchy in Hawai’i required Asian labor, they expressed an intense fear of being outnumbered by Asians. . . Furthermore, the “Oriental races” were feared to contaminate the blood of Caucasians and Polynesians in the islands. A Paradise of the Pacific editor wrote in 1924: “The Oriental races are practically all of small stature, slight physique, yellow or bown color and, in the case of the Japanese, . . . flat features, protruding teeth and short legs.”(2004, p. 137)
Certainly they are totally wrong; there are as in any other race beautiful women or handsome young people among them and mainly the goal behind is a political opportunism of the people who are trying to take or gain the attention as they are using the target community to step up on them as happened with Pete Wilson and Proposition 187, which never as many other considered what by Hidalgo Contract the United States owed to the Mexicans as they sign the treaty and agreed to provide education to them. Instead Wilson feature Prop. 187 which brought only hatred and a real divider among the melting community pot of this country that for years worked to get rid of racicism because “African Americans and Asians voted in support of Prop 187 at a rate of nearly 50%. This difference in voter opinion allowed the imminent issue to be used as a ‘divide and conquer’ tactic between blacks and Latinos.” (Prof. Carrillo notes posted on ILearn, 2012)
Back in 1972-3 this author came to this country and for the first time she was exposed to the racicism idea through a movie called “White Roses for my Black Sister or so.” This document is focusing on the Hispanic Community empowerment, but do not have any races preferences and feel this article will try to tell you in general about what historically had been happening. Trying to give to any race or group the clues on how to empower themselves or why the Hispanic community had not been able as many others to succeed. We will try to focus on the why even though the Hispanic community represent the 16 percent of the population in the United States, only 9 percent of them are voting. What can make the Hispanic Community a constitutent block with influencial saying and how we should address the obstacles to gain a Hispanic political empowerment for them.
We will use the authors of the required books that we used throughout the semester as well as many other readings posted or assigned and of course our voice will be raise on what we believe is the main reason to gain the Hispanic community empowerment as requested throught the question to be responded as part of our final paper and they are used to describe our main points. The intention is not to divide much more to this country, but to get them together. This country is making one of the most hugemongous mistakes when is denying education to the ones who are the roots and the pilars of the hard work and the economy of this country without ever demanding or saying and when they were forced to do so they are being misjudge and not appreciate. The future of any country rely in their children education and if the Hispanic community which is growing is not being educated what it is that we are planning for this country in the near future?
HUNTINGTON, ZEPEDA, CHAVEZ INPUTS
HUNTINGTON FOREIGN POLICY STEREOTYPING THE HISPANIC COMMUNITY IN 2004 AND THE STRUGGLES OF THEM IN 2006 AS MANY OTHERS WERE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF HIS SET UPS THAT MADE EVERYONE ELSE TO SEE THE HISPANIC COMMUNITY AS SOMEONE WHO WAS TAKING ADVANTAGE OVER THE HEALTH, THE EDUCATION SYSTEM AMONG OTHERS. This author will mentioned a bit what is not worth to repeat because the words or Chris Zepeda said a lot in his Brown Vote who in his second paragraph stated, but before let me tell Zepeda and Huntington who are referring that referred to the United States as just America when perhaps is accurate to refer to it as part of Nort America, but this include Mexico and Canada because below we do have Central America and South America and just the whole continent should be call America. Isn’t it? Now, as Zepeda wrote:
“Huntington, a professor of government at Harvard, has built a half-a-century career out of pitting the “good” (us) against “evil” (them) to the benefit of his American-ruling elite employers. In the 1960s, he was convinced that napalm and Agent Orange bombing of the Vietnamese countryside was depriving the Vietcong of its rural base of support, so the US would win the war over time. . . It’s all color-coded, of course: after the red menace (communism), the yellow peril (Asia) and the gree peril (Islam), now the terror alert (elevated) has been switched to the brown peril (Latinos). . . Huntington claims that Mexicans are essentially invading, exploiting and creating poverty in the US, World-famous Mexican novelist Carlos Fuentes, a former diplomat, responds: “Hispanics are not the ‘balkanizers’ of the US, as Huntington wants it. They cherish their traditional values, as Americans of Italian, Irish or Chinese extraction do. But they are not preparing a reconquista of the territories lost in 1848.” . . . “He should know that most European populations speak many languages, and that it is isolation that forces cultures to perish. Hispanics enrich American culture, and to reduce their presence would also hurt America’s economy.” (Zepeda Response, 2004, p. 1, 2 & 3)
One thing that comes to memory as growing up was the way in which quite a number of Latin American people as well as Mexican supported the United States throughout WWI and WWII and just repeating to refresh about Huntington Foreign Policy and the negative stereotype brought up by him against the Hispanic community and mainly against Mexicans. This is one of his head lines in the 2004 article mentioned above “The cultural division between Hispanics and Anglos could replace the racial division between blacks and whites as the most serious cleavage in U. S. society.” (p. 32) This article gave to the Hispanic community one of the most negative narrative that as mentioned by Leo R. Chavez (2008, p.115) affected many as Jesica Santillan.
“The human body has long been a metaphor for the nation.15 Nation, here, refers to the people who share a national identity –for example, those generally referred to as “Americans,” members of “U. S society,” or even “we, the people.” Nation is also commonly used to refer to the country or nation-state, as in “the United States of Ameica.” Immigrants are said to change the “face of the nation,” meaning the demographics of the people in the United States.16 We speak of “the body politic” to refer to concerned citizens. We also speak of the antion’s “well-being or refer to the economy as being “sick,” using health metaphos for the body of the nation. Because the nation-as-body is such a taken-for-granted construction, immigrants are easily represented using metaphos of illness, disease, parasites, and plagues that threaten the nation.17 Immigrants are said to penetrate the body of the nation metaphorically-inmuch the same way that germs penetrate the human body-and can, if left unchecked, weaken and even kill the nation by destroying its institutions. The body’s skin is like the nation’s borders, in this sense. Immigrants, if they are to be tamed and their pathological potentials neutralized, need to be absorbed into the body of the nation. Immigrants, over time and over generations, might become part of the national body. But if there are problems with integrative processes-that is, with assimilation-then we sometimes hear about the nation’s inability to “digest” any more immigrants.18”
“Rather than digesting and absorbing immigrants, the nation can also metahorically expel them from the body of the nation. They are excluded through categorization (“illegal aliens,” “unauthorized,” “undocumented”), representation (“invading force,” “population threat,” “unassimilable”), and policies (limited access to social services, obstacles to regularizing immigration status) that keep them out of the nation’s body, as if their inclusion would constitute “defilement.”19 These rejected and abject subjects live in a liminal space where the boundary between their everyday lives in the nation and their lives as part of the nation is maintained as a way of ensuring their control and social regulation.” (p. 116)
In this pages, Chavez, (2008) talked about organ transplants and privileges of citizenship
in the case of Jesica Santillan, who die due to an error or perhaps because of the avalanche of critics in regards the organ donation, but let me write what over all is written in the same book and by Chavez (2008) to show you about the big heart of the Hispanic community which had been giving not just receiving.
