Kansas In-State Tuition Repeal Hearing 3.20.2013

Here are the remarks I would have delivered today had I been granted the full 7 minutes.  I condensed it to 2 minutes and mainly went after Kris Kobach's flawed arguments on the constitution and his losing court cases.

Raymond Rico

Federal and State Affairs Committee

Hearing on HB 2192

March 20, 2013

  

            My name is Raymond Rico; I was born and raised in Kansas City, KS to an immigrant father, and both of my grandparents immigrated to the U.S. on my mother's side.  I practice immigration law at the Garcia Immigration Law Firm where I work with many undocumented students have overcome many barriers you and I have never faced - yet have done everything right and wish to pursue higher education in Kansas, the only place many have ever known.  The legal process can take a long while.  I meet and work with many students who are in currently in that line for legal residency. 

             Most students have become fluent in English if they weren't already, have assimilated into the American culture, and consider themselves Kansans. 

             Sadly, we are debating repeal at a time when the federal government seems primed to consider comprehensive immigration reform.  The U.S. Senate and House have a bipartisan effort underway for comprehensive immigration reform, and even this week, the Republican National Committee recommended comprehensive immigration reform as consistent with Republican economic policies that promote job growth and opportunity for all.  

             Immigration reform will address the legal status for those students not currently in a line for legal residency because all signs seem to point to inclusion of the DREAM Act within any reform bill.   

            The DREAM Act is federal legislation that would allow a path to legalization for youth who arrived as minors, have been in the US for over five years, and complete two years of college or two years in the military.  Basically, the same students we're talking about today.  To be clear, a path to legalization is something Kansas' instate tuition bill does not have the power to do.  Only the DREAM Act can provide such a path.  Many leaders in Washington of both political parties have specifically stated their support of the DREAM Act recently.  

             Obviously we're talking about young people here, who are present in Kansas, have grown up here, and will remain here.  Kansas has already invested much in their K-12 education.  As our population ages, we should prepare all young talented students who want to remain in Kansas to fill the positions that will be most in need.  Our young immigrants have been and will continue to sustain Kansas' rural communities, start businesses here, and contribute their talents here.  All of us know that people with a college degree on average will earn more in income than those without, and with more income means more contribution in taxes.

            As undocumented students cannot receive financial aid, many are already taking only a few classes per semester, but a repeal of in-state tuition will cause students to drop out, decreasing school revenues, and allowing our students to remain uneducated, in a permanent underclass, while remaining in Kansas.  

             Kansas' in-state tuition law has been challenged in court in large part by Kansas Secretary of State, Kris Kobach and FAIR.  Mr. Kobach also challenged California's in-state tuition law, which is nearly identical to Kansas' law.  On both occasions, the lawsuits failed.  In-state tuition has been upheld as constitutional.  It complies with federal law.

 
            The California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the California law did not improperly make in-state tuition available to undocumented students based on “residence.”

             In a Kansas federal court, the case Day v. Sebelius was dismissed, in part, because the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Kansas law.  The student plaintiffs were not injured by the passage of the in-state tuition law, nor would they benefit from its repeal.  

            In 1996, Congress enacted Section 1623 of Title 8, or what is commonly referred to as IIRAIRA.  Congress could have worded this section to unequivocally ban in-state tuition.  However, section 1623 only requires that states extend benefits US citizens to the same extent that they are available to undocumented immigrants.  Kansas need not "give" in-state tuition to all U.S. citizens from other states; it satisfies section 505 if the eligibility criteria are based on factors beyond state residency and if Kansas offers U.S. citizens the same opportunity to qualify for in-state tuition under the same criteria.  The Kansas law makes any individual – including US citizens who wish to return to Kansas - eligible for in-state tuition if they meet the requirements of K.S.A. § 76-729: three years of high school and graduation from a high school in Kansas.  Thus Kansas' law complies with federal law and the constitution, and that's why the courts have rejected legal challenges to the law.  

 
           This is no “loophole,” it is a recognition from Congress that states may choose to enact tuition equity policies as Kansas and a growing number of states have done, including Colorado which passed in-state tuition this month. 

             Congress gave states the option to create postsecondary education benefits for undocumented immigrants on par with those of their citizen residents.  Thus, it is absolutely not true to say that in-state tuition is something states may not do.  Kansas acted in full compliance with federal law when it enacted in-state tuition.  To suggest otherwise misreads federal law and ignores legal precedent.  It is worth noting that the fiscal note in Colorado's bill states that Colorado stands to gain over 2 million dollars in new state revenue based on tuition paid by students. 