“Medical providers are also disciplined in that they are compelled to impose limitations on services, such as the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) policy that no more than 5 percent of organs can go to “foreigners,” which includes undocumented immigrants. These limitations are applied even though evidence suggests that immigrants may provide more organs than they receive. For example, commenting in a 2003 newspaper article, a spokeswoman for UNOS noted, “As a percentage, every year, U. S. citizens received 96.2 percent of transplants in the country, but only 94.8 percent of organ donos were citizens. The rest of the organs were donated by immigrants of various types. In North Carolina, where the Jesica Santillan drama played out, Latinos were among the most likely group to donate a family member’s organs. About 78 percent of Latinos had done so during the first six months of 2002, whereas only 62 percent of other groups had.77(p. 130)
But let me bring this other page to your attention, “For example, undocumented immigrants are now said to provide a subsidy of as much as $7 billion a year to the U. S. Social Security system and $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes. 81 However, such gifts on the part of undocumented immigrants have done little to assuage the proponents of anti-immigrant measures.” . . . The biopolitics of organ transplants serves another functon. It effectively shifts attention away from serious discussions of the ethical issues related to medical care for uninsured, undocumented immigrants.82 For instance, Jesica’s case reflects how the rights and privileges of citizenship can be narrowly defined. However, what about human rights and medical care?” (p. 131)
Let me ask you isn’t Mexico part of America and this author feels that it is a
misunderstanding in regards to America. America name was given to the whole continent and Canada, The United States of America as well of Mexico are part or North America; Central America contains the six little ones and after that is South America, but Americans we are all from the North Pole to South Pole. But lets keep on asking question because this author want your to say that not this poor dumb. Tell us isn’t true that were the Whites immigrants that arrived from across the ocean in 1776 that took half of Mexico as part of this country? But they had never claimed not even the Hidalgo’s Contract right to education as signed in 1848 and for years written by many and based even on the the Census data written below, traditionally they had just come and go. Just working the hardest jobs and many times receiving as pay not even the minimum wages as is happening to Blacks and Mexican in jails right now. They were just coming to work, sending money and going back to their countries, leaving the portion of their taxes unclaimed without saying, just giving to the citizens of this country a higher standard of living. Allowing many to have social security benefits despite the facts that were the Mexicans the ones who worked hard and left their money to be given to the citizen of this country.
Mexicans were and still are slow to try to get citizenship even as you will find written in Pew Hispanic Center data written below (2012). It was until 2006 when they were pressure that a greater number got their citizenship, but it is important to highlight that they were also attracted to the borders through the maquiladoras and later deeper into others remote places in the United States that were offering jobs; the ones no one likes to do. Who should we blame? Who made a negative narrative, and who brought them in and expedited their wishes to become legal and to participate more actively? Do not blame the Hispanic community! (Partially resume from own experience and knowledge of the ethnic group behavior and participation.) Highlighting that The Transmigrants and Nation-States: Something Old and Something New in the U. S. Immigrant Experience is a good reference for technical understanding, but this author goal is not to show, but to get you to understand is mentioning them as for futher reference is you please to expand in the matter. (Glick, p. 1-23)
The biggest mistake of this country which is importing immigrants from afar without given the opportunity to the people who had been supporting them and make them and their pockets bigger. They are denying and bringing down to the trash the education in this country just because the Mexicans grew in numbers as suggested by Huntington back in 2004. Many children goes through the by law years of education not learning even to read and a good example is my own baby who is in third grade and is not being teach on how to do so, but people like Huntington said: “They are not assimilating, they just speak Spanish.” When they are denying, when they are changing the education for the worse as happened through the cancellation of the bilingual programs. But worse of all when you tried to get help and make public their abuses of authorities and discretions or when you try to highlight the real reasons why the Mexicans are not successful “Because Government still segregating even inside the classroom to some of the students and because they are taken them just to make sure they will not learn and to succeed.” (See also Pew Hispanic G Principle) People get retaliations as happened to the Hispanic community media, 10 percent reduccion since 2006.
Keep the above paragraph in mind, especially the ones written by Chavez and let me introduce to you with Perkins ideological stereotypes that is being used to worked the minds not only of the Hispanic community in this case, but also Orientals, Blacks, gays, lesbians, women. . . The new faces of the old stereotypes or should we call them the new phase of stereotypes?
HOW PERKINS NEW PHASE OF STEREOTYPES CAN OR IS BEING APPLIED TO THE HISPANIC COMMUNITY, BUT HISTORICALLY NOT ONLY TO THEM
One thing that we do have to keep in mind is that the media is the influential, certainly is who put the dot on the eyes. It is who talks and put on the table the topic, the characteristic that define the individual or the group or the matter. The media it is what is used to define or re-defined stereotypes and as it is mentioned not directly, but in between the lines by T. E. Perkins, the author of “Rethinking Stereotypes” especially in page 148 and 149 in his article. She also mentioned and this are his actual words written on the second paragraph of p. 149 “One of the ways in which the mass media operate to support the ruling ideology is in this re-defining process and in the circulation of new definitions or a range of new definitions.” “It is not to imply a conspiracy theory, and of course she is not suggesting that this is calculated.” According to her “The media respond to what they think the audience want, which includes ‘new’ or topical series as well as old favourites.” To end this introduction again I will repeat that she precluded that both, the group concerned and the group that not directly, she called them the other member of society.
One group of people offered the new definitions and interpretation and the other which can be influence or may be influential because through the process one group flip the stereotypes and again the process starts to keep as Mark said one group as a class and another group as the ideological controlling group through narrative or text that stereotype members of society to exploit, margin and abuse them. Perkins mentioned “some of the many types of programme that through the years had been re-defining, re-negotiating? ‘Through the share cultural meanings’” and there is the point, this author want to make “Society is a living body that is constantly changing and as we interact/share while in the big scale the stereotypes are working; the individuals are doing no less, as the main body they are changing. Refusing many times to be like the stereotype and struggling to get out of the box, but as they are put together as group, or ethnicity or diversity suddenly the changes pop and through the cultural meanings made changes that sometimes are not the ones that the ideological group have in mind, but which are quietly imposed by the majority and a good example are the Black people who were stereotype and rejected for years, but in 2012 are having a new narrative, a new look and they are even participating in the role of the media that define. . . and this author just wish their struggles will bring up good feeling that will change the course of this world to a positive route not as we are going.
Perkins argues “that the socialization of any oppressed group is essentially problematic in so far as contradictory value orientations must be learnt,” as he wrote on page 150, third paragraph and continue saying” there is a contradiction in the socialization of groups who ‘may’ not, in fact, aspire to those values and this contradiction is of course aggravated by an ‘egalitarian’ ideology.” She expanded the issue and went “to the socialization of blacks is problematic, but also mentioned that by contrast, women’s socialization is equally problematic because women are likely to make their socialization particularly problematic, especially in a society which makes claims to being an egalitarian democracy. (151) In the case of gays, lesbians or so is different they might adopt or hide the adoption of the stereotypes in this class.” (152). In page 154 Perkins mentioned “the female logic and also the inverting status so that it becomes a cause rather than an effect as written at the end of the second paragraph and which introduced the two basic reason why the short-circuit occurs to make life easier or to accept the lack of choice.”
However she said on page 155 having said all of the above and she summarized it saying “stereotypes are inaccurate or false referring to the claim in which she said that stereotypes are similar to ideology apparently true and really false at the same time. First she said “stereotypes present interpretations of groups which conceal the ‘real; cause of the group’s attributes and confirm the legitimacy of the group’s oppressed position. Secondly, stereotypes are selective descriptions of particularly significant or problematic areas and to that extent they are exaggerations.” What is important to realize is that stereotypes are evaluative concepts done by individuals who are observing, who are socializing who are constantly evaluating and including one’s self and as Perkins said “-to be socialize is to be self-oppressed. (Effectiveness of the ideology relies on this as does its ‘legitimacy’)”. Perkins ends her article “with the hope of achieving in part a theoretical perspective on stereotypes which allows us to investigate them as ideological phenomena,” and this author insist on telling you that my hope is that you realized through it that you should always give to the individual the credit of the doubt and you should never go by the “stereotypes,” because that reflect just your poor judgments. They are good to know in general what to expect, but they are not the individual reality.
APPLYING THE PEW HISPANIC CENTER DATA TO FIGURE OUT, INTERACTING THE FRAGA ET ALL IDEAS AS WELL AS NALEO INPUTS
Now let’s go down to the Hispanic community in the last decade and based on the data found rom the year 2000 to the 2010 as written by the Pew Hispanic Center as written on the statistical portrait of Hispanics in the United States, 2010. Keep in mind what Perkins wrote in page 150 and is written above for easy understanding of the reason why the Hispanic community vote as they did in 2010 after Huntington wrote very negatively about them and Pete Wilson used them to create conditions to improve his political opportunism to gain a higher approval rating from the other communities as will be shown below that after Huntington words in 2004 the shift of the growing of the Hispanic community from native or foreign born changed as shown below through the Pew Hispanic Center data.

No doubt the words written by Fraga et all on page 2 last paragraph are a good support of what was mentioned by Perkins as described above. But let me repeat (Fraga et all, p. 2)
“We might see the marches as the culmination of the political process begun in 1994 with the Latino reaction to California Proposition 187, which prohibited providing most state services to those suspected of being undocumented immigrants. And some of the literature on Latino politics, since the late 1990s, had begun to identify some of the small but important changes in Latino political life that may have culminated in the events of 2006 (Fraga and Rami8rez 2003; Pantoja, Ramirez, and Segura 2001).”
And this author do not agreed with what is written in regards to this community as “Political disconnected, slow to mobilization and generally inattentive to politics.” As
written as the last part of that paragraph. Why because the Hispanic community usually comes to this country due to their economic needs and in general tried to work hard and used to go back, and if they went out to the street was because they were pushed to do so and are feeling bad about what the people in this country are saying and are doing against them as established also by Pew Hispanic Center on their survey release on July 13, 2006 Suro and Escobar (2006, p ii)
“Latinos are feeling more discriminated against, politically energized and unified following the immigration policy debate and the pro-immigration marches this spring. . . More than half (54%) of Latinos surveyed believe the debate has increased discrimination. Almost two-thirds (63%) think the pro-immigrant marches this year signal the beginning of a new and lasting social movement. . . And in marked contrast to prior surveys, a majority (58%) now believes Hispanics are working together to achieve common goals.” Reading on the same article (p. 6) “Participants in many of the pro-immigration rallies that took place across the country in the spring chanted. “Today we march, tomorrow we vote.” Three-quarters (75%) of Latinos surveyed agreed that as a result of the debate over immigration policy in Washington, many more Hispanics will vote in the November elections.”
But if we further analyze the information posted on that survey release we will find on (p. 16) “That an average of 70% of the people surveyed from June 2002 till 2006 felt that some people said that undocumented or illegal immigrants help the economy by providing low-cost labor.” And on (p. 20) you will find that about 50% of the people were thinking that Congress should allowed them to become legal and they were happy to just come to work legally on a temporary basis.

In short what this author wants to emphasize is that the Hispanic community is being
wrongfully stereotype, discriminated and not appreciated. Good number of them comes with the sole intention to work for the pennies that this country usually wants to pay for the harder jobs performed by them that no one else want to do. They as written everywhere had never have the intention to organize and participate not because they do not care about the politics of this country, but because they had been believing in them and trusting and letting them to do as they please, no matter if they were having the right to become legal and could have the social impact through their voting rights as many others are doing. For this community it had been plenty to have a job, make some money to send back home to improve the living of their families there which helps both economies and more or less had been balancing the economy of the region to certain extent until people never satisfied are asking for more and more not caring for absolutely anything. Yes they walked on the marches, but because this country had become so greedy and has no respect for absolutely anyone and not to say any appreciation for the people who are doing the harder jobs and are the ones who are supporting to certain extent their growing pockets and power.
Yes, the Hispanic community voted as expected in the 2010 elections and as written in Pew Hispanic Center by Lopez and as he wrote on the iii update information:
“Tuesday’s midterm elections were historic for Hispanics. For the first time ever, three Latino candidates—all of them Republicans—won top statewide offices. In New Mexico, voters elected the nation’s first Latina governor, Republican Susana Martinez. In Nevada, Republican Brian Sandoval won the governor’s race and became Nevada’s first Hispanic governor. And in Florida, Republican Marco Rubio won the U.S. Senate race.1
Despite these big top-of-the-ticket wins for Republican Hispanic candidates, Democratic candidates won the Latino vote, usually by wide margins. For example, according to the national House exit poll,2 60% of Latino voters supported Democratic candidates in House races while 38% supported Republican candidates.
This majority support for Democratic candidates continues a pattern among Latino voters. In 2006, according to the national exit poll, 69% of Latinos voted for Democratic candidates in their Congressional district races, while 30% supported Republicans.3 In the 2008 presidential election, Latinos supported Democrat Barack Obama by a margin of more than two-to-one over Republican John McCain—67% versus 31% according to a Pew Hispanic Center analysis of the national exit poll (Lopez, 2008).”
These were the graphics posted by them.
Now going back to our Leo R. Chavez’s book (p. 70) to irrigate the Huntington introduction we will find a similar comment “The 300 millionth [baby] will be a Mexican Latino in Los Angeles, or at least somewhere in the U. S. Southwest. But neither one was alone as Chavez also wrote
“This pronouncement had been made a full ten months earlier in a New York Times article by William Frey, a demographer with the University of Michigan’s Population Studies Center: “The 300 millionth [baby] will be a Mexican Latino in Los Angeles County, with parents who speak Spanish at home and with siblings who are bilingual.”2 . . . why, “While most Americans are still Anglo-Saxon Protestants, Hispanic mothers have higher birth rates, and no state has more births than California, where most newborns are of Hispanic origin. There, Jose ranked fourth in 2004 among the most popular baby names for boys after Daniel, Anthony and Andrew.”3
What do they expect when the poor Hispanics worked happily sixteen hours just be
able to pay the rent and the bills because majority of them worked in the lowest pay jobs and the hardest that no other race wants to do? Yes, they are divided based on the countries from which they arrived, the cohort, the history behind their immigration status or reasons that forced them to come into this country. Good number of them have care for education and in good number of time had have a higher education that in many times are given in their origin countries for “free” or included through the taxes that they pay back in their countries and despite the facts many of them work hard not caring about what they left. Perhaps a highly, but poor pay compared to the minimum that they can do in this country cleaning even toilets vs. an office easy job with higher status in their own countries. They also are used to better benefits not known in this country as is the severance pay not only in Mexico (Aguinaldo or the 13th month pay) as well as the seniority.
Let’s bring up what was found written by “Lisa Lowe, an Asian American Studies scholar that critiqued the campaign to pass Prop 187 as being based on racial stereotypes that are carefully constructed images designed to make lies more attractive than truth. (p. 53)” as written on one of the forum posted through LTNS 660 and which is the point that this author is trying to argue based on Perkins “Rethinking Stereotypes.” As written above. In short, our representatives are not really appreciating and on the same forum and concluded by Lowe “In blaming immigrants workers for coming to the US to collect welfare benefits. Lowe says “that the political event of Prop 187 was partly a prelude to cutting welfare and privatizing what are now public benefits such as education and health services,” but to what extent the Hispanic community is willing to keep on working hard and double the amount of hours for much less than many other races which are not willing to even think about?