            It is also important to note that there is another provision of the Kansas' 2004 in-state tuition law that students seek to legalize their immigration status and file an application to begin the process for United States citizenship as soon as such person is eligible to do so.  I have helped many students legalize their status and know students who paid in-state tuition in Kansas, who are now legal residents and citizens, now work in Kansas, purchased homes in Kansas, and have remained in Kansas. 
 
            Today you would never know the difference that at one time they were in a tough situation on their long journey to become American, but Kansas' in-state tuition law helped them achieve their American dream.  Students want to legalize their status, want become citizens, take that oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States.  It is happening.  I wish you could see as often as I do the joy when someone becomes a citizen! 
 
            With congress debating immigration reform, and the DREAM Act primed for passage, this is the wrong time to discuss repeal of in-state tuition.  But now I'd like to turn to another reason that now is the wrong time to discuss repeal of in-state tuition. I have helped many students apply for DACA, which stands for "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals." 

             Individuals may now request protection from deportation through deferred action if they:

·        Came to the United States before their 16^th birthday;

·        Were between the ages of 15 and 30 and had no valid immigration status on June 15, 2012;

·        Have continuously resided in the United States between June 15, 2007 and the present;

·        Are currently in school, graduated from high school, obtained a GED, or were honorably discharged from the Armed Forces;

·        Have not been convicted of a felony, a “significant” misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

 

              Deferred Action is not a new concept, it has been around for ages, and it is an extension of prosecutorial discretion.  Prosecutorial discretion is affirmed on page one of the Arizona SB 1070 Supreme Court ruling which states: "Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all." 

 
            With DACA, the federal government is using its discretion to determine that youth who fit the above criteria are not high priority individuals and that limited resources are best used elsewhere, not to deport valedictorians.

 

             This federal program provides a system for young people who are fundamentally the same as other American students to now pursue their dream of earning a college degree.

 

             Because eligible DACA students may request a work permit the federal program enables these students to pursue opportunities for work in their fields of study and gives the states the choice of whether the state will treat the students as equal to all other students.  Kansas made the right decision when it enacted a law to ensure tuition equity among all Kansas students.  The law enables young people to start on the path of pursuing a career and making a meaningful contribution to our state.   

 
             I do not have data to show you what profession these students are most likely to enter into, but I have worked on around 300 cases supporting students seeking the opportunity to get an education and pursue a career.  And one thing I always ask them is "what do you want to be?"  Among males, the most common answer is a wish to be an engineer.  Among females, the most common answer is a wish to be a nurse.  A need we have across the country is the need for more bilingual nurses and science, technology, engineering, and math students. 

 

             With needs in these areas, it does not make sense to stop the education short of any of our talented students, especially when the federal system allows students to use their degrees and work authorization to work in fields that we most need. 

 
             If given a chance, our undocumented youth wish to contribute their talents here, pursue higher education here, pay taxes and contribute to the Kansas economy.  The choice is yours as to whether we have our youth educated, or not. 

 
             In the interests of Kansas taxpayers and future generations of Kansans, I urge your opposition to this bill and respectfully request the Committee allow current Kansas law to remain intact. 

                                         

Testimony at Topeka Capitol: Briefing on Immigration - Feb. 13, 2013 (House Federal and State Affairs Committee)

So, due to popular demand, I'm sharing the remarks portion of my testimony yesterday. 

I have no illusions that my testimony yesterday will defeat in-state tuition repeal.  I look at yesterday as doing our best, launching our first salvo of many to spread truth, reason, and love to our representatives as they decide whether to deny the dreams of undocumented Kansans.  I hope and believe we're just getting started.  Our legislature has not yet heard from the students.  They will. 

I channeled my NILC days lobbying in DC, and it brought back many memories to my time at the Kansas Hispanic Affairs Commission as this was my first time fighting the fight in the Topeka capitol since in-state tuition's passage in 2004.  I was incredibly inspired by the DREAMers I spent last weekend with as they are the reason 2012 was a success nationally, and the KSMODA resurrection being in full force doing damage here in the region meant only that I could not let them down.  They move mountains for the undocumented student movement, and if I can do any damage with them, count me in.    

I felt really comfortable yesterday in our state's house of power...like I was in some Matrix type zone seeing green digits scrolling down knowing how to respond.  Hmm. 

But yesterday was very little about me and my story, although I did share a little of it with the legislators.  It was about battling back against the other side, against the supposed expert Kris Kobach's flawed arguments.  Most importantly, to me it is not a policy issue, for it is never about policy when you're fighting for people you care about.  