Yes, as shown by Pew Hispanic Center below data, we had come dreaming
about what we not have in our own countries due to the created conditions imposed by World Bank or others countries who are controlling the economy of this world, but this is one of the good reasons why the Hispanic communities, certainly divided by the factors mentioned above, but who did try to say and demonstrated since 2006 a different not expected reaction in regards to their political involvements that they might have as this country keep on stereotyping and abusing, stretching the good intention of this hard worker community that just come to this country with the sole intention to work hard to be able to provide the basis needs of their families. But what is the problem is that the few who helped the whole community and put them as one block lost their jobs and the leaders of this group are not backing up so instead of advancing, this community is being set up and abuse even further. Some of the members of the community keep on thinking and expecting that they will stand just because they can write we need to take pride and responsibility and this author will say. Many had done so, the problem is we need leaders that will keep on guiding us with the good intention to make this country to keep on growing not going steps back.
For the last twenty years they had been talking bad about the “Mexicans immigrants because they are not assimilating, but they are not providing the tools for them to grow: “Elemental dear Sherlock, education is the key or else this country is importing a different kind of immigrants who were not having the legal rights that good number of the Mexicans were having, but who did not fulfill the requirements because even though NALEO G Principle said so, they keep on seeing that government is not providing the tools, but is letting them to keep cutting not only the bilingual programs, Affirmative Action almost ending and never claiming properly the Hidalgo Contract. Instead of importing immigrants from far, we should thank to the hard worker that for years had been giving and letting the people of this country to focus more not on the production of basis needs, but on communications among other fields.
In 2012 Election the Hispanic community made a jumped of 1 percent higher than the last election and made a 10 percent of the electorate vote according to the below Pew Hispanic Center, but what this author wants to emphasize is that we need as a country to re-evaluate our doings. The Mexican representation in better pay jobs are very low compared to other races even though they are reaching almost the 17 percent of the population in this country and again the question. Are the Mexicans really demanding or trying to be the threat of this country or some people are stereotyping them irresponsible just to gain votes or to take attention away from the real issues? The intention is not to make anyone upset. The intention is to bring up the issue before these issues gained a bigger magnitude as happened in 2006. Evaluate the data that for years had been showing the economic wealth that the Hispanic community had help this country to earn and do not make them feel as bad as they are feeling. See below the data posted by the Pew Hispanic Center. The Hispanic community is growing in number, but needs to grow intellectually to keep on helping this country to grow economically. Check the data and you will find out how the communities and cities growth goes parallel to their increase number as members of those communities.

According to Lopez and Taylor through the Pew Hispanic Center the Latino voter in the 2012 Election voted for democratic representative,” Obama 71%; for the Republican Romney 27%” and they also made a comparison of the same pattern from the 1980 till this election which shows the higher percentage or the Hispanic community involvement which is having an increase as shown below based on the data posted by the Pew Hispanic Center. The highest numbers recorded since 1996 according to their data shown below as well as their comments.”
“ Latinos voted for President Barack Obama over Republican Mitt Romney by 71% to 27%, according to an analysis of exit polls by the Pew Hispanic Center, a Project of the Pew Research Center.1
Obama’s national vote share among Hispanic voters is the highest seen by a Democratic candidate since 1996, when President Bill Clinton won 72% of the Hispanic vote.
The Center’s analysis finds that Latinos made up 10% of the electorate, as indicated by the national exit poll, up from 9% in 2008 and 8% in 2004.2 The analysis also shows that as a group, non-white voters made up 28% of the nation’s electorate, up from 26% in 2008.3
Battleground States
Hispanics made up a growing share of voters in three of the key battleground states in yesterday’s election—Florida, Nevada and Colorado.”
Why the changes?
According to the same source, but based on their report dated March 28, 2007 written by Passel who said “The proportion of all legal foreign-born residents who have become naturalized U. S. citizens rose to 52 percent in 2005, the highest level in a quarter of a century and a 14 percentage point increase since 1990,” and the same emphasized the “Mexicans still have a comparatively lower tendency to become U. S. citizens, but the number of naturalized citizens from Mexico rose by 144% from 1995 to 2005- the sharpest increase among immigrants from any major sending country.”
Who are pushing these drastic changes are the ones who thinking that they can gain in the revolts are pushing the risk to the extremes. For years the Mexican who represents about 65% of the whole community and who for years had not care not because they do not care for this country, but because they do know they are in the same graphic area and they are not here to compete or to challenge as I wrote above this ethnic group is one of the less demanding. Americans is blaming them not realizing the highest cost of the well pay labor who is not supporting the basis needs of the people in this country and who is just writing and profiling the immigrants without appreciating their hard work for the less amount pay.
But learn how to read in between the lines because all the analysis made by institution like this are used against the group that is being stereotype negatively with the sole purpose to get benefit for the group who is promoting the proposition like the SB 1070 or the 187 or the 209 . . . Majority of the Hispanic community members even the one who had come legally to work into this country as this country had been the one having the need like the Braseros vs. war time, The Mexicans paid taxes (kept even until recently at Wells Fargo partially) they never collected them back and still now good number of them work and paid for taxes that will never give them any returns or any benefits. If they add all the millions of dollars paid every single year through social security or through the payments given to the states or the federal government they will find that this community is the one subsidizing the prices for the people who live legally in this country and good number of them without even working or earning the benefits.
Yes, the number is showing a new pattern emerged since 2006 as more and more immigrants who were able to do so got their citizenship they were not the ones who feel the need; they were paying without having the right to vote and decide as they had been pushed to do just because many people utilized their images to gain benefits without really analyzing the data or trying to see the whole picture. Isn’t it the government subsidizing the maquiladoras at the border? Isn’t it attracting the “illegal immigrants?” What it is the real goal? Why do they like to blame the poor and I am inviting Jim Huber to make another cartoon, but this time not blaming the Mexican or feeling sorrow because they are exhausting the systems, but put the hat on the head of the United States American people who is blaming the ones who are just being attracted by the ones who are trying to gain your approval without appreciating what the Hispanic community had been giving to this country economy. Make the characters to laugh and aloud say why they are forcing the Latin American including the Mexicans to come and growth as they had been since 2004? What is going on? Where and who is taking us?
Why do you think the education which is one of the most important issues or topic for the Hispanic communities is going down to the trash as their number are increasing because our government representatives are creating the conditions to make them come? This author is giving a general resume as I heard Professor Carrillo in LTNS 660 Prop 209 cancelled bilingual programs. This author will also refer you to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials NALEO and the NALEO Education Fund on a Balanced Approach to Comprehensive Immigration Reform Principle G (No year, no author, no page or reference are found as posted in Ilearnsfsu.edu)
“Our immigration policies must actively promote the civic integration of newcomers. Many newcomers face significant barriers when they attempt to acquire the skills needed to participate in our nation’s civic life. Immigrants who pursue English language learning (ELL) and civics instruction often face waiting lists or crowded classrooms. Comprehensive immigration reform provides a critical opportunity to promote ELL and civics instruction and make more resources available for adult education services. In addition, our immigration policies must ensure that the naturalization process is fair and accessible for newcomers. We oppose any efforts that would create unfair obstacles for naturalization applicants, including high application fees or other costs that put U. S. citizenship beyond the reach of middle, and low-income legal permanent residents. We also oppose measures that would jeopardize the due process rights of applicants or make unfair changes in the English and civics proficiency requirement for U. S. citizenship.” (NALEO, https://ilearn.sfsu.edu/file.php/2631/NALEO_PrinciplesImmReform.pdf)
For which this author also gives testimony that is not so. Immigration certainly had been
dividing the Hispanic families in ways that are not up to the 2000 millennium and many are the families which are broken and separate as many are the ones who struggle to have their citizenship granted as they had been forced to pay a very high increased in the amount supposed to be pay. From Chapter 18, The Schooling of Latino Children written by Moll and Ruiz said on page 364 and which do not mention the Hidalgo Contract part that warranty education to the Mexicans. Instead for years segregated, instead and for many years as written below forced into subtractive schooling which is forcing them to have the highest rate of dropping even before their high school graduations.