My remarks were only 25% of the fun.  The real fun came from the question and answer period with the legislators.  They got to pick who they addressed their question to, so when most of the questions were heralded towards "Mr.Rico," you have that moment of anxiety thinking "Is this the vato that's going to stump me, make me look dumb, or worse: out to be a liar?"  I was called to answer more than 10 questions out of the 20 or so questions, and I'm proud to say I had ready responses plus added another layer of arguments where I could. 

The most thrilling part was when I was able to see conservative Republican heads nodding with me as I explained a particular area of law.  Most of the head nodding was during my analysis when I pointed out the flaws in Kobach's arguments.  So, to me it signified that they heard and understood my position, and perhaps, just perhaps, agreed with my position.  That is with one exception, Rep. Brett Hildabrand who wrote the in-state tuition repeal bill.  He remained silent for all 1 hour and 30 minutes.  He checked his computer most of the time, and blinked a lot. 

Lastly, I wanted to respond to the legislator who went on a rant about "they came in illegally, why are we not talking about that?  The first act they did in the U.S. was an illegal act...[etc.]" I believe it was Rep. Allan Rothlisberg.  Sir, I don't think we view immigration, immigrants, and all humans through the same lens.  In fact, I don't believe we see the same things as problems when viewing the same landscape. 

Is it the person who landed on an airplane, the person who arrived on a ship, the person who crossed a border, the person who overstayed a visa, or the person who sought the American dream as all of our ancestors once did that's the problem?  Or could it be something else?  Could it be that undocumented immigration is merely an effect of a larger cause?  If you keep thinking the symptom is the problem, we will never get to addressing the true cause of undocumented immigration. 

What is the problem? Take your pick: Whether it be push or pull factors caused by the global economic economy, the lack of visas available to reunify families, the 10 year bar that many parents face, the decades long wait in the "line" which hopefully even exists, the broken system that does not match jobs needed in the US (Southwest Kansas too) with an adequate number of legal mechanisms to come to the United States, with labor protections, and a path to remain here if so desired.  I could go on.

The southern border has a "stay out" sign.  But there are realities that welcome the immigrant here (faith principles as well), dare I say need the immigrant here as more and more stores are opened by immigrants, as more U.S. citizens gain jobs through immigrant owned businesses than immigrants "take," as more US citizens have jobs due in part to relying on the economic output of the arriving immigrant, as more homes are being purchased by undocumented immigrants,  as crime numbers go down as immigrants move in, as social security gets a windfall from the taxes paid by immigrants, as immigrants put in more to the economy than take out, and as communities rely on the infusion of new immigrants to keep their populations stable and keep their cities on the map. If you pull the plug on the immigrant, what will happen?  Is it truly us that's the problem? 
Oh yeah, and Happy Valentine's Day to you!

Raymond Rico

Federal and State Affairs Committee

Briefing on Immigration

February 13, 2013

 

 

            My name is Raymond Rico; I was born and raised in Kansas City, KS to an immigrant father, and both of my grandparents immigrated to the U.S. on my mother's side.  I practice immigration law at the Garcia Immigration Law Firm.  My work allows me the chance to see how immigration laws impact the daily lives of immigrants from all over the world.  Every day I get to help immigrants navigate the immigration system and if able, adjust their immigration status. 

            Thus, immigration status is not static, it can change.  If this weren't the case, I would not have a job.  Granted, at times, there is no line to enter.  However, in other instances the line may be decades long.  Many immigrants in Kansas are at various stages of the legalization process, many will be able to have their status changed. Perhaps even this year as congress will likely address fixing our federal immigration system in 2013. 

            In the meantime, many states have introduced bills which attempt to mirror the core provisions of Arizona's SB 1070.  Most states have failed in their attempts, but those that have passed such laws have faced litigation costing their states large sums of money defending them, states have suffered huge implementation costs, have had their provisions halted by the courts, and eventually ruled unconstitutional. 

            According to the Government Accountability Office, six states who passed laws to deny public benefits to undocumented immigrants spent over $8.3 million dollars to eventually find eight out of 3.6 million Medicaid enrollees receiving benefits without being eligible for them due to their status.  These six states saved a combined total of $11,048 dollars.

            The U.S. Supreme Court decision on Arizona's SB 1070 struck down three of the four main provisions on preemption grounds.  Meaning that:

• A state cannot impose criminal penalties on unauthorized immigrants who unlawfully seek employment.
• A state cannot make it a state crime to not carry proof of status.
• A state cannot arrest immigrants without a warrant where “probable cause” existed that they committed a public offense making them removable from the United States (preempted because it would have given Arizona police more power to arrest immigrants than is possessed by federal immigration officers, who must generally obtain a warrant before making an arrest).

            These provisions were ruled unconstitutional in the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Arizona's SB 1070.

            On the fourth provision, which requires police to determine the immigration status of someone arrested or detained when there is “reasonable suspicion” they are in the United States unlawfully; the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was too early to tell if this provision is unconstitutional as well.  Thus, although it was upheld for the moment, it was no resounding legal victory as some proclaim. 

            The Court said it depends on how the Arizona courts interpret the language in the law and how state law enforcement actually implements it.

            If state officers hold someone for possible unlawful presence without federal direction, then it would be unconstitutional.

            If "Reasonable Suspicion" will require the delay of a detained individual for no other reason than to verify their immigration status, then the law would raise constitutional concerns under the Fourth Amendment.  For example:

“A seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission.” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2509.

            There are also multiple pending cases challenging this provision as in violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.  By the way, Sheriff Joe Arpaio gave sworn testimony stating that in Arizona, extended detentions were already the norm.  

            My career is my vocation, and in my career I have gotten to personally know many undocumented youth.  Education is the gateway to the "American Dream" and a college degree is now a virtual requirement for financial security.  That is why I am saddened that a bill has once again come up to possibly repeal in-state tuition via HB 2192. 

            Many undocumented students have overcome many barriers you and I have never faced - yet have done everything right and wish to pursue higher education in Kansas, the only place many have ever known. As noted above, the legal process can take a long while, and many students are currently in line waiting for legal residency. Most students have become fluent in English if they weren't already, have assimilated into the American culture, and consider themselves Kansans.

            Obviously we're talking about young people here, who are present in Kansas, have grown up here, and will remain here.  Kansas has already invested much in their K-12 education.  As our population ages, we should prepare all young talented students who want to remain in Kansas to fill the positions that will be most in need.  Our young immigrants have been and will continue to sustain Kansas' rural communities, start businesses here, and contribute their talents here.  All of us know that people with a college degree on average will earn more in income than those without, and with more income means more contribution in taxes.

            As undocumented students cannot receive financial aid, many are already taking only a few classes per semester, but a repeal of in-state tuition will cause students to drop out, decreasing school revenues, and allowing our students to remain uneducated, remain in a permanent underclass, while remaining in Kansas. 

            Will we really debate repeal at a time when the federal government seems primed to consider comprehensive immigration reform?  (Which all signs seem to point to inclusion of the DREAM Act within any reform bill). The DREAM Act is federal legislation that would allow a path to legalization for youth who arrived as minors, have been in the US for over five years, and complete two years of college or two years in the military.  Basically, the same students I'm talking about today.  To be clear, a path to legalization is something Kansas' instate tuition bill does not have the power to do.  Only the DREAM Act can provide such a path.  Many leaders in Washington of both political parties have stated their support of the DREAM Act recently.

            Kansas' in-state tuition law has been challenged in court in large part by Kansas Secretary of State, Kris Kobach.  He also fought California's in-state tuition law, which is nearly identical to Kansas' law.  On both occasions, the lawsuits failed.  In-state tuition has been upheld as constitutional. 

            The California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the California law did not improperly make in-state tuition available to undocumented students based on “residence.”

            In Kansas, the court case Day v. Sebelius was dismissed in the 10th circuit. The court ruled that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Kansas law and lack a private right of action to enforce preemption under federal law.  The student plaintiffs were not injured by the passage of the in-state tuition law, nor would they benefit from its repeal. 

            Thus, it is absolutely not true to say that in-state tuition is something states may not do.  In-state tuition complies with Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1623,  section 505 of the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Reconciliation Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA)).  

            The federal government could have banned in-state tuition in 1996, they did not do so. Although the wording says you cannot allow an undocumented immigrant "any postsecondary benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit," a proper interpretation of the statute is also that a state may allow in-state tuition rates to undocumented students if all citizens or nationals are also eligible for the same benefit. 

            Kansas need not "give" in-state tuition to all U.S. citizens from other states, it satisfies section 505 if it makes all U.S. citizens eligible for the same benefit.  The Kansas law makes all U.S. citizens eligible for in-state tuition if they meet the requirements of K.S.A. § 76-729: three years of high school and graduation from a high school in Kansas.  Thus Kansas' law is in compliance with federal law.  In-state tuition is constitutional, and that's why the courts have ruled as they have. 