Similarly, Mexican Americans (or Chicanos) also exhibit low achievement and mobility (Garcia 1995). Their history in North America predates that of any other Latino group, a fact that is not lost on many within the community (Gutierrez 1995). Upon the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo in 1848, Mexican became Mexican Americans with the stroke of a pen. The treaty gave this country nearly half of Mexico’s territory, what are now the states (or part thereof) of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and California. As Anglo Americans occupied the new territories, motivated by the mining for gold in California and the rapid spread of railroad lines and commerce, the ideology of white supremacy followed, under the philosophical guise of “manifest destiny,” providing justification for the displacement not only of lands and property but also of language and culture (Velez-Ibanez, 1997, p. 362) . . . This dual strategy of exclusion and condemnation, divesting Latino students of their primary resources-their language and culture-is what Valenzuela (1999) has called “subtractive schooling.” This form of schooling has become a major feature of the education of poor and working-class Latino students all over the country. It results in disdain for what one knows and what one is, influences children’s attitudes toward knowledge, and undermines their personal competence. That is, subtractive schooling creates a social distance between the students and the world of school knowledge and expertise, whereas, in contrast, one is unskilled and incompetent-that one’s language and knowledge are inadequate because they are not privilege.” (p. 364 and 65)
But this author feels that the best thing to do is just to question publicly to Huntington.
Do you think that the Hispanic community after reading the above statements are the ones refusing to assimilate, are the ones dividing this country or are the ones enhancing and working hard for this country and are the ones who had helped the economy of the many groups that had been exploiting and robbing them in their own land not only in the past, but even recently as also mentioned by Professor Carrillo in regards to the Housing discrimination that this community had been facing in the last decade or so as well as written on the Fair Housing Act: a Latino Perspective written by Yzaguirre, Arce, Kamsaki (1999) in their conclusion “Social science research has demonstrated conclusively that Latinos experience substantial housing discrimination. In recent years, Federal agencies and private fair housing groups have begun to carry out increased enforcement efforts to protect the civil rights of Hispanics under the Fair Housing Act. Despite the progress outlined in this article, the Act has not lived up to its promise.”
NCLR AND THE HOUSING DISCRIMINATION . . . AGAINST THE HISPANIC COMMUNITY
This author also gives personal testimony not only of the tricks played not only at the school system, but in many others that are being publicly advertised for the last seven years in which not only the Hispanic community was discriminated, robbed through the Realtor Crisis that had taken the saving of the Americans and their dream house. Briefly mentioning the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) title to say again the Hispanic community was discriminated and were one of the hardest supporters of the region as they needed someone to work hard there. “IN THE EYE OF THE STORM: HOW THE GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE RESPONSE TO HURRICANE KATRINA FAILED LATINOS.” Written by Brenda Muniz, Consultant of NCLR, (2006, p. 1).
This is how the Latino community despite the facts and negative narrative imposed on them had been reacting under pressure, but with the same kindness for a government that had not given them an immigration response as requested by them on the marches of the 2006 all over, carrying the United States banners and just trying to say rightfully “We deserve this, we had been supporting you, but again ignored despite the facts in which thanks to them and the coalition between the suffered Black community and them for the first time made a Black man to step and lived in the best home of this country: “The White House.” Making a statement and a change in regards racisms for the first time in history who in his first round did not give them any immigration law that would help the legal status of millions of them in the United States of America. Below is the Pew Hispanic data of the 2012 Election and this are the numbers that show the Hispanic community support and new participation not because they are dividing or trying to create issues in this country. What is important to highlight is that Mexican still slow in changing citizenship not because they do not care or support this country, but because we as a country are not giving them the tools to learn the language that will help them to assimilate other important things of the culture of this country. These changes will also help this country to cut on the imports or more immigrants who will come to compete with the better pay jobs that the Hispanic communities had not been able to absorb because this country is not giving to the Hispanic community as much as they had been receiving from them. Again the Hispanic community support was given in this Election as in the prior election to Obama and we hope for the best this time.
2012 ELECTION RESULTS FROM PEW HISPANIC CENTER DATA FOR YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION BASED ON ABOVE COMMENTS
“(Post-Election Analysis
Changing Face of America Helps Assure Obama Victory
A Milestone En Route to a Majority Minority Nation
How the Faithful Voted: 2012 Preliminary Analysis
Obama carried Florida’s Hispanic vote 60% to 39%, an improvement over his 57% to 42% showing in 2008. Also, Hispanics made up 17% of the Florida electorate this year, up from 14% in 2008.
The state’s growing non-Cuban population—especially growth in the Puerto Rican population in central Florida—contributed to the president’s improved showing among Hispanic voters. This year, according to the Florida exit poll, 34% of Hispanic voters were Cuban while 57% were non-Cuban. Among Cuban voters, the vote was split—49% supported Obama while 47% supported Romney. Among the state’s non-Cuban voters, Obama won 66% versus 34% for Romney.
In Colorado, Obama carried the Latino vote by a wide margin—75% to 23%. The president’s performance among Latino voters in Colorado was better than in 2008, when Obama won the Latino vote 61% to 38%. Hispanics made up 14% of Colorado voters this year, up from 13% in 2008.
In Nevada, Obama won the Hispanic vote 70% to 25%. However, the president’s Hispanic vote was down from the 76% share he won in 2008. Among voters in Nevada, the Hispanic share was 18%, up from 15% in 2008.
In other states, the president also carried large shares of the Hispanic vote. Among other battlegrounds, Obama won 68% of the Hispanic vote in North Carolina, 65% in Wisconsin, 64% in Virginia and 53% in Ohio.
Top Issues for Hispanic Voters in 2012
For Hispanic voters, according to the national exit poll, 60% identified the economy as the most important issue (of four listed) facing the country today, virtually the same as the share (59%) of the general electorate that identified the economy as the nation’s most important issue. On the other three issues asked about, for Hispanic voters, the economy was followed by health care (18%), the federal budget deficit (11%) and foreign policy (6%).
Throughout this election cycle, the issue of immigration has been an important issue for Hispanics. In the national exit poll, voters were asked about what should happen to unauthorized immigrants working in the U.S. According to the national exit poll, 77% of Hispanic voters said these immigrants should be offered a chance to apply for legal status while 18% said these immigrants should be deported. Among all voters, fewer than two-thirds (65%) said these immigrants should be offered a chance to apply for legal status while 28% say they should be deported.
Demographics of the Latino Vote
Among Latino voters, support for Obama was strong among all major demographic sub-groups. Yet some differences were evident. According to the national exit poll, Hispanic women supported Obama more than Hispanic males—76% versus 65%.
Latino youth, just as all youth nationwide, supported Obama over Romney, but did so by a wider margin—74% versus 23% for Latino youth compared with 60% versus 37% among all youth. Obama won other Latino age groups by nearly as large a margin.
Among Hispanic college graduates, 62% voted for Obama while 35% supported Romney. By contrast, 75% of Hispanics without a college degree voted for Obama while 24% voted for Romney.
Another gap was evident among Latino voters when viewed by income. Among Latino voters whose total family income is below $50,000, 82% voted for Obama while 17% voted for Romney. Among Latino voters with family incomes of $50,000 or more, 59% voted for Obama while 39% voted for Romney.
About this Report
Exit poll results for this report were obtained from CNN’s Election 2012 website and are based on National Election Pool national and state exit poll surveys of voters as reported on November 6, 2012. In addition to an analysis of the national Latino vote, 12 states were examined. These states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Eileen Patten for excellent research assistance. Seth Motel checked numbers in the report.
A Note on Terminology
The terms “Latino” and “Hispanic” are used interchangeably in this report.
1. The analysis in this report is limited to 12 states. These states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. Voter survey results from the National Election Pool national exit poll and state exit polls were obtained from CNN’s Election 2012 website. ↩
2. Utilizing the National Exit Poll to estimate the share of the electorate that is Hispanic generally produces an estimate that is higher than that observed in the Census Bureau’s November voting supplement of the Current Population Survey (CPS). In 2008, according to the National Exit Poll, 9% of voters were of Hispanic origin (Lopez, 2008). However, according to the 2008 November CPS, 7.4% of voters were Hispanic (Lopez and Taylor, 2009). Estimates of the Hispanic share of the electorate for 2012 from the 2012 November CPS will not be available until 2013. For more details on the issues associated with using these data sources to estimate the share of the electorate that is Hispanic, see “Hispanics and the 2004 Election: Population, Electorate and Voters” by Roberto Suro, Richard Fry and Jeffrey Passel. ↩
3. While Latino voters were a larger share of the electorate in 2012 than in 2008, the number of Latinos who cast a vote in yesterday’s election will not be known until sometime in the spring of 2013, when data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey becomes available. In this year’s election, according to Pew Hispanic Center estimates, 23.7 million Latinos were eligible to vote, up from 19.5 million in 2008 (Lopez, Motel and Patten, 2012). Latinos also represent a growing share of all eligible voters and growing shares of eligible voters in many states. Nationally, 11.0% of all eligible voters in the U.S. are Hispanic, up from 9.5% in 2008. ↩
Released: November 14, 2012
Aging, Naturalization and Immigration Will Drive Growth
An Awakened Giant: The Hispanic Electorate is Likely to Double by 2030
by Paul Taylor, Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, Jeffrey Passel and Mark Hugo Lopez
The record number1 of Latinos who cast ballots for president this year are the leading edge of an ascendant ethnic voting bloc that is likely to double in size within a generation, according to a Pew Hispanic Center analysis based on U.S. Census Bureau data, Election Day exit polls and a new nationwide survey of Hispanic immigrants.
The nation’s 53 million Hispanics comprise 17% of the total U.S. population but just 10% of all voters this year, according to the national exit poll. To borrow a boxing metaphor, they still “punch below their weight.”
However, their share of the electorate will rise quickly for several reasons. The most important is that Hispanics are by far the nation’s youngest ethnic group. Their median age is 27 years—and just 18 years among native-born Hispanics—compared with 42 years for that of white non-Hispanics. In the coming decades, their share of the age-eligible electorate will rise markedly through generational replacement alone.
According to Pew Hispanic Center projections, Hispanics will account for 40% of the growth in the eligible electorate in the U.S. between now and 2030, at which time 40 million Hispanics will be eligible to vote, up from 23.7 million now.2
Moreover, if Hispanics’ relatively low voter participation rates and naturalization rates were to increase to the levels of other groups, the number of votes that Hispanics actually cast in future elections could double within two decades.
If the national exit poll’s estimate proves correct that 10% of all voters this year were Hispanic, it would mean that as many as 12.5 million Hispanics cast ballots. But perhaps a more illuminating way to analyze the distinctive characteristics of the Hispanic electorate—current and future—is to parse the more than 40 million Hispanics in the United States who did not vote or were not eligible to vote in 2012. That universe can be broken down as follows:

• 11.2 million are adults who were eligible to vote but chose not to. The estimated 44% to 53% turnout rate of eligible Hispanic voters in 2012 is in the same range as the 50% who turned out in 2008. But it still likely lags well below the turnout rate of whites and blacks this year.3
• 5.4 million are adult legal permanent residents (LPRs) who could not vote because they have not yet become naturalized U.S. citizens. The naturalization rate among legal immigrants from Latin America and the Caribbean trails that of other legal immigrants by a sizable margin—49% versus 72%, according to a Pew Hispanic analysis of the 2011 March Current Population Survey (CPS). The new Pew Hispanic survey finds that a major reason Hispanic immigrants naturalize is to gain civil and legal rights, including the right to vote. The flexing of electoral muscle by Hispanic voters this year conceivably could encourage more legal immigrants to become naturalized citizens.
• 7.1 million are adult unauthorized immigrants and would become eligible to vote only if Congress were to pass a law creating a pathway to citizenship for them. Judging by the immediate post-election comments of leading Democratic and Republican lawmakers, the long-dormant prospects for passage of such legislation appear to have been revived by Latinos’ strong showing at the polls.
• 17.6 million are under the age of 18 and thus too young to vote—for now. That vast majority (93%) of Latino youths are U.S-born citizens and thus will automatically become eligible to vote once they turn 18. Today, some 800,000 Latinos turn 18 each year; by 2030, this number could grow to 1 million per year, adding a potential electorate of more than 16 million new Latino voters to the rolls by 2030.
Thus, generational replacement alone will push the age- and citizen-eligible Latino electorate to about 40 million within two decades. If the turnout rate of this electorate over time converges with that of whites and blacks in recent elections (66% and 65%, respectively, in 2008), that would mean twice as many Latino voters could be casting ballots in 2032 as did in 2012.
This turnout could rise even more if naturalization rates among the 5.4 million adult Hispanic legal permanent residents were to increase over time—and/or if Congress were to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that creates a pathway to citizenship for the more than 7 million unauthorized Hispanic immigrants already living in the U.S.
The Pew Hispanic Center survey finds that more than nine-in-ten (93%) Hispanic immigrants who have not yet naturalized say they would if they could. Of those who haven’t, many cite administrative costs and barriers, a lack of English proficiency and a lack of initiative. For example, according to the survey, only 30% of Hispanic immigrants who are LPRs say they speak English “pretty well” or “very well.”
In addition to all these factors, there is the as-yet-unknowable size and impact of future immigration. About 24 million Hispanic immigrants have come to U.S. in the past four decades—in absolute numbers, the largest concentrated wave of arrivals among any ethnic or racial group in U.S. history. Some 45% arrived in the U.S. legally, and 55% arrived illegally.4
Assuming Hispanic immigration continues into the future —even at the significantly reduced levels of recent years—the Hispanic electorate will expand beyond the numbers dictated by the growth among Hispanics already living in the U.S. And because immigrants tend to have more children than the native born, the demographic ripple effect of future immigration on the makeup of the electorate will be felt for generations.
In 2008, the Pew Research Center projected that the Hispanic share of the total U.S. population would be 29% by 2050 (Passel and Cohn, 2008). Since that projection was made, the annual level of Hispanic immigration has declined sharply (Passel, Cohn and Gonzalez-Barrera, 2012). Because of this decline, the share of Hispanics in 2050 now appears unlikely to reach 29%. However, the 2008 projection also included a “low immigration scenario” that showed the Hispanic share of the U.S. population would be 26% by mid-century (Passel and Cohn, 2008)—still much higher than today’s 17%.
Who Naturalizes and Who Doesn’t
A record 15.5 million legal immigrants were naturalized U.S. citizens in 2011, according to a Pew Hispanic Center analysis of Census Bureau data. In addition, the share of the nation’s legal immigrants who have become U.S. citizens has reached its highest level in three decades—56%. However, naturalization rates among legal immigrants from Latin America and the Caribbean (49%), especially Mexican legal immigrants (36%), remain below those of other immigrants (72%).
In the new Pew Hispanic Center survey, when asked in an open-ended question why they decided to naturalize, almost one-in-five (18%) naturalized Hispanic immigrants said that acquiring civil and legal rights—including the right to vote—was the main reason. This response was closely followed by an interest in having access to the benefits and opportunities derived from U.S. citizenship (16%) and family-related reasons (15%). Other reasons included viewing the U.S. as home (12%) and wanting to become American (6%).