            With the congress debating immigration reform, with the DREAM Act primed for passage, this is the wrong time to repeal in-state tuition.  But there is even another disincentive to repeal in-state tuition.  On August 15th many students have begun applying for DACA, which stands for "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals."

            Individuals may request deferred action if they:

• Came to the United States before their 16^th birthday;
• Were between the ages of 15 and 30 and had no valid immigration status on June 15, 2012;
• Have continuously resided in the United States between June 15, 2007 and the present;
• Are currently in school, graduated from high school, obtained a GED, or were honorably discharged from the Armed Forces;
• Have not been convicted of a felony, a “significant” misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

 

            Deferred Action is not a new concept, it has been around for ages, and it is an extension of prosecutorial discretion.  Prosecutorial discretion is affirmed on page one of the Arizona SB 1070 Supreme Court ruling which states: "Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all."  With DACA, the federal government is using its discretion to determine that youth who fit the above criteria are not high priority individuals and that limited resources are best used elsewhere, not to deport valedictorians. 

            DACA does not create a path to a green card or citizenship, it does not extend to family members or make a student eligible for financial aid.  With DACA, youth can apply for a work permit, allowing not only work eligibility, but the chance to put degrees earned in Kansas to good use.  Now, once a DACA eligible student graduates, he or she can work in their fields of study.

            I do not have data to show you what DACA eligible students will be across the board, but I have worked on around 300 DACA cases.  And one thing I always ask a DACA student is "what do you want to be?"  Among males, the most common answer is a wish to be an engineer.  Among females, the most common answer is a wish to be a nurse.  A need we have across the country is the need for more bilingual nurses and STEM students.  With needs in these areas, it does not make sense to stop the education short of any of our talented students, especially now that one can use their degrees and work authorization to work in fields that we most need.  If given a chance, our undocumented youth wish to contribute their talents here, pursue higher education here, pay taxes and contribute to the Kansas economy.  The choice is yours as to whether we have our youth educated, or not. 

One year since the car wreck that I still have no idea how I walked away from.  Why my head did not go into the side of the trailer (or worse) I'll never know.  It should have ended it all.  I thank God each morning for each new day, try as much as possible to make decisions that most make me happy, and live every day like I were dying.   Oh, and I've been an immigration lawyer for one year! Labor of love.

http://ricosworldandeverythinginit.blogspot.com/2011/09/two-big-sighs-of-relief.html

Dear Barack Obama,

In the weeks leading up to the November 4, 2008 presidential election, I remember knocking on doors in areas mama told me to aviod.  I canvassed with an Asian one day, a young African-American girl the next day, a young progressive White man the next, and a retired woman the next.  I remember visiting the local Obama phone banking sight and seeing long-time Latino friends running the show (one of which was an immigrant student).  I drove a 15 passenger van over 150 miles on election day to north Kansas City, through midtown, and then to Harrisonville dropping off and picking up volunteers who were hitting the streets one last time. 

As a first semester law student who swore in writting not to work, I was driven to sacrifice multiple nights of studying to contribute my infinitely small part to elect you president of the United States.  I believed in your message of hope and change, you inspired me, and you sealed the deal with me that you were a champion of immigrant rights when you promised to push an immigration bill through congress in your first year.  Let me refresh your memory: 

"I cannot guarantee that it is going to be in the first 100 days. But what I can guarantee is that we will have in the first year an immigration bill that I strongly support and that I'm promoting. And I want to move that forward as quickly as possible." - Jorge Ramos interview with you on May 28, 2008. 

But oh boy...after that first year, despite the excuses by some (especially by democratic Senator Charles Schumer who was tasked with writing the bill) that health care, jobs, Iraq, and Afghanistan kept immigration reform off of the agenda, not a single bill was introduced or even written to address immigration reform.  I certainly hope Schumer took "Multi-tasking" off of his resume as a result.  PROMISE, along with the hearts of many immigrants, BROKEN...

I hope you didn't think that we weren't watching, would overlook it, or would somehow forget?  It is true that lately Republican presidential candidates are doing a great job of alienating their hopes of splitting the Latino vote in 2012 every time they open their mouths thumping their chests as to who hates immigrants more.  But, is that how you wish to approach the Latino electorate?  Would you rather be known as the better alternative as opposed to a champion for immigrant rights? Do you think your defensiveness and blaming of Republicans will inspire us?  Do you believe criticism of your record of on immigration is a "disservice to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration reform passed?" Do you believe this messaging strategy is going to excite Latinos, drive us to the polls, and gear us into action for your re-election efforts? 

Once upon a time your message was one of hope and change; that you could even lower the oceans:



Just so you know, as president you have the power to issue executive orders.  Presidents have issued them since the inception of the republic.  Hey look here, you are no exception. Here are listings of the executive orders you have issued: 2009, 2010, 2011.

Despite the 95 executive orders you've signed to date, an executive order providing immigration relief to undocumented kids seems to be your kryptonite I guess.  See, this was you a few weeks ago basically telling us that your executive powers are useless and that you can not go to bat for DREAM kids.  Maybe I'm wrong, but its seems the very fact that we are even challenging you on this point irks you a bit.  (from minute 25:30-28:00)


Isn't it a bit disrespectful to presume we don't know the law well enough to understand your mistatements of what you can and can not do as president? 

I urge you to go down the street and  ask US Senators, many of whom are lawyers,  if they believe you can and should use such powers you claim you don't have. 

Sadly, I also get the sense you know what powers you have, given that you are a constiutional law professor, but you'd just rather not confront it.  Confronting reality even seems tough for your team to face. As Harry S Truman would say, "I never give them hell, I just tell the truth and they think it's hell!" 



Bottom line is, its seems you will continue to spread the falsity that you don't believe your administation can priortize resources on criminals and not deport DREAM Act kids.  My message to you is simple: "Yes we can!"

We are not seeing in you a champion for immigrant rights.  In fact, what many Latinos see are record deportations (over 1 million! and on pace to out-deport George W. Bush in one term what took him two to accomplish!), and not just of criminals, but non-criminals are still being deported in the largest numbers than any other administration.  Even your "prosecutorial descretion" anouncement in August has no teeth, and eligible immigrants (Including DREAM kids) who were supposed to have their "low priority" cases administratively closed are still being deported.  We see inaction on pushing for the DREAM Act/CIR.  Most disheartening is that you generally portray the criticism you've received from Latinos as: 1) wrongly placed on you and should be placed on congressional Republicans, 2) not an issue you can address administratively without legislation, 3) and that such criticism does a disservice to the efforts of getting DREAM/CIR passed. 

You could only blame the Republicans if you yourself dedicated capital towards passage of immigration reform.  You can't blame the long muddy path as the reason why you did not make it up the hill if you never got in the driver's seat and turned on the ignition.  During the one-year window of time you promised CIR, you had 60 democratic votes and a Republican who committed to bring other Republicans on board.  You did not get on your bully pulpit for us when it mattered; or as of yet. 

This defensiveness of your record does not energize me or any Latino I've spoken with.  In fact, it is depressing us.  Addressing that you have shortcomings with regard to the Latino vote should be a priority.  The stakes could not be higher and a revamped messaging strategy will be critical in the key swing states with rapidly expanding Latino demographic shifts. 

I've been asked recently by a person affiliated with your 2012 re-election campaign: "Where are my Latinos at?"  The only answer I can think to give is that if only you had done what you promised, this question would never have arisen and we would already be in the trenches fighting for our champion.   

I wish I were politically savvy enough to show you exactly how to get us back on the wagon.  I can tell you that any effort to pass DREAM or Comprehensive immigration reform prior to the election without  placement of significant political capital will fail.  Any attempt at DREAM or CIR without your complete buy-in might allow you to deliver smooth talking points on the campaign trail and it might help you bash Republicans on their one way ticket to political suicide by alienating the Latino vote.  But forgive me for believing your pre-election hype of our issues will be anything but an sad attempt to court the Latino vote.  I will be watching with great focus. 

But first things first.  Mr. Obama, the first step to addressing a problem is to admit you have one.  Mr Obama, you have a Latino problem on your hands.  67% of Latinos supported you in your 2008 election, today only 47% of Latinos approve of the job you are doing.  Nationwide, 50,000 Latinos turn 18 every month.  In 2008, there were 18 million eligible Latino Voters, in 2012, that number will be 22 million.  With these kinds of numbers, in swing states like Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado, if 67% of Latinos vote for you again...you will win, it's that simple.  Even in Missouri, registered Latino voters have risen 24% just from 2008-2010.  As states such as Nevada and Colorado may prove decisive battleground states for your re-election, I implore you to ask Harry Reid of Nevada how important the Latino vote was there (Won 94% of Latino Vote, won election by 5%), or Michael Bennet in Colorado if the Latino vote was important there (Won 81% of the Latino Vote, won by .5%) in 2010. 

I want you to know that Latinos are not single-issue voters.  Immigration, in fact, is not even a top five issue.  We are members of the general public and all other issues are important.  However, when the word "immigration" comes out of the mouth of a politician, Latinos listen with razor sharp focus.  So as you travel to swing states with large Latino populations, and when you begin your efforts to re-connect with the Latino vote, I'd advise you to reexamine your messaging. 

Mr. Obama, you have overpromised and underdelivered, and the bad news is you will suffer the inescapable political consequences. Will I advocate that Latinos sit this one out on election day?  Never.  But many Latinos are jaded along with me. When the time comes, those who do vote will likely vote for you as the better alternative, but not as our champion.  If your approach does not change, and we are not inspired or energized, perhaps many Latino voters might favor sitting out this election at the local Taco Tuesday special as seeming more tasty and less salty than a vote for you on that day.

Sincerely,

Raymond Rico

Wisdom Of Our Fathers: Heaven is For Real

[It has now been six months, or a half-year since my father's passing.  This is the blog piece I have wanted to share for quite some time.]

As a devout Catholic, I never needed any proof that there is in fact a heaven.  I have always believed without a shred of doubt that eternal life awaits us all.  Visions of heaven that accompany near death experiences are usually only told by those who live to tell about them.  For instance, the latest book I read was "Heaven is For Real," about a four year old boy named Colton who visited heaven while undergoing an emergency surgery, saw Jesus, met his unborn sister, his long-deceased grandfather, and confirmed biblical scripture that he had never been taught.  

Survivors and those who hear their stories draw strength from experiencing the beauty of heaven and, as a result, no longer fear death.  Now I too have my own set of stories that accompanied my dad’s departure from earth.  Although I never needed heaven to be confirmed to me, my dad's experience has shown me that yes, Heaven is for real, and as a result, that I should also no longer fear death.  I leave open the possibility that I have let myself read into these experiences a bit more than I should.  Most of these experiences I have not shared before now.  To me, they will remain stories with a hint of mystery, but with a ton of impact. 

Shortly after Dad's recovery from his initial 5+ hour long surgery on March 1st, he was wheeled to his room where we anxiously awaited his arrival.  Although still coming out of sedation, Dad was alert, was able to answer questions from nurses, looked me in the eye, said he felt little pain, and said he was thirsty.  When the first opportunity came for Dad to ask a question, his question took us all by surprise.  He asked with the most sincere and almost sad voice, "where's the little boy?" as though he expected him to enter the room behind him.  My mom responded, "what little boy, Cruzie? (his grandson)."  "No..." my dad said, "...the little boy that was with me downstairs."  

Despite the fact that he was still just coming out of surgery, there was a curiosity that just had to be explored, so I inquired further:
Me: "How old was the boy?"
Dad: "About five."  
Me: "What did the boy look like? Was he White, Black, Latino?"  
Dad: "Latino." 
Mom: "Was he cute like Cruzie?"
Dad: "He was cute, but not as cute as Cruzie."
The nurses were very busy but Mom then asked the nurse that wheeled him in whether there was a boy downstairs, and they responded that no child would be allowed with him, especially in the surgery room.  
Was this perhaps a guardian angel guiding dad through surgery?  We, unfortunately, will never know. But I know my dad had an experience during his surgery and in that moment, he cared more about the whereabouts of that boy than his own well-being or even chatting with us in the room.

I must admit that Dad had moments where it was clear he was not completely lucid. But I am still taken aback that Dad had some other-worldly experiences that seemed to always occur shortly after some of his most lucid moments.  I truly believe that dad was, for a time, living between two worlds. 

On Friday, April 1st, my father had one of his best days at the hospital, maybe his best.  During physical therapy, he took the most steps he had taken since undergoing an emergency additional 5+ hour surgery.  From his hospital bed he was making jokes, engaging in conversation, watching TV, and he did not fight me come feeding time, a small miracle.  Immediately after coherently responding to the nurse his name, birthday, and that he felt no pain, he turned to me and asked in Spanish: "Do you see those steps?" 
Me: "What steps?"
Dad: "Let's go!  (trying to get up from the bed and walk towards the steps)”
Me:  "No dad, what are you talking about?!"
Dad: "Those steps over there! (with a voice that suggested I must be blind)"
I walked towards the hospital wall where he was pointing: "There are no steps here Dad."
Dad: "You don't see those steps?"
Me: "Where do they go?"
Dad: "Al cielo (Heaven)"
Me: "No dad, it’s a hospital wall." (As I run my hand across the wall, even knocking on it to prove the point)
Dad: "Ramon, when you get a chance, dame unas toallas, una chiquita y una grande para las escaleras y traigame espuma (give me some towels, one little and one big for the steps and bring me some foam). Don't forget, ok?!"

Dad just looked back towards the hospital wall where he saw these steps and repeated, "don't forget."  Was he hallucinating?  Shortly thereafter, again the nurses came in, asked him questions. He was asked if he liked baseball (the season had just begun).  He said yes, he liked the royals (which still makes me smile that he admitted this).  He was asked if he liked music?  I joked, "he can sing too!"  My dad always thought that singers could (and do) make millions just repeating variations of the phrase: "ohhh baby!"  So, upon my request, he sang his "ohhh baby!" song for the nurse.

That night, despite the great day he had, my Tia was very concerned about this vision, but I interjected that my dad had his best day at the hospital and was lucid and his old self again.  I was happy.  Overnight, my dad began a sharp decline; his last.  

My Tia pointed out a similarity between what dad said at the hospital and the often omitted verse from the famous song “La Bamba” describing that the way to heaven has two sets of steps, a big one and a small one. Below are the key lyrics:

Para subir al cielo
Para subir al cielo se necesita
Una escalera grande
Hay una escalera grande y otra chiquita
Ay, arriba y arriba [listen from 0:43 below]



On a few occasions, my dad would have visions of his mother, who my dad loved tremendously and who passed away in 2003.  With a smile on his face, he would look towards the ceiling and state: "Ay que trabajadora es mama!"  (Oh, such a hard worker is mama!").  My mom asked, "What is she doing?"  He responded, "preparing things." 

Again, it was during some of Dad's more lucid moments that he would raise his hands up and say, "let's go!"  I'd respond: "Where dad?"  He'd respond "Home" and one time he responded "Heaven."  Shortly thereafter Dad said: “Has it come yet?”
Mom:  “Has who come yet?”
Dad: "The Holy Spirit."
Tia: "Don't talk like that, you still have a lot left to live for and still have many years left!
Dad: "Nope." (Shaking his head)

On Tuesday, April 5^th, I had one of those few dreams in my life that seemed not to be a dream at all.  I was staying at my parent’s home to look after mom and be close to family.  In this dream, I was in my car overlooking a hillside at dusk.  I could see the guard rails in the distance as though I were on a dead end street. 

However, on the right side of the street, I could see that there was a young girl with long black hair and a light complexion.  She was dressed in an angelic all-white dress.  As I looked at her face I noticed she was looking right at me, and she did not blink.  She had a big smile on her face that I could not help but focus in on.  For some reason, I first wanted to see if it was one of those evil smiles you see from villains in movies.  Quickly, I could dismiss that thought as I confirmed that this was, without a doubt, the most genuine and calming smile that I could ever only dream about. 

As I wondered what she was doing, I thought maybe she wanted to cross the street.  I waived for her to cross, and even honked my horn so she could acknowledge my waiving.  She did not flinch.  So, I gave up and just accepted that she just wanted to stand there, look at me, smile at me, and give me a sense that everything was going to be alright. 

As I woke up around 6am, I thought about this dream I had just had.  I called the hospital to check on my father’s status, where I was relieved just to know he was still alive, even though the news was grim.  I cried as I first told this story that day at work, because I felt that the reassurance did not indicate that everything was going to be great again.  This dream seemed to give me a sense that things were going to fall apart, but that despite the depth of the pain, and the sorrowful path ahead of me, she was there for me, and in that sense, everything was going to be alright.  I held on to that dream in the next few days as my dad continued to spiral downward until Dad ultimately passed.  I have held on to it since. 

Finally, for the last 14 years, Dad drove a 1992 van that had 6 doors (but only two worked), that you could hear from two blocks away as the engine roared.  Every month it seemed it was needing some work.  It smelled of leaking gas, had the check engine light perpetually lit, and had no working heater/AC/radio/wipers/interior lights/windows/locks.  Dad’s often stated quote was: “I’m not sure who’s going to go first, the van, or me.”  As it turned out, as I was driving the van two days before Dad’s surgery, the van finally stalled and there was no turning it back on.  Dad said that after the surgery he would buy a little truck.  Sadly, that day would never come.  However, two days after my father’s death, on Friday the 9^th, I had a dream that brought me to both tears and laughter.  Simply put, Dad was driving his van through the clouds on his way to heaven with a great big smile on his face.