The Pew Hispanic survey also explored the reasons Hispanic immigrants who are legal permanent residents haven’t yet tried to become citizens. According to the survey, when asked in an open-ended question why they had not naturalized thus far, 45% identified either personal barriers (26%), such as a lack of English proficiency, or administrative barriers (18%), such as the financial cost of naturalization.
About this Report
This report explores the growing size of the Hispanic electorate and the reasons Hispanic immigrants give for naturalizing to become a U.S. citizen—and for not naturalizing.
The report uses several data sources. Latino vote shares are based on the National Election Pool national exit poll as reported on November 6, 2012, by CNN’s Election 2012 website. Data on Latino immigrants’ views of naturalization are based on the Pew Hispanic Center’s 2012 National Survey of Latinos (NSL). The NSL survey was conducted from September 7 through October 4, 2012, in all 50 states and the District of Columbia among a randomly selected, nationally representative sample of 1,765 Latino adults, 899 of whom were foreign born. The survey was conducted in both English and Spanish on cellular as well as landline telephones. The margin of error for the full sample is plus or minus 3.2 percentage points. The margin of error for the foreign-born sample is plus or minus 4.4 percentage points. Interviews were conducted for the Pew Hispanic Center by Social Science Research Solutions (SSRS).
For data on the legal status of immigrants, Pew Hispanic Center estimates use data mainly from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly survey of about 55,000 households conducted jointly by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau. It is best known as the source for monthly unemployment statistics. Each March, the CPS sample size and questionnaire are expanded to produce additional data on the foreign-born population and other topics. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates make adjustments to the government data to compensate for undercounting of some groups, and therefore its population totals differ somewhat from the ones the government uses. Estimates of the number of immigrants by legal status for any given year are based on a March reference date. For more details, see Passel and Cohn (2010).
This report was written by Director Paul Taylor, Research Associate Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, Senior Demographer Jeffrey S. Passel and Associate Director Mark Hugo Lopez. Ana Gonzalez-Barrera took the lead in developing the survey questionnaire’s naturalization section. Passel and D’Vera Cohn provided comments on earlier drafts of the report. The authors also thank Scott Keeter, Leah Christian, Cohn, Richard Fry, Cary Funk, Rakesh Kochhar, Rich Morin, Seth Motel, Kim Parker, Passel, Eileen Patten and Antonio Rodriguez for guidance on the development of the survey instrument. Motel provided excellent research assistance. Fry, Morin and Patten number-checked the report text and topline. Marcia Kramer was the copy editor.
A Note on Terminology
The terms “Latino” and “Hispanic” are used interchangeably in this report.
“Foreign born” refers to persons born outside of the United States, Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories to parents neither of whom was a U.S. citizen.
The following terms are used to describe immigrants and their status in the U.S. In some cases, they differ from official government definitions because of limitations in the available survey data.
Legal permanent resident, legal permanent resident alien, legal immigrant, authorized migrant: A citizen of another country who has been granted a visa that allows work and permanent residence in the U.S. For the analyses in this report, legal permanent residents include persons admitted as refugees or granted asylum.
Naturalized citizen: Legal permanent resident who has fulfilled the length of stay and other requirements to become a U.S. citizen and who has taken the oath of citizenship.
Unauthorized migrant: Citizen of another country who lives in the U.S. without a currently valid visa.
Eligible immigrant: In this report, a legal permanent resident who meets the length of stay qualifications to file a petition to become a citizen but has not yet naturalized.
Legal temporary migrant: A citizen of another country who has been granted a temporary visa that may or may not allow work and temporary residence in the U.S.
1. According to the National Election Pool national exit poll, 10% of all voters in 2012 were Hispanic. And according to media reports and election turnout experts, an estimated 125 million votes were cast in 2012. However, the resulting estimate of 12.5 million Hispanics voters should be treated with caution. If history is a guide, it will likely differ—possibly substantially—with the demographic breakdown of the vote that will be reported next spring based on data drawn from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2012 November Current Population Survey (CPS), conducted after the presidential election. For example, in 2008, according to the National Exit Pool national exit poll, 9% of voters were Hispanic. But according to the 2008 November CPS, 7.4% of voters were Hispanic (Lopez and Taylor, 2009). If the gap in the Hispanic share between the National Exit Pool national exit poll and the CPS is as large as in 2012 as it was in 2008, the number of Hispanic voters could range from a low of 10.5 million to a high of 12.5 million. ↩
2. This projection is based on assumptions about future levels of fertility, mortality, and immigration. The projections subdivide the population by age, sex, race/Hispanic origin and generation (foreign-born, U.S.-born with immigrant parent(s) and U.S.-born with native parents). See Passel and Cohn (2008) for details on methodology and assumptions. The figures cited here are from the “middle” projection which assumes slight increases in immigration levels through 2030. The future voting-eligible population includes the U.S.-born population ages 18 and older plus the foreign-born population ages 18 and over who have become U.S. citizens by naturalization. The estimates of naturalized citizens in the future are based on extrapolation of trends in naturalization rates by race/Hispanic origin observed for 1995-2010. ↩
3. In 2008, according the Census Bureau’s November CPS, 50% of age- and citizen-eligible Hispanics voted, compared with 65% of blacks and 66% of whites (Lopez and Taylor, 2009). ↩
Some of those who arrived as unauthorized immigrants in the 1970s and 1980s subsequently became legal immigrants (and some naturalized) as a result of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. ↩)” (Pew Hispanic Center, 2012 starting from “(Post-Election Analysis till here. The information is being posted to make it easy for the readers who will easily found out that the Hispanic community is growing rapidly in numbers and therefore their unexpected reaction back in 2006 is not a threat, but it is important to recognize that in their votes anyone can warranty their political careers in this country and that they are one of the most hardest worker that anyone might wish to have as long as you acknowledge their hard work and appreciate it. Historically, the stereotyping of ethnics, races or group had let many issues that do not help this country to grow and the followed two documents are good to read and keep in mind as reference.
RECOMMENDING THIS ARTICLES FOR YOUR ENHANCEMENTS ON THE MATTER
► Bob Wing ~ The Color of Elections
USA: Color of Election 2000
Date distributed (ymd): 001213 https://ilearn.sfsu.edu/mod/resource/view.php?id=16915

Lipsitz – Chap. 3 – Imm Labor and Identity Politics
What does the quote by James Baldwin mean? “That victim who is able to articulate the situation of the victim has ceased to be a victim; he, or she, has become a threat.” P47
From LA Times online URL: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/lamelatinovote312010mar31%2C0%2C1488999.story

Latino groups to release voting score card on immigration issues
The report shows that 40% of California members of the House of Representatives with large Latino, Asian and foreign-born constituencies have not consistently supported pro-immigrant positions.
• Immigration activists denounce quota memo
By Teresa Watanabe March 31, 2010 LA Times

teresa.watanabe@latimes.com
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times

Conclusion
Overall the talking and reading or the poor writing of this author presented this author got to the conclusion that through the years few Hispanic had been able to successful. Very few are giving back to the community and to this country equally. Some of them are just helping to the people in power to set up this ethnic group to be exploited. Some as the community was able to raise their voice back in 2006 helped them, but the leader people in this country retaliated against them and 10 percent of the radio, television people who helped the Hispanic community not to threaten this country, but to ask for basic needs that this group had been denied throughout the years and since day one of the people in power (Whites). For years, the Mexicans who represent the majority of the Hispanic community were killed and abused by the Rangers, Minutemen, SB 1070, Pete Wilson, Huntington . . . but worse the main reason this author find for them not to be as successful as Asian people for example is because they are being divided and their Hispanic leaders are not defending them through the stroke of their pens, or bringing to the public attention the unjust abuses that they are suffering just to take attention from the real issues as the leaders gained support without really doing anything and just dividing as keeping the power. Many were the ones put in government seats by the Hispanic community after the first election followed the 2006 marches, but they are not saying or doing absolutely anything to change the negative narrative put by Huntington on this community.
They are allowing the unjust killing of the Hispanic community union jobs in the United States and are allowing the unjust payments of the borders through the maquiladoras where women and children are being exploited. Many do know how they are forcing not only the Mexicans out of half left of Mexico to them back in 1776 as well as many other Hispanic countries people through the same subsidy profitable for corporations business, but not for the Hispanic community which is being brought to remote places in the United States with the sole intention to abuse and set them up as done to the Black community in the slavery time. Perhaps Zepeda’s paper is not one of the best elaborated documents written to stop the negative narrative in the Hispanic community, but this author hope that God will bless him for his good intention. It is clear that as he this author recognized that the United States had been benefit from the hard work of this ethnic group and I hope they do realized that before damaging the relation built throughout the years. Perhaps not the best because had been having a lot of inequalities going down south the border of this country as they had been receiving the credit of the doubt, the support of those poor countries in many ways that benefit this country.
Chavez, Fraga et all, Garcia and many others like NALEO, LA RAZA, Pew Hispanic Center . . . needs to put the dot exactly where is needed without going around much. Do not take me wrong, they are doing a good job, but the Hispanic community, big in numbers is not having voice yet as other tiny ethnic groups are doing so. The difference is the leadership and a legacy was left by Cesar Chavez is just to retake his leadership, is just to say we are together and these are the representatives that are really supporting and care for us. Do not give the credit to who not deserve it. The future of the United States leadership in this world is in danger and for the sake not only of the Hispanic community in the United States; I am begging publicly to the pot melted community to support and give” to Cesar what Cesar deserve and earn through the years.”
Let give to the children what they need to assimilate (not as we done in the past) into the United States pop culture not taking from them their own roots, languages or customs, but adding not only on them, but among “US” to keep enhancing as done for years through the share of many cultures in our melting pot because in this world as Zepeda mentioned Huntington claims as evidence of subversion the widespread use of Spanish. Fuentes argues: “He should know that most European populations speak many languages, and that it is isolation that forces cultures to perish. Hispanics enrich American culture, and to reduce their presence would also hurt America’s economy.” (Zepeda Response, 2004, p. 3), but on the same token let tell to the Mexicans –the Hispanic community that this is The United States and if you want to be here you should be able to learn and benefit from them as well and the English language is a must and in regards to the religion our First Amendment said it all because as God, this country gave us choices through it. This author wants to thank to every single of the people data used throughout this final paper and begging you to forgive me if throughout my poor English skill I am not giving you the appropriate credits as I am trying hard to do so, but I am one of the Hispanic poor people who are being deny of rights, freedoms or education in this country as I am struggling to do so and despite my efforts my grades are going in its majority down to the trash.
Prof. Carrillo with all my respect, but I believe the only “F” earned this semester in your LTNS 660 Mid-Term do not show my efforts and knowledge acquired through your class. Believe me my incomplete answer about the 14th Amendment as well as the Washington CA representatives as two or three more of the incomplete answers to some of the questions are ashamed and due to the public accusation in which I am trying hard to help not only the Hispanic Community to empower, but to the people of this country and yes my efforts are being publicized not only as I am standing as possible can at the corner of Whipple/Veterans Blvd. in Redwood City as I done so for the last two-to-three years as well as at the corner of Ralston/El Camino Real, Belmont, CA since 2007 until my First Amendment right was denied through a City Code that is not applicable.

References
Carrillo, T. (n.d.). Latina/o Politics LTNS 660 Reader. In LTNS 660 Reader – Fall 2012. (Original work published 2012)
Chavez, L. R. (2008). The Latino Threat. In L. R. Chavez (Author), The Latino threat: Constructing immigrants, citizens, and the nation (pp. 1-247). Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. (Original work published 2008)
Empowering Latinos from Citizenship to public services. (2011, June 23). NALEO Empowering Latinos from Citizenship to public services, 1-6. Retrieved from NALEO Educational Fund database.
Fraga, L. R., Garcia, J. A., Hero, R. E., Jones-Correa, M., Martinez-Ebers, V., & Segura, G. M. (2010). In L. R. Fraga (Author), Latino lives in America: Making it home. Philadelphia, Pa.: Temple University Press. (Excerpted from Latino Lives in America Making it Home)
Garcia, J. A. (2011). Latino Politics in America 2nd Edition. In J. A. Garci?a (Author), Latino politics in America: Community, culture, and interests (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publisher. (Original work published 2012)
Glick Schiller, N. (n.d.). Transmigrants and Nation-States Something Old and something New in the U. S. Immigrant Experience. Retrieved from Transmigrants and Nation-States Something Old and something New in the U. S. Immigrant Experience database.
Gonzalez-Barrera, A., Lopez, M. H., Passel, J., & Taylor, P. (2012, November 14). An Awakened Giant: The Hispanic Electorate is Likely to Double by 2030. Retrieved from An Awakened Giant: The Hispanic Electorate is Likely to Double by 2030 database.
Hispanics and the 2004 Election: Population, Electorate and Voters. (2005, June 27). Retrieved from Pew Hispanic Center Report database.
Huntington, S. P. (n.d.). The Hispanic Challenge. Retrieved September 27, 2012, from Washington Post.Newsweek.Interactive, LLC website: https://ilearn.sfsu.edu/file.php/2631/Huntington2004.pdf
Imada, A. L. (2004, March). Hawaiians on Tour: Hula Circuits through the American Empire [Lecture notes]. Retrieved November 14, 2012, from iLearn sfsu.edu website: https://ilearn.sfsu.edu/file.php/1356/Readings/Imada._Hawaiians_on_Tour.pdf
Lipsitz, G. (1998). The Possessive Investment in Whiteness. Retrieved from The Possessive Investment in Whiteness from Identity Politics database.
Motel, S. (2012, February 21). Statistical Portrait of Hispanics in the United States, 2010. Retrieved from Statistical Portrait of Hispanics in the United States, 2010 database.
See graphic numbers of native born Hispanics in America
Muniz, B. (2006). In the eye of the storm: How the Government and private response to Hurricane Katrina failed Latinos. Retrieved from NCLR In the eye of the storm: How the Government and private response to Hurricane Katrina failed Latinos database.
NALEO. (2004). 2004 PRIMARY ELECTION PROFILES. NALEO Educational Fund, 1-4. Retrieved from 2004 PRIMARY ELECTION PROFILES database.
PPIC Public Policy Institute of California. (n.d.). California Population PPIC. In PPIC (pp. 1-4). Retrieved from https://ilearn.sfsu.edu/file.php/2631/R_111HJR.pdf
Taylor, P., & Lopez, M. H. (2012, November 7). Latinos Voters in the 2012 election. Retrieved from Pew Hispanic http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/11/07/latino-voters-in-the-2012-election/ database.
Voting Rights and Texas. (2011, December 3). Retrieved from The New York Times database.
Sunday Review Editorial pages
Wing, B. (2000, December 7). The Structure of White Power and the Color of Election 2000. Retrieved from https://ilearn.sfsu.edu/mod/resource/view.php?id=16915
Zepeda, C. (2004, June 23). Article on Samuel Huntington. Retrieved from Chris Zepeda database.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: