"600 words by Esther J. Cepeda"

"600 Words by Esther J. Cepeda"

President Barack Obama met with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe earlier today in the Oval Office around 3:40 p.m. EST. Seated in chairs in front of the fire place – beneath the George Washington photo – Presidents Obama and Uribe made remarks, paused for translations and photos, then took two questions. Sorta boring, really, in terms of theater.

But the drama of the developing situation in Honduras – against the backdrop of a White House administration furiously attempting to forge closer ties with the Latin American countries that were largely ignored by the Bush administration – made for a head-craning afternoon for those of us who care about our foreign policy toward Latin America.

I’m passing this along because – if today’s opening White House press conference question about whether the Obamas mailed a written condolence to the late Michael Jackson’s father is any indication – you won’t read much about it in the mainstream media. All quotes came from the White House Office of the Press Secretary, and my special thanks to today’s trusty pool reporter , USA Today’s David Jackson.

Obama started with the niceties, then zoomed in: "We discussed, most prominently, the interests of both countries in moving forward on a free trade agreement.  This is something that has been discussed for quite some time.  I have instructed Ambassador Kirk, our United States Trade Representative, to begin working closely with President Uribe's team on how we can proceed on a free trade agreement.  There are obvious difficulties involved in the process and there remains work to do, but I'm confident that ultimately we can strike a deal that is good for the people of Colombia and good for the people of the United States."

Then President Obama made a quite bold statement, one that will surely be argued more in the coming days:

Obama, taking a page from Hillary Clinton’s book when she spoke in Mexico back in April, Obama too, took responsibility on behalf of the American People for the drug violence gripping so much of Latin America:

The action then stopped, according to Jackson, "In what is beginning to become a tradition, the Colombian press corps requested and received a group photo with the president."

Apparently, Obama teased members of the pool for not wanting a picture of their own.

"You guys don't want to take a picture with me?," reporter Jackson quoted Obama as saying. "When a media member informed him that we're ‘too cool’ for that sort of thing, Obama said: ‘You're too cool, exactly - you guys are just too cool.’"

Uribe took the podium and, speaking in English, added his own bold statements:

Wow, really? That’s a pretty humbled stance. What does that really mean? I have no idea.

Uribe, a president who enjoys a 70% approval rating in Colombia, followed up on a question from a reporter: "We have a recognition to advance in security, human rights, state restructure, to advance in economics, to advance in social cohesion, and for all these things it is very important to have the permanent support of President Obama, of the government of the United States, of the Congress of the United States."

During further Q&A, President Obama made this statement regarding the situation in Honduras:

(Earlier in the day at the press briefing, Robert Gibbs the press secretary had confirmed that President Obama had not had any contact with President Zelaya Monday morning. He did say the White House had been working to avert the coup previous to the Friday incident, but didn’t give specifics on that or on whether there is a working plan for incentives or consequences for resolution of the incident.)

President Obama continued:

Asked by a Colombian reporter about term limits and whether Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez should be limited in any way from running for re-election, Obama gave his standard answer about not getting involved in other countries’ democratic elections.

President Uribe, took the question as platform to discuss Colombia’s brand of democracy:

Barack Obama and Alvaro Uribe, Chapter 2, to come.

Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com

“Way more than 600 Words by Esther J. Cepeda”

Long story short: nearly every time there’s any sort of Who’s Who/Mover-Shaker/One-to-Watch list in “mainstream” publications there are few, if any, Hispanics on it despite there being a ton of awesome Latinos doing truly amazing things here in Chicago.

So, in order to help blunt this perceived shortage of Latino superstars I decided to start one.

I asked for nominations, got about 120, threw out the “usual suspects” – like elected officials and already well-publicized business and community leaders – narrowed the field to get a diverse group of immigrants, U.S.-born, younger, older, community, and business types, then did one-on-one interviews.

At the conclusion, I found five men and five women all dedicating their personal and professional excellence to making Chicago, Illinois, the U.S. – and sometimes the world – a better place.

Let me say it again: these people are not merely engaged in the noble task of empowering the Hispanic community, they have their sights set on making life better for blacks, whites, multi-ethnics, rurals, suburbans, urbans, immigrants, U.S.-born, and everyone in between.

And, yeah, these rock stars just happen to be Hispanic.

Please join me in getting your inspiration on as you read the stories of the ten incredible people who comprise the first annual “Chicago Latino List.”

Click on the title to read the full profile:

Concepcion Rodriguez, 45 – Scare-you-straight Caretaker of the Dead

A bilingual Funeral Director and embalmer, reformed gang member and volunteer gang intervention specialist, Rodriguez shows children and teens the grisly ravages of drugs, alcohol and the gang culture. She also talks to communities, affluent and needy alike, about how to reach out to kids they might not even think are at risk. Through her work, she has single-handedly saved the lives of hundreds of Chicago children.

Cynthia La Boy, 37 – Conqueror of All Obstacles

A single mother and professional living with a traumatic brain injury after a brutally violent crime, La Boy was told by her doctors she’d never be able to care for herself – much less go to college or have a career. Today she works at the Lake County Housing Authority as a bilingual assistant property manager connecting families to clean, safe living conditions and teaching them how to be responsible homeowners. A living miracle, she’s an award winning advocate and authentic voice for people living with disabilities.

Antonio Martinez Jr., 36 – Charmer of Benefactors

Martinez walked away from a successful dream career in sports marketing to become one of a very few Latinos in the field of professional fundraising. As Assistant Director of Development with the Chicago Community Trust, Martinez raises money to serve the basic human needs of the entire Chicago metropolitan region by supporting vitally-necessary community-based non-profit organizations.

John Viramontes, 57 – Voice to the Voiceless

An accountant by trade and lifelong community activist by heart, Viramontes dedicates his time to major issues including predatory lending, housing parity, rights for visual artists, and immigration. On an eternal quest for social justice, he’s devoted to improving the quality of life in Chicago neighborhoods and empowering struggling artists nationally by being a community presence and passionate spokesperson.

Dr. Ana Gil-Garcia, 54 – Leveler of Educational Inequalities

A tenured University Professor at Northeastern Illinois University, author, esteemed community leader, and forerunning advocate for Latino educational leaders, Gil-Garcia is a three time Fulbright scholar and an internationally acclaimed professional.  Gil-Garcia, a published author, works tirelessly for a variety of community organizations and devotes most of her passion to ensuring the Chicago Public School system is a nationally-recognized leader in employing school administration leaders who accurately represent the diversity of their student communities.

Jose Oliva, 36 – Restaurant Worker Sentinel

A Policy Coordinator with Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, Oliva is a driving force behind the legislative push to earn restaurant workers such common benefits as paid time off and job opportunity training. As the voice of both affluent teens working summer food service jobs and adults who support families with their back-of-house restaurant jobs, Oliva labors to fight poverty, racism and sexism while mobilizing local worker organizations. He not only teaches these groups how to become active and engaged in the federal political process, but he represents them in Washington, DC, as well.

Veronica Arreola, 34 – Professional Feminist

As Assistant Director for the UIC Center for Research on Women and Gender and the Director of Women in Science and Engineering Program, Arreola is a dedicated advocate for women’s rights, helping them maneuver professions that even today are still dominated by men. As a mother, accomplished blogger, and activist for women’s reproductive rights, she has won numerous awards for her work and is dedicated to helping women and girls advocate for themselves in Chicago and around the country.

Roberto Cornelio, 51 – Large Business Incubator

The Chief Operating Officer of the Illinois Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Cornelio – a former top executive at Fortune 500 companies – works to raise the funds, nurture the relationships and promote the programs that drive Hispanic business growth and foster the next generation of Hispanic business and business leaders. His work makes it possible for the Latino community’s instinct for entrepreneurship to thrive and, in turn, deliver jobs and opportunities to contribute to the overall economic development and job creation in Chicago and across Illinois communities.

Nelly Aguilar, 33 – Esquire to the Special

Attorney and dedicated special education advocate, Aguilar – mother to a son with Autism – works to protect the educational rights of children with disabilities. One of only approximately 15 lawyers specializing in the rights of students with special education needs, she campaigns for State and Federal law reform to help families’ secure medical, educational and recreational opportunities for their special needs children. Better still, she trains the next generation of attorneys who will serve the hundreds of thousands of Illinois children with disabilities.

Matthew Montez, 22 – De-myth-ifier of the Path to College

A former Pilsen/Little Village caseworker, recent college graduate and eternal optimist, Montez has just committed the next two years of his life to the Illinois Student Assistance Corps. After a seven-week training camp, he’s moving to Rockford to teach high school students how to prepare for, apply to and pay for college. Inspired most by those who avoid controversy and succeed despite adversity, his mission is to connect with high school students who will be the first in their family to go beyond a HS diploma, and teach them how to build enough social capital to get themselves into and through the rigors of college.

“Chicago Latino List 2009” was generously sponsored by the Chicago Sinfonietta, the Chicago White Sox, and Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises Restaurants. All nominees were independently nominated for this recognition; their rejection and/or selection to “Chicago Latino List 2009” was not, in any way, influenced by any disclosed or undisclosed personal or professional proximity to Esther J. Cepeda or to any sponsor of “Chicago Latino List 2009”.

Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com

“600 Words by Esther J. Cepeda”

What Jose Oliva wants you to know is simple. It has to do with the people who cook your food, serve your food, and bus your tables at your favorite restaurant.

These fine people who nourish and cater to your dining needs – whether they be teenage girls from Wilmette, middle-aged immigrants from El Salvador, or your next door neighbor whose husband left her to fend for herself and her kids – these fine people have it rough.

Like a $2.13 Federal minimum wage for servers who make tips, rough.

Like no basic job benefits such as “paid time off,” rough.

And folks – even for the people who are just thankful to even have a job in this economy, that’s pretty damned rough.

Oliva, a 36-year-old Policy Coordinator with Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, is working to change that.

“Most people think that all restaurant workers make the well-known federal minimum wage and have sick and personal days, but they definitely don’t,” Oliva told me. “They have the Federal Family Medical Leave Act, which is extended un-paid time off, but if the President says ‘stay home if you don’t feel well’ in response to a Swine Flu epidemic, well, that’s just not an option.”

A Guatemala native who immigrated to the U.S. at the age of 13, Oliva is working on two major pieces of legislation, the Healthy Families Act, which would require businesses with 15 or more employees to provide up to seven days of paid sick leave each year. And an increase in the Federal tipped minimum wage of $2.13 (Illinois’ is a more robust $4.65, but still).

“It’s been 18 years since this dollar amount was set and the real egregious part of it is that this group has been literally singled out,” Oliva said. “It just doesn’t make any sense, there’s no reason for it to stay the same for almost 20 years.”

And it’s a pretty big group. Oliva says Chicago has the second largest number of restaurant workers in the country, over 250,000 (only Los Angeles has more) and, of course, one of the largest Latino immigrant communities in the country. “However, neither have direct, full and democratic representation in the economic and political life of our country,” Oliva says.

“The influence of the National Restaurant Association as a lobby, for instance, is about the 17th most influential in Congress (according to Forbes Magazine). Meanwhile restaurant workers have no one to speak to their issues and advocate on their behalf. This holds special weight when you factor in that most restaurant workers are immigrants in Chicago and that immigrants have a similar handicap in as far as voice in DC is concerned.”

Well, those particular restaurant workers have Jose Oliva. And he’s doing two things:

1) He’s working on re-establishing a memorandum of understanding on immigration enforcement so no immigration raids would occur at a worksite where the employees were already engaged in any other activity – like a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against their employer – “so an employer can’t just call for a raid to get rid of the problem workers and then suffer no ramifications even though he was the one breaking the law in the workplace.”

2) He’s educating workers on their rights, and on how to band together to help each other fight for better working conditions and more opportunities.

“In essence what we need to do is to demystify the legislative process, we need to make sure ordinary people  who go to work feel they have a voice in government or in the companies where they work,” Oliva says. “The only way they can have that voice is to band together on common issues and that voice is magnified only if you take it to the power and speak in unison.”

His legislative action sensibility is what sets him apart from others who focus just on the workplace organizing – not that Oliva is a slouch in that department, he trained at the Organizing Institute at Midwest Academy with Jackie Kendall a nationally-known trainer now known for her work with President Obama.

“I methodically and scientifically gather workers’ stories for national reports and take it to DC,” Oliva said. “We’re not a union, not just a community organization, we’re a hybrid. We don’t just do rallies in DC, we do both and we’re trying to become a pioneer for organizations treading a new path.”

“All workers are interconnected,” Oliva said. “So to the extent you raise the conditions in one place, others follow and raise their wages and conditions. That’s how capitalism works. You have to raise wages; that teenager in Des Moines, Iowa will be positively affected by our work across the country, not just Chicago.”

“Chicago Latino List 2009” was generously sponsored by the Chicago Sinfonietta, the Chicago White Sox, and Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises Restaurants. All nominees were independently nominated for this recognition; their rejection and/or selection to “Chicago Latino List 2009” was not, in any way, influenced by any disclosed or undisclosed personal or professional proximity to Esther J. Cepeda or to any sponsor of “Chicago Latino List 2009”.

Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com

“600 Words by Esther J. Cepeda”

When Nelly Aguilar’s son Jason was diagnosed with Autism and their school district basically prepared her for her son to spend his life in a basement with non-verbal children, she knew she had found her calling: to advocate for her son.

“I was stunned by the amount of trouble people have to go through to get basic education services, basic rights for their special needs children,” Aguilar, a 33-year-old Mexican immigrant whose lived in the U.S. since she was six, told me.

So the 33-year-old single mom set aside her well-tended marketing career and decided to get a law degree so she could do just that. “I knew I had to make a change, I knew that he would need a lot of support and I thought that if I went to law school I could help him and other children.”

Aguilar was a single mom to a child who screamed “15 hours a day” and none of the schools she applied to in her then-home state of Texas had any monetary support for her. DePaul University, however, gave her a scholarship worth leaving her parents behind and starting over in a city she didn’t know with a high-need child.

“After he got diagnosed, Jason needed all kinds of therapies and all kinds of help,” Aguilar said, “I would take him to school, then I would go to school, then I’d get out, go get him, take him to his therapies, go home, cook, play, get him down to bed, then stay up until midnight doing homework and studying, then I’d get up the next morning and do it all over again.”

All this and it took her only three years and one semester to get through law school! “Then I graduated and studied for the bar, and passed it,” Aguilar said nonchalantly.

Today she’s one of approximately 15 attorneys in Illinois who work solely on Special Education law as their focus.

“I represent families of children with disabilities in actions against school districts that deny students an appropriate public education. I protect their rights and advocate on their behalf under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),” Aguilar explained. IDEA guarantees students with disabilities an adequate education with the fewest restrictions in the least restrictive classroom environment possible.

“In addition, I make recommendations on pending legislation in healthcare and education, I serve on several boards (Access Living, Autism Speaks, and Stone Soup Community Center), and I participate on statewide and national advocacy activities.”

Because all of that, AND a son with Autism whose now 9, and “doing really well,” isn’t enough, Aguilar is slated to teach a section of Special Education Law at DePaul University College of Law this fall. “I am the founder of the first clinical legal program in the Midwest that protects the educational rights of children with disabilities.  I secured federal funding for DePaul University's Special Education Advocacy Clinic.”

Delving into the intricacies, horrors and inequalities of Illinois’ educational industrial complex is a fool’s errand, but Aguilar helped me put the needs into perspective. 

·    Very few attorneys practice special education law and even fewer attorneys are bilingual and can understand the complex struggles English Language Learners face.  Live Downstate? Tough luck, Aguilar couldn’t name a single one south of Kankakee.

·    The average State of Illinois institutional stay for those with severe disabilities is about $140,000 per year but the state usually won’t provide preventative therapies which generally cost much less in the long run.

·    In the Chicago Public School District alone there are at least 55,000 special education students with Individual Education Plans. 85% live below the poverty level.

·    In the State of Illinois there are approximately 60 due process hearings a year. In Washington DC there are about 300 per month, and that’s not because Illinois families are happier than those in DC, but there is already a law school infrastructure for pumping out special ed. lawyers who – when they win a case, get to send the school district for attorney fees. Here in Chicago, however, in-house legal departments have lawyers at the ready to defend a school district’s interests.

Aguilar will certainly start adding to the pool of independent Chicago special education lawyers as a DePaul professor. And she’ll keep fighting for families’ rights.

“I do it more for others than for Jason because he’s pretty situated,” Aguilar said. “It brings me so much hope to be able to take a child who has nothing and a family who has been stepped on or passed over, and over, and over – callously, without any regard to the child’s future,” Aguilar said.

“When I get a child the right support, then I see them a year later and the kids that couldn’t read now can…it’s like the greatest feeling in the world.”

“Chicago Latino List 2009” was generously sponsored by the Chicago Sinfonietta, the Chicago White Sox, and Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises Restaurants. All nominees were independently nominated for this recognition; their rejection and/or selection to “Chicago Latino List 2009” was not, in any way, influenced by any disclosed or undisclosed personal or professional proximity to Esther J. Cepeda or to any sponsor of “Chicago Latino List 2009”.

Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com

"600 Words by Esther J. Cepeda"

How must it feel in the streets of Tehran today?

How must it feel to walk around, stunned, at the fresh bout of violence gripping this country that only days before was looking, to the rest of the world at least, like it was going to pull a u-turn under the leadership of a new president who might have been expected to not spew hatred toward the United States at every turn.

Don’t misunderstand – not everyone in Iran is upset today, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had many supporters, not the least of which were the poorer, working class, and many rural residents of the Middle Eastern country which lies snuggled between the Caspian and Arabian Seas.

  Still, the images are indelible: yound green-clad students, fans of the losing candidate Mir Hussein Moussavi, setting fires to cars and throwing stones, older, black-draped women literally weeping and gnashing their teeth in what the New York Times, and many other news outlets, have called the worst street protests in a decade.

There’s anger, disappointment, and I imagine, a little something like what Charlie Brown felt every single time Lucy bamboozled him into thinking she wasn’t going to yank that football away from him at the last moment; loss. Loss of the hope that had seemingly blanketed Iran in the last weeks, the loss that comes with the feeling that an important election has been stolen from voters.

It reminded me of July 2006, when Mexican President Felipe Calderon and his opponent Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) wrestled with the razor-thin margins for months to see who won the Mexican presidency. After several nail-biting months of re-counts, allegations of corruption and general uproar, Calderon was declared the winner on September 5, 2006, winning by a mere 243,934 votes (0.58%).

That July election set off nightmarish, sometimes violent protests that literally shut the city down for months and months as AMLO set up a shadow presidency and his supporters occupied the streets of Mexico vowing not to leave until justice was carried out.

I mentioned this parallel as a Tweet yesterday morning: "Crap! In Iran, Ahmadinejad claim's victory, as does his opponent. Hope it’s not another months-long drama like Calderon/AMLO in MX" to which one interested observer said, "right... or Florida in 2000!"

That gave me pause...No, I don’t think so.

Oh, I recall being as disheartened and angry as the next (non-Republican) guy that Al Gore lost to George W. Bush, and that the victory appeared to have been either the result of some horrible mechanical mishap or that – gasp – the people had gotten what they’d asked for and were about to get it good and hard.

But I don’t remember anyone getting into the streets for a good old-fashioned riot. Endless late-night talk show skits about "hanging chads" and "butterfly ballots" yes; fires and overturned cars like what happened in Chicago when the Bulls won the 1992 basketball championship – no.

I’m not saying we should have, I’m not saying violence is a good answer to any disappointment – no matter how devastating to a people or a country – but we are a long, long way from the Sam Adams tactics of our Founding Fathers.

There had been those who were very concerned that if President Barack Obama lost the 2008 election that all hell would break loose (read my column on Chicago election night plans here), but we can’t know what would have happened because our home-town boy won. In any case, I can’t imagine the sort of passion being aroused like what we’re seeing in Iran today.

God bless America, that security is our American privilege. Our thoughts should be with the people of Iran tonight.

Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com

"600 Words by Esther J. Cepeda"

Tom Rosenstiel, the Director at the Project for Excellence in Journalism, puts out a report every week about what was covered in the news the preceding week. Yesterday when I cracked it opened, it came as no surprise that for May 25-31, 2009, "Sotomayor Spin Wars Dominate[d] the Narrative."

His opening statement stood in awe of how big a story this was, "based on [the] velocity and ferocity of the new media ecosystem in 2009, one forged by the election, by the rise of social media and cable, and even more than ever defined by speed, political surrogates, diversity and argument."

The report said Sotomayor’s nomination filled 24% of the newshole the week of May 25-31 and ethnicity played a central role in that coverage. "Fully 40% of stories about the nominee referenced her cultural background, meaning her Latina heritage accounted for at least 25% of those stories."

And what was bugging me all week about that coverage? This was very much missing in Rosensteil’s analysis: most of the media ecosystem talking heads helping to fill that news hole were not as diverse as, perhaps, the people they’re covering.

They were pro – like Neil Steinberg in the Chicago Sun-Times who agreed with me that the media should have focused on her qualifications more than with her backstory. And they were con, like the Chicago Tribune’s John Kass who followed the "reverse racist" storyline. And they were even black, like Clarence Thomas who gawked at the drama, and also female, like Kathleen Star Parker who said we should wait to see what the woman has to say for herself before declaring her guilty of a leftist Latino agenda.

Hmmmm…let’s see who are we missing here?…I’ll give you a hint. Here’s what media columnist Richard "Journal-isms" Prince pointed out in his piece "Latino Commentators Scarce on Sotomayor" when referring to the number of Hispanic journalists who spoke about Sotomayor’s nomination on the Sunday morning political talk-shows:

"There are no Latino journalists on that list.

"Media Matters also measured the number of Latino guests or panelists on 'Meet the Press,' 'This Week,' 'Face the Nation' and 'Fox News Sunday' this year for the same period," wrote David Bauder of the Associated Press, which commissioned the study.

"The count?

"Zero."

Playing Devil’s advocate as I so often like doing, I contacted Kevin Olivas, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists’ Parity Project Director, and asked whether this even mattered, since a good reporter can report on anything.

He responded in an email:

Kevin makes an excellent point. I explained it this way to someone else who was having a hard time understanding where Latino journalists – rare as we are – are coming from regarding this slight.

Look at it this way: You know how English-only speakers dislike it when Spanish-speakers chatter away within earshot? The natural human instinct is to imagine that the chatterers are talking about them but they can’t understand so therefore it makes them uncomfortable.

Now imagine how Hispanics feel in a similar situation: here’s a national story about the first Latina Supreme Court Justice nominee and there are plenty of us who can objectively articulate the pros and cons of her merits – with the bonus of a culturally diverse viewpoint – but we’re not allowed to speak. We have to let non-Hispanic news and opinion journalists speak for us, even though we’re very much within ear shot and capable of answering for ourselves.

"How is it possible that Latinos can be left out of the discussion among journalists regarding such a historic event as the nomination of the first Hispanic to the U.S. Supreme Court," Olivas said. "Are there no qualified Latino journalists who could take part in this discussion?"

Of course, I’d have been more than happy to help Meet the Press’ David Gregory pronounce Sonia’s last name – it’s "Soto-‘my’-or" – but I guess I’ll just have to wait until next time.

"Latinos are part of the American experience," Olivas commiserated, "Leaving out our voices means telling an incomplete story."

Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com

"600 Words by Esther J. Cepeda"

National news today: a Puerto Rican daughter of the streets overcomes all obstacles including childhood death of her third-grade educated factory-worker father, a mother who had to work six days a week to buy her and her brother a set of encyclopedias that sat in the concrete block room of her Bronx housing project apartment, makes it big as a nominee on the U.S. Supreme Court.

God Bless America!

Oh and by the way, Sonia Sotomayor is a badass judge.

Missed that part didn’t ya? I certainly did – during President Obama’s press conference and in coverage immediately afterwards. It was all about the First Hispanic U.S. Supreme Court Judge, and about the Second Woman for the Supreme Court, and about triumph over adversity and childhood Nancy Drew adventure dreams dashed because of diabetes, and not about one woman’s stunning talent and determination culminating in a seat in this country’s highest court.

Now don’t get me wrong – as many did when I wrote that the best nominee should be accomplished and wonderful despite gender or ethnicity – I’m thrilled! And humbled and inspired by this woman’s tremendous achievement and professional excellence, but gosh I wish this morning’s exciting news had focused more on that professional excellence and not just on her stunning personal story.

Sure, President Obama started off his presser by noting his nominee was chosen because of: "First and foremost… a rigorous intellect – a mastery of the law, an ability to hone in on the key issues and provide clear answers to complex legal questions.  Second is a recognition of the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge's job is to interpret, not make, law; to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice; a respect for precedent and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand."

But then it was all about her triumph over adversity. Again, an incredibly awesome achievement – and darned heart-warming to see Sotomayor thank her mami publicly: "I am all I am because of her," Judge Sotomayor said, "and I am only half the woman she is," I got teary with pride – but where was the gushing about her professional achievements?

Sonia Sotomayor was appointed to the U.S. District Court by a Republican President, George H.W. Bush, and promoted to the Federal Court of Appeals by a Democrat, Bill Clinton.  Walking in the door she would bring more experience on the bench, and more varied experience on the bench, than anyone currently serving on the United States Supreme Court had when they were appointed.

Judge Sotomayor is a distinguished graduate of Princeton and Yale, would be the only justice with experience as a trial judge, has presided over roughly 450 cases and brings with her a stamp of approval from none other than George H.W. Bush who appointed her to the District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1992 – when she was still in her 30’s!

According to the White House backgrounder, "If confirmed, Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed for the Court in the past 70 years." Oh how I wish that was the predominant headline!

It goes without saying that some will harshly criticize her – that just goes with the territory. They’ll do so because she’s perceived as liberal, or because she’s a woman, or because she once made the following disturbing comment: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

Oh there’s more: allusions to a "Latino agenda," controversy regarding Fire Department promotion tests…it will all come out in the following weeks, it’s open season; heck at the afternoon press conference a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs if the White House was sure she’d paid her taxes. He replied, "I have not seen anything on that."

Sotomayor is President Obama’s pick, and if she should become the 111th U.S. Supreme Court Justice, let’s not let Sotomayor be labeled the "best Hispanic Supreme Court judge" around but, rather, the best choice to represent the people of United States on the Supreme Court who just so happens to be Hispanic.

Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com

"600 Words by Esther J. Cepeda"

Oh god, I can’t wait until Obama picks already, I’m tired of the endless speculation and even more tired of the whole "Hispanics are lobbying for a Latino justice" story line.

Can we give that a rest? Do Hispanics really feel that insecure about their political clout that they want a Latino judge so badly they can taste it? Really, it’s not that big a deal.

My pal John and I were talking about it last Wednesday when he proclaimed, "Are you kidding me? It’s going to be a white person, that’ll be on the front page of your New York Times, ‘Old, White Man Appointed.’ - if Obama’s smart. He needs to pick an extremely liberal white man if he wants that person to be accepted, otherwise that Judge will spend the rest of their tenure being the person who was picked because they were black, Hispanic, or a woman."

I’d certainly hate that. Really, it wouldn’t do Latinos any favor for either California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno or U.S. Appeals Court judge Sonia Sotomayor to get the nod if there is the appearance that they got it because of their ethnicity, rather than their scholarship and level-headedness.

So, Latino groups, stop making it look that way. The usual Hispanic empowerment groups have been banging the "First Hispanic Supreme Court Justice" drum for weeks, but I see little upside in some of the quasi-damning statements I’ve heard on the subject.

Never mind the emails I get and the comments I see on Twitter and Facebook, here’s a quote from current Hispanic National Bar Association president Ramona Romero regarding the "First Hispanic Supreme Court Judge" barrier not being yet broken: "It was a lack of will, a lack of commitment. It was not because of the absence of qualified candidates."

This time, she says, "there is an enormous sense of urgency" behind making sure the opportunity is not lost during a Barack Obama presidency.

On Nov. 14, 2008, Romero wrote a letter to Obama urging him to "make history yet again" by nominating a Hispanic justice, thereby erasing the "unfortunate message" conveyed by a Supreme Court with no Hispanic members. "The presence of a Latino or Latina at the conference table could add a needed 'special voice' to the Supreme Court's deliberations and decisions -- a voice that can speak about the law as it affects U.S. Hispanics with the authority that only firsthand knowledge can provide."

A "special voice"? Eeewww! What does that even mean? Those are exactly the types of statements that make white people, frankly, scared that a Latino on the Supreme Court will bring a Hispanic agenda to bear on cases, rather than rule from a solid scholarship and ideology. I’m not saying that is true in anyway, but…I’m telling you "special voice" sounds creepy, even to me. Obama, however, has struck the right tone for me.

"You have to have not only the intellect to be able to effectively apply the law to cases before you," Obama said today in an interview carried Saturday on C-SPAN television, according to the CNN story. "But you have to be able to stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes and get a sense of how the law might work or not work in practical day-to-day living."

He wants empathy and the ability to see life from the position of the powerless. Thankfully, Obama has, at least publicly, said he’s interested in the best nominee regardless of what adjectives can be placed before their name. "[I don’t] feel weighted down by having to choose ... based on demographics," Obama said Saturday.

Well, thank goodness for that.

According to a recent CNN story, "Hispanic groups quietly press for supreme court pick," leading Hispanic groups have been careful not to create the perception they’re demanding a Latino be nominated, nor that they are seeking direct political payback for their election support.

Yeah…well, that’s not how I’m seeing it. From mass chain emails, to Latino authored op-eds in Southwest newspapers, to morning Spanish-language shock jocks, some people are not simply rooting for a Hispanic nominee, but rather, ready to blow their stack if they don’t get one.

For a voting bloc anxious to make real progress on immigration law reform, this is not the best battle to choose. Not this round anyway.

To these people I say: take a deep breath, trust the guy you take so much credit for getting elected in the first place, and may the best man or woman Supreme Court Justice candidate win.

Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com

"600 Words by Esther J. Cepeda"

People, bear with me here, I’m only a few days removed from having completed a frustrating and maddening master’s level class in effective teaching strategies to help English language learners pick up our baffling but beloved language, and a report that was just released has me climbing the walls.

But more about that in a moment, let me vent some more:

It was the kind of class where the teacher framed everything in terms of "cultural respect" and where all the students felt it was imperative to teach kids in their native language and that to insist otherwise was to buy into the evil construct of the "white man" trying to keep poor Latinos "down."

Much like my experience being an actual teacher in a classroom of non-native English-language speakers, where I was castigated as the lone weirdo who insisted on talking to and teaching her students in English, I was the freakish anomaly in this class.

I was the nutcase in the back of the room advocating for the hundreds of thousands of non-Spanish speaking students in school districts across the country, insisting that segregating students into Spanish-speaking sheltered classes was a recipe for a permanent underclass.

Every week we discussed interesting language acquisition stories in the media and I almost wish I could have one more Saturday to beg the others to understand the perils of "bilingual classes" taught exclusively in Spanish and how damaging it can be to those who need to learn flawless English in order to thrive in this country (this was my idea of "fun" if you can conceive it!).

My pleas surely would have fallen on deaf ears – after all, who is more committed to the status quo than "bilingual teachers" whose main claim to fame and employment is the ability to teach solely in Spanish? – but check this out: a report from the National Center for Education Statistics on Basic Reading Skills and the Literacy of America’s Least Literate Adults.

You can go directly to the PDF here, but let me just give you a taste of the horrifying statistics, gleaned from the 2003 National Adult Literacy Survey which was designed to measure functional literacy and administered to more than 19,000 adults (ages 16 and older) in households and prisons:

I’ll cut the numbers off right there, though you should plow into this report if you’re interested in knowing at just how much of a disadvantage some people in this country are.

But the point I’m trying to make is illustrated by those last two bulleted items – and you didn’t need a fancy report to tell you this – it is absolutely crystal clear beyond any doubt that the key to Hispanic and Latino success in the United States is fluency in the English language.

It doesn’t require giving up culture, giving up a native language, or giving up speaking a native language in the home – it very simply requires a country single-mindedly dedicated to making learning English the number one objective for public school students. By hook or by crook.

Some people reflexively rail at the very thought of "English-only" legislation; there is currently a bill called the "English Language Empowerment Act" being bandied about in New York state. Pro-Spanish-language education advocates are already complaining that such a move would make it mandatory to teach children in – gasp!!!! – English.

But the unacceptable alternative is hoards of students who get dumped into public school "bilingual ed" classes and, after years of sheltered Spanish immersion classes, walk out of high school still not fluent in English (read more about my experiences as a bilingual ed teacher here).

And that alternative is a denial of the American Dream. It is, in fact, an American tragedy – and not just for them, but for us all.

Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com

"600 Words by Esther J. Cepeda"

I have the diagnosed cure for the Mexican Swine Flu Heebie-Jeebies, folks: take a chill pill.

Yes, just relax…all this stress about whether Juan Gonzalez is going to sneeze on you and make you sprout a pig-snout is just weakening your immune system.

And it’s not just the light-skinned, bilingually-challenged among us that are nervous about heading down to 26th street for the Wednesday night enchilada run, the brown-skinned, soccer-skill-blessed among us are trippin’ too – I’ve gotten several email messages from Latinos all over the country who are re-interpreting every sideways glance as some sort of anti-Mexican snub.

Not that it takes much for some to get freaked out, but there is, if you’ll pardon the pun, a germ of truth there. Since Sunday, the nation has gone from zero to hysterical and the "dirty Mexicans" everyone has been fretting about since the illegal-immigration issue reared its ugly head exactly four years ago just got dirtier.

Sunday, the press corps at the White House were nearly hyperventilating about whether Obama had been tested for Swine Flu since he’d been cavorting in the United States of Mexico with the likes of President Felipe Calderon two weeks before. Then they freaked out Monday when they found out one of the dignitaries whom Obama met while in Mexico dropped dead last Thursday. Not to worry, Mr. Felipe Solís, Director of Mexico’s National Anthropology Museum, died of a non-Swine-related pre-existing condition.

There’s been something for everyone in this almost-crisis: mainstream media have been having a field-day with this health scare because it’s made them feel necessary and relevant, immigrant bashers who’ve been waiting for just such an occasion to gleefully announce that THIS is exactly why we should have sealed the borders after the 86 amnesty are lovin’ it, and the special interest groups who are offended by everything are enjoying rightfully calling these extremists, um, extreme.

This press release arrived in my inbox from the National Council on La Raza today: "NCLR CONDEMNS THE SHAMELESS EXPLOITATION OF A PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY: NCLR today condemned the assertions made by some members of the media that the outbreak of swine flu is linked to immigrants."

Tip for NCLR, don’t dignify the likes of a Michael Savage – who makes his dinero on talking smack about people – when, in reference to a U.S. outbreak that might well be linked to rich kids who went to Mexico on Spring Break, says something silly like: "Make no mistake about it: Illegal aliens are the carriers of the new strain of human-swine avian flu from Mexico."

Whatever.

It’s items like the one the Sun-Times News Group reporter Nick Firchau ran Wednesday about the Club America Mexican soccer team being asked to wear face masks as they walked through O’Hare airport that creep me out. They were also asked not to touch the fans, but you gotta admit, that’s probably decent advice.

In other bummer Mexican news, this city has canceled a Cinco de Mayo celebration this weekend over concerns over the swine flu. We’ve got all manner of travel between Mexico and the U.S. suspended – which is a downer for the 1,357,353 people of Mexican descent living in the Chicago area.

And the organizers of this year’s Million Mexican May Day March might be disappointed with a low turnout at Friday’s rally – they city is pressuring them to cancel or at the very least promise to wear face masks – though I’d imagine it’s hard to get too wound up for that sort of thing anyway, seeing as how the President and his whole administration have solemnly vowed to fix the U.S.’ batty immigration laws.

Nope, like a May 6 Dos Equis and Jose Cuervo hangover, this too shall pass. Scary Mexican Swine Flu 2009 (has FOX composed a special ominous theme jingle yet?) is no Captain Tripps, it will come and go like the Avian Flu scare did.

Remember, just relax. Keep your wits about you and like 99.9% of your continent-mates, you’ll be just fine.

Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com

“600 Words by Esther J. Cepeda”

I was innocently flipping through Esquire Magazine’s May “How to be a Man” edition when I spotted…him.

There, on pg 65, among such notables as Bob Dylan, Rep. Barney Frank, Chris Rock and James Caan is our very own U.S Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, one of the many manlys who made Esquire Magazine’s 2009 List of Men (“because just being male doesn’t make you a man”).

Described as someone who “does his job” and “tells the truth,” there he was – stone-faced Patrick, lovingly etched in this century’s computerized version of pen and ink, with this lovely caption:  “When Fitzgerald serves you, consider yourself served. He brought down Scooter Libby, Conrad Black, and then Blago. Whither thou goest, Alberto Gonzalez, we all hope Fitz goes with thee.”

I gushed – what can I say, I’m a fan and he has many. Here’s the New York Times on December 9, in an article which described Fitzgerald as a "folk hero" in "prosecutorial spurs": "It has become a cliché to compare him to Eliot Ness, the Chicago Prohibition agent whom television and movies made into a symbol of incorruptible law enforcement."

I went way back into my archives and dug up this nugget from a piece I wrote in October of 2007 when it was, ahem, “leaked” that Patrick “Sexiest Man Alive” Fitzgerald would soon marry: “Patrick’s in love and we’re in trouble, love’s bliss will rose-color his glasses and I forsee a white-collar crime-spree while he’s on his honeymoon.”

Thank goodness I was so wrong – we all now know his first true love is putting away bad guys.

For your enjoyment here are a few quotes I’m ripping off from Time Magazine, who was kind enough to put them all together in their post-Blagojevich-bust issue, December 2008:

What Fitzgerald Says: 

• "One day I read I was a Republican hack. One day I read I was a Democratic hack. The only thing I did between those two nights was sleep."
— During his investigation into the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity (TIME, October 30, 2005)

• "I've played a lot of practical jokes on people for a lot of years and they all got even at once. OK, new topic!"
— On being named one of PEOPLE magazine's "Sexiest Men of 2005" (Chicago Tribune, November 18, 2005)

• "You're reading tea leaves. Don't. I don't draw a very good tea leaf."
— Dismissing reporters' questions after announcing his first indictment in the Plame scandal (San Francisco Chronicle, October 29, 2005)

• "Do I have zeal? Yes. I don't pretend I don't. If you're not zealous, you shouldn't have the job. Now, sometimes zealous becomes a code word for overzealous, and I don't want to be overzealous. I hope I'm not."
— On his enthusiasm for the job (Washington Post, February 2, 2005)

If you’re not getting enough Patrick Fitzgerald in your life, I beg you to go to “From the Desk of Patrick J. Fitzgerald” http://patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com/ I promise you won’t be disappointed!

Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com

"600 Words by Esther J. Cepeda"

If you know me at all, you know I like to eat. A lot. My runs to the Taco Bell border are legendary – don’t get me started on the cinnamon twists, we’ll be here all night.

And so in that vein, I bring you some fast foodie news, one involving a pathetic and cowardly caving to political correctness and another violating the sanctity of two all-beef patties!

Exhibit A:

Here’s the recap; so, according to The Nation’s Restaurant News, a restaurant industry trade paper, Burger King sells a thing called "the Texican Whopper" in Europe. It’s a flame-grilled patty topped with chile-con-carne, spicy jalapenos, onion, crispy lettuce and Cajun mayonnaise on a sesame seed bun, but that wasn’t the controversial part.

BK created an ad campaign featuring – gasp!!! – a tall "American cowboy" next to a midget (oops, I meant to say "little person") lucha libre wrestler with a Mexican flag cape.

Long-story-short (if you’ll pardon the pun – I just couldn’t resist!) Mexican ambassador to Spain Jorge Zermeno – who clearly hasn’t been to ANY lucha libre matches because he’d see all manner of tall and tiny luchadores wearing Mexican flag underwear, capes, masks, etc. – complained about the ads denigrating Mexico’s national image and improperly using Mexico’s national flag.

O.K., so I guess no more girlies wearing Mexican flag thong bikinis at Cinco De Mayo celebrations, huh? Darn.

But, I’m not going to complain about Jorge "I’ve got a stick up my butt" Zermeno, it’s his job to defend his mother country’s honor, ahem, abroad.

Nope, I reserve my disgust for Burger King – they’re cowards to bow to the pressure of a humorless bureaucrat. Their PR flacks released a statement Tuesday that said the commercials "were not intended to offend anyone." Duh.

It further stated: "Burger King Corp. values and respects all of its guests as well as the countries and communities we serve…With regard to the Texican Whopper advertisement shown in Spain and the United Kingdom, it was our intention to promote a product whose culinary origin lies in both the American and Mexican cultures, and was meant to appeal to those who enjoy the flavors and ingredients that each country offers."

Apparently Burger King will, from now on, appeal only to those who cannot bear to laugh at Mexican midgets who dress up in their country’s flags to make money off people who come out to laugh at them.

What’s this world coming to?

 Exhibit B: Darn that Jim Skinner, what the heck is he doing to my Big Mac’s honor? Doesn’t he know wrapping it in a flour tortilla is going to make the racists hate Mexicans even more?!?!?!

O.K., so it’s not quite that serious. But, if you hadn’t heard, according to Advertising Age magazine, our pals at Oakbrook-based McDonald’s are testing the "Snack Wrap Mac," a half –beef-patty, with lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions that’s smothered in "special sauce" and wrapped in a flour tortilla. For a buck-forty-nine.

Huh?

Why would they do this? And, more importantly, why can’t I get one?

Of the 400 of the chain's 14,000 locations who get to take the new snack for a spin, our neighbors in Wisconsin, and those crazy Texas Hustonians get to feast their tastebuds on the Big tortilla-clad Mac but Chicago doesn’t get to take a taste test – that’s just plain loco.

Note to Jim Skinner: like the geniuses who combined peanut butter and chocolate, you might just have created my newest taste treat sensation by mixing my Taco Bell needs with my Mac daddy love…so let me at it, already.

Perhaps a trip to the Oak Brook McLaboratory for a quickie taste?

Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com

“600 Words by Esther J. Cepeda”

Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t go with his Obamaness to Trinidad and Tobago but I am privileged enough to get readouts of press briefings and press releases delivered straight from the White House to my inbox, so I’ve had the opportunity to experience this trip to Latin America from a different perspective than most.

It’s been a whirlwind important trip and, as some media outlets have opined, probably the only time Latin America will get this much attention for some time, since there are so many pressing domestic issue for Obama to contend with.

I published the full transcript of the Joint Press Conference: President Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon on April 16 2009 because I knew it wouldn’t get covered extensively in Chicago even though there are a breath-taking 1,357,353 Mexican – or Mexican-descended people, like me – in the Chicago metro area (and those were just 2006 numbers!).

But there are tons of Cubans here too – 18,875, to be specific (the fourth largest Latin American group in Chicago) – not to mention another 346,615 people from all the countries that gathered at Port of Spain in Trinidad and Tobago this weekend to be awed by the newest President of the United States.

Of course, all of the usual suspects came out including Evo Morales of Bolivia, Lula or Brazil, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign-educated prez of Ecuador (my father’s mother country) Rafael Correa, and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua.

But some of the juiciest bits that happened this weekend were comments made by White House representatives – and Obama himself – during pressers in response to questions from pool reporters. Here are a few:

Friday April 17 Obama said this during the opening ceremony of the Summit of the Americas:

Later Friday night, an unnamed Senior Administration official relayed this:

ON CUBA:

Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

(Mexico City, Mexico)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 16, 2009

JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE WITH PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

AND PRESIDENT FELIPE CALDERÓN OF MEXICO

Los Pinos

Mexico City, Mexico

4:29 P.M. CDT

PRESIDENT CALDERÓN: (As translated.) Ladies and gentlemen of the press, of the media, I would like to give the warmest welcome to Mexico to President Barack Obama, and to the delegation accompanying him. This is an historic event that will inaugurate a new era, a new relationship between our two countries.

Today in the meetings that we have held we have confirmed the determination of both governments to consolidate the very, very close contacts and links that join and bring together Mexico and the United States. We have new projects in important affairs such as security, migration, competitiveness, and global affairs.

As never before we have decided that the fight against multinational organized crime must be based on cooperation, shared responsibility, and in trust, a mutual trust.

Both governments recognize that the Merida Initiative is a very good starting point in order to strengthen cooperation in security. But we want to go beyond, we want to go further in order to liberate, to free our societies from the criminal activities that affect the lives of millions of people.

We have also agreed to expedite the times so that we can have available the resources for this Merida Initiative, and we have also decided to launch other activities that are in the hands of our governments. For example, we can adopt new measures for preventing illicit flows at the border, particularly the flow of weapons and of cash. We will also be strengthening our cooperation in information and intelligence in order to more efficiently fight against money laundering.

On the other hand, we have also agreed that both governments should produce propositions -- proposals for our cooperation so that we can eventually have reform in the United States with full respect to the sovereign decisions of both congresses -- of both nations, that is. Our governments will work in this sense to make migration an orderly, respectful process of human rights, a process in which human rights will be respected.

In energy and climate change, we have agreed to work together in order to guarantee a legal framework of certainty, transparency for the future; better use of cross-border resources such as gas and energy. And I have given to President Obama concrete proposals on climate change. One of them has to do with the integration of a bilateral market of carbon emissions, which coincides a lot with proposals that he has made to the U.S. audience, and other cooperation, ways of cooperation in climate change, such as something that Mexico has proposed, called the Green Fund.

We have also said that in addition to discussing our goals for carbon emissions that are linked in the fight against climate change globally, we must also act very soon in the design of new instruments, of new tools in order to fight against climate change. That is really the central proposal of the Green Fund.

And in a gesture of recognition, of acknowledgment on this topic, we know that President Obama and his government have made considerable efforts to provide new arguments to the discussion of this topic. We would also like to thank -- to welcome the possibility that Mexico might be the seat of the 16th U.N. conference on climate change that will be taking place in 2010.

We have recognized and acknowledged, ladies and gentlemen, that Mexico and the United States do not have to compete among themselves, but rather they must be able to take advantage of the complementary nature of their economies in order to compete as partners with regard to other parts of the world. We have the chance to make our region more competitive and to have greater, more agile production.

And we will be working in three areas. First, in the strengthening of the border infrastructure, I have also given to President Obama a proposal to facilitate the economic flows between both countries to improve the quality of life of the residents in the border areas, and to foster the development of our two nations through very specific projects on infrastructure at the Mexican-U.S. border.

Secondly, we believe it is essential to increase our cooperation and customs so that we can have a more efficient trade. And thirdly, we have also proposed to improve our cooperation in regulatory matters regarding tariff or non-tariff issues that very often make difficult our trade between two countries.

We have agreed with President Obama that we seek agreements to truly improve the economic situation not only of the United States but of the entire region and the world. We have stated our cooperation to strengthen the democracy of the market and of regional security.

In relation to President Obama's recent security to lift the restrictions for people from the U.S. to travel to Cuba and to be able to send remittances, Mexico acknowledges that this is a very constructive, positive step for the hemispheric relations, particularly for the region.

And finally, my friends, ladies and gentlemen, I want to tell you that I am absolutely convinced that President Obama's visit is just an initial step, the beginning of a relationship between two countries that are friends, neighbors, and must also be partners and allies.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much, President Obama, for your visit. The President Barack Obama now has the floor.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I want to begin by thanking the people of Mexico for their gracious welcome. And I want to thank President Calderón for the hospitality he has shown as a host.

You know, this is my first trip to Mexico as President, and I see this visit -- as I know President Calderón does -- as an opportunity to launch a new era of cooperation and partnership between our two nations, an era built on an even firmer foundation of mutual responsibility and mutual respect and mutual interest. We had a productive and wide-ranging conversation and I think we have taken some very important steps down that path.

It's difficult to overstate the depth of the ties between our two nations or the extraordinary importance of our relationship. It's obviously a simple fact of geography that we share a border, and we've always been bound together because of that geography. But it's not just that shared border that links us together. It's not only geography, but it's also culture, it's also migration patterns that have taken place that have become so important.

Our deep economic ties mean that whenever -- whatever steps that we're going to take moving forward have to be taken together. And that's why we worked hard, hand in hand at the G20 summit. And that's what we will continue to do at the Summit of the Americas and beyond, so that we can jumpstart job creation, promote free and fair trade, and develop a coordinated response to this economic crisis.

We also discussed our shared interest in meeting an immigration challenge that has serious implications for both the United States and for Mexico. My country has been greatly enriched by migration from Mexico. Mexican Americans form a critical and enduring link between our nations. And I am committed to fixing our broken immigration system in a way that upholds our traditions as a nation of laws but also as a nation of immigrants. And I'm committed to working with President Calderón to promote the kind of bottom-up economic growth here in Mexico that will allow people to live out their dreams here, and as a consequence will relieve some of the pressures that we've seen along the borders.

We also discussed what our nations can do to help bring a clean energy future to both countries. This is a priority for the United States. I know it's a priority for President Calderón. And I want to commend him for the work that he's already made in cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the commitment that he's made even though Mexico is not required to do so under the Kyoto Protocol. And together, we're establishing a new Bilateral Framework on Clean Energy and Climate Change that will focus on creating green jobs, promoting renewable energy, and enhancing energy efficiency. I look forward to strengthening our partnership in the upcoming Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate and in next year's U.N. climate negotiations, which I hope will be held here in Mexico.

Now, as essential as it is that we work together to overcome each of these common challenges, there's one particular area that requires our urgent and coordinated action, and that is the battle that's taking place with -- with respect to the drug cartels that are fueling kidnappings and sowing chaos in our communities and robbing so many of a future, both here in Mexico and in the United States.

I have said this before; I will repeat it: I have the greatest admiration and courage for President Calderón and his entire cabinet, his rank-and-file police officers and soldiers as they take on these cartels. I commend Mexico for the successes that have already been achieved. But I will not pretend that this is Mexico's responsibility alone. A demand for these drugs in the United States is what is helping to keep these cartels in business. This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border.

So we have responsibilities, as well. We have to do our part. We have to crack down on drug use in our cities and towns. We have to stem the southbound flow of guns and cash. And we are absolutely committed to working in a partnership with Mexico to make sure that we are dealing with this scourge on both sides of the border.

And that's why we're ramping up the number of law enforcement personnel on our border. That's why, for the first time, we are inspecting trains leaving our country, not just those entering it. That's why our Department of Homeland Security is making up to $59 million available to defend our common border from this threat to both of our countries.

Now, as we discussed in our meeting, destroying and disrupting the cartels will require more than aggressive efforts from each of our nations. And that's why the United States is taking the following steps: We've begun to accelerate efforts to implement the Merida Initiative so we can provide Mexico with the military aircraft and inspection equipment they need when they need it.

Yesterday, I designated three cartels as Significant Foreign Narcotics Drug Traffickers under U.S. law, clearing the way for our Treasury Department, working together with Mexico to freeze their assets and subject them to sanctions.

My National Homeland Security Advisor, who is here, General Jim Jones, as well as my Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, and my top advisor on homeland security and counterterrorism, John Brennan, are all meeting with their Mexican counterparts to develop new ways to cooperate and coordinate their efforts more effectively.

In addition, as President Calderón and I discussed, I am urging the Senate in the United States to ratify an inter-American treaty known as CIFTA to curb small arms trafficking that is a source of so many of the weapons used in this drug war.

Now, there are some of the common challenges that President Calderón and I discussed in our meeting and that we're going to be working on to overcome in the months and years ahead. It will not be easy, but I am confident that if we continue to act, as we have today, in a spirit of mutual responsibility and friendship, we will prevail on behalf of our common security and our common prosperity.

So I think that this is building on previous meetings that we've had. In each interaction, the bond between our governments is growing stronger. I am confident that we're going to make tremendous progress in the future. Thank you.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President, as well.

President Obama, as a candidate for your office, you said that you wanted to see the assault ban weapon -- the ban on assault weapons reinstated. Your Attorney General has spoken in favor of this. Mexican officials have also spoken in favor of it. But we haven't heard you say that since you took office. Do you plan to keep your promise? And if not, how do you explain that to the American people?

And, President Calderón -- I'm sorry, if I may -- would you like to see this ban reinstated? And have you raised that today with President Obama? Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, we did discuss this extensively in our meetings. I have not backed off at all from my belief that the gun -- the assault weapons ban made sense. And I continue to believe that we can respect and honor the Second Amendment rights in our Constitution, the rights of sportsmen and hunters and homeowners who want to keep their families safe to lawfully bear arms, while dealing with assault weapons that, as we now know, here in Mexico, are helping to fuel extraordinary violence -- violence in our own country, as well.

Now, having said that, I think none of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy. And so, what we've focused on is how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws, because even under current law, trafficking illegal firearms, sending them across a border, is illegal. That's something that we can stop.

And so our focus is to work with Secretary Napolitano, Attorney General Holder, our entire Homeland Security team, ATF, border security, everybody who is involved in this, to coordinate with our counterparts in Mexico to significantly ramp up our enforcement of existing laws. And in fact, I've asked Eric Holder to do a complete review of how our enforcement operations are currently working and make sure that we're cutting down on the loopholes that are resulting in some of these drug trafficking problems.

The last point I would make is that there are going to be some opportunities where I think we can build some strong consensus. I'll give you one example, and that is the issue of gun tracing. The tracing of bullets and ballistics and gun information that have been used in major crimes -- that's information that we are still not giving to law enforcement, as a consequence of provisions that have been blocked in the United States Congress, and those are the areas where I think that we can make some significant progress early.

That doesn’t mean that we're steering away from the issue of the assault guns ban, but it does mean that we want to act with urgency, promptly, now. And I think we can make significant progress.

PRESIDENT CALDERÓN: Thank you for your question. I want to say that, in effect, on this topic -- not only on this topic, but on many of the other thorny topics of relations between the U.S. and Mexico, we have had an open, frank, trusting conversation between President Obama and myself. We have spoken of assault weapons. He is well aware of our problems.

And we have described it as it is from the moment that the prohibition on the sale of assault weapons a few years ago, we have seen an increase in the power of organized crime in Mexico. Only in my administration, in the two years and four months, we have been able to see -- or rather we have seized more than 16,000 assault weapons. And in the efforts we have made to track their origin -- and President Obama has referred to that -- we have seen that nearly 90 percent of those arms comes from the United States -- those weapons come from the United States. There are about 10,000 sales points in the U.S.-Mexico border -- only at the border.

On the other hand, I do believe that our relationship -- the new era we must build in our relationship between Mexico and the United States must be one with trust and respect. And we definitely respect the decision of the U.S. Congress and of the U.S. people in this regard, because they are very well aware of President Obama and his government's willingness to move forward on these issues.

We know that it is a politically delicate topic because Americans truly appreciate their constitutional rights, and particularly those that are part of the Second Amendment. I personally believe that as long as we are able to explain clearly what our problems in Mexico are, then we might also be able to seek a solution respecting the constitutional rights of the Americans, at the same time will prevent -- or rather avoid that organized crime becomes better armed in our country.

But we have to work on it. We have to work on it. But we fully respect the opinion of the U.S. Congress and we know that there's a great deal of sensitivity regarding this topic.

But there are many, many things that we can definitely move forward in. For example, in armament, it is not only a matter of seeing whether we can change the legislation on assault weapons -- we have already said what our position is -- but we might also be able to see whether they can apply existing legislation in Mexico and the United States on armament. For example, in Mexico it's a matter of enforcement, with the Export Control Act, for example -- this is in the United States -- I'm sorry -- prohibits the export of weapons to those countries where those weapons are prohibited.

And that is the case of Mexico. If we actually comply with the U.S. law -- or rather if everybody complies with the U.S. law that prohibits the sale of these weapons and their export to Mexico, we can move a great deal forward.

President Obama has made recent decisions in the last few weeks, and we value them and appreciate them -- for example, to reinforce the operational capability of U.S. border agencies in order to comply with this legislation and with other laws, in order to review the flows of entry not only into the United States, but also the outgoing flows, outgoing from the U.S., to make sure that there is no illicit money, in strict compliance with United States legislation. I think these are very important steps.

But there is a problem, and only as long as we build on this trust and we clearly explain to citizens of both countries how we must find a solution, we will be able to achieve one. We do so respectfully, presenting our position, knowing full well how the U.S. people feel about this and being fully respectful of the sovereign decisions that the United States might make, or that any other country might make.

One more thing -- one more thing I forgot to mention. One other thing we can do is to track the weapons that we have in Mexico. If we manage to detect weapons sold illegally in the United States in violation of this law on the control of weapons exports, or if, in the United States, they can have -- probably move forward on a good registry of armament or on the prohibition of certain massive sales of weapons, for example, to a hunter or to a common citizen -- we know that these people do not usually buy hundreds of rifles or assault weapons or grenades -- if we can move forward in those areas, I do believe that security both of the United States and Mexico will improve because those weapons are pointing against Mexican people and Mexican officials today.

But crime is not only acting in Mexico. It is also acting in the United States. Organized crime is acting in both countries. And I do hope that those weapons that are sold today in the United States and are being used in Mexico, I hope the day will never come in which they will also be used against the North American society or against U.S. officials, just like they are now being used in Mexico.

Q (As translated.) Good afternoon, Presidents. You are going to share four years of an administration, and there can be an in-depth change in this fight against organized crime in these four years. As of today, how can we establish the concrete objectives that in 2012 will allow us to say, fine, a new era began between Mexico and the United States back then?

Particularly I'm addressing this to you, President Obama. In addition to the chance that you will invest your political capital in being able to stop the flow of these weapons to Mexico, what can we hope for, what can we expect to see in terms of arresting the drug lords, the kingpins, in the U.S.? Because there are laws against corruption, but this is enabling now -- in other words, the U.S. market is now the biggest for drugs. And former President of Mexico, ex-President Fox, said that in the back they have only gotten little pats in the back from his predecessors. Can we hope for more from your administration?

And to you, President Calderón, with this new era, how can you measure the detention, the arrest of drug lords in the United States, and also putting a stop to the flow of weapons? How can you measure this?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I think that we can measure this in terms of the reduction in violence; in the interdiction of drugs; in the interdiction of weapons coming south; in the dismantling of the financial structures that facilitate these drug cartels; in the arrest of major drug kingpins.

So I think we know how to measure progress. The challenge is maintaining a sustained effort. And as I said, something that President Calderón and myself absolutely recognize, is that you can't fight this war with just one hand. You can't just have Mexico making an effort but the United States not making an effort. And the same is true on the other side.

I think both our efforts have to be coordinated; both of our efforts have to be strengthened. I've made some very concrete commitments, already sending additional resources, already making additional investments. These are measurable in millions and, ultimately, billions of dollars over several years. And I believe that President Calderón has used enormous political capital to deal with this issue.

Obviously the Mexican people, particularly along the borders, have suffered great hardship. And as a consequence, if we partner effectively -- and that's why I brought many of my top officials on this trip, to interact with their counterparts -- I'm confident that we're going to make progress. Now, are we going to eliminate all drug flows? Are we going to eliminate all guns coming over the border? That's not a realistic objective. What is a realistic objective is to reduce it so significantly, so drastically, that it becomes once again a localized criminal problem as opposed to a major structural problem that threatens stability in communities along those borders and that increases corruption and threatens the rule of law -- that's the kind of progress that I think can be made.

And so, we are going to -- we're going to work as hard as we can and as diligently as we can on these issues -- always mindful, though, that the relationship between Mexico and the United States cannot just be defined by drugs. Sometimes there's a tendency for the media to only report on drug interdiction or immigration when it comes to U.S.-Mexican relations. And one of the things that we talked about is the extraordinary opportunities for us to work together on our commercial ties; on strengthening border infrastructure to improve the flow of goods; on working on clean energy, which can produce jobs on both sides of the border.

So we're going to stay very focused on this. We're going to make this a top priority, but we just always want to remember that our relationship is not simply defined by these problems; it's also defined by opportunities. And that's what we want to take advantage of as well.

PRESIDENT CALDERÓN: Thank you, President. I agree a great deal with you and I fully thank you for your support and understanding in this very difficult topic. I think the question is very relevant. I see a big opportunity for President Obama and myself, since we are going to be sharing the next four years as heads of our administrations, I see a big opportunity here.

And on this issue, what I hope to see at the end of my administration is actually many things. One is a reduction in the levels of criminal activities in our countries related to organized crime, which is also related to drug trafficking -- they go hand in hand. We have a strategy with short-, midterm, and long-term objectives.

In the short term, for example, we have set out to recuperate the security and tranquility of our citizens, particularly in those areas that have been harder hit by the crime. And this is where we have the joint operations, where we are mobilizing not only our federal police but also the army -- and this, regardless of the fact that it is not an easy matter and it hasn't been and it can change in the course of time, but at least we begin to see fruitful results in some areas.

For example, in the last quarter -- or rather compared to the last quarter of last year, our first quarter of this year, there was already a drop of 27 percent in criminal activities. That is as an average for the entire country, only in Ciudad Juarez -- as of the joint operation that we launched in February, between February and March violent deaths in Ciudad Juarez, crime-related -- violence related to crime dropped by 80 percent.

Of course I understand that the spectacular nature of some of these operations has really attracted worldwide attention. But with a very difficult crime rate that we had last year, despite them, crime in Mexico was 10.7 deaths because of crime for every 100,000 inhabitants. It is less than what it is in Guatemala, El Salvador, Colombia, Venezuela, or Brazil in Latin America, and it is also a lower number than the crime rates of many U.S. cities.

I believe one issue has to be, of course, that we have to cut down on crime in Mexico, for sure, but, number two, I hope, in the course of time, to be a safer border and a more efficient border. As long as -- if we are able to stop the flow of drugs, illicit money and weapons, we will have greater progress both in the United States and Mexico. And one way to measure this is by appreciating and valuing the technological capabilities, particularly of nonintrusive detection at the border, so that for those who do want to make business and do want to trade, that the border is open, and those who want to commit crime, the border will be a closed area.

One way to measure this -- and here U.S. cooperation is essential -- is to have the right technology, particularly nonintrusive technology that will enable us to have safe borders. And the initiative, the Merida Initiative, is very much focused on this.

Now, in the midterm, we would like a renewal of our police forces in Mexico. At the end of my administration, I would like to be able to have a new federal police that will be worthy of the citizens' trust and that will be efficient. And here U.S. cooperation is also fundamental. Why? Well, because on our side we are cleaning our house, we are sweeping everything from top to bottom so that all the police forces, from the top officials at the Attorney General's office, the army, the navy, that all officials in Mexico, all police officials that we can truly trust in their honesty, and that at the same time, technologically, they will be top-notch, as the rest of the world, in investigation, in databases. We want a scientific police, one that is very well-trained in technology, and U.S. help will be very welcome and it will be essential.

We also have a judicial plan for oral trials. And I think that as we fulfill these objectives, many of them have already -- are part of our agreement on safety, security and protection. With a shared responsibility that we now have with President Obama and his team, we are certain that we will reach these objectives and that our strategy, which is the correct one, will have many more possibilities of achieving success, and that at the end of our administration we will have a Mexico, a United States, that are much safer and freer of violence -- violence free, rather.

Of course, drug trafficking cannot be ended by decree. As long as there is a supply of high -- or rather, is high demand, there will be a high supply. But what we can control is the effect of criminal activities in society, to stop the actions of organized crime, and we can also act preventively in order to bring down the consumption of drugs in the United States, and in Mexico, too, which also begins to be a problem of great concern to us.

Q Mr. President, thank you. Mr. President.

President Obama, you said in an op-ed that was out today that your new Cuba policy was part of an effort to move beyond the frozen disputes of the 20th century. Why then is it so limited? Why not open the door for all Americans to visit Cuba? And what will you say to your colleagues at the Summit of the Americas who want you to do more?

And, President Calderón, what do you think the United States should do more on Cuba in order to improve relations with the region? Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, I don't think that we should dismiss the significance of the step that we took. We eliminated remittance restrictions and travel restrictions for Cuban Americans who have family members in Cuba. For those families, this is extraordinarily significant. For the people in Cuba who will benefit from their family members being able to provide them help and to visit them, it's extraordinarily significant. We took steps on telecommunications that can potentially open up greater lines of communication between Cuba and the United States.

And so I think what you saw was a good-faith effort, a show of good faith on the part of the United States that we want to recast our relationship. Now, a relationship that effectively has been frozen for 50 years is not going to thaw overnight. And so having taken the first step, I think it's very much in our interest to see whether Cuba is also ready to change. We don't expect them to change overnight. That would be unrealistic. But we do expect that Cuba will send signals that they're interested in liberalizing in such a way that not only do U.S.-Cuban relations improve, but so that the energy and creativity and initiative of the Cuban people can potentially be released.

We talk about the ban on U.S. travel to Cuba, but there's not much discussion of the ban on Cuban people traveling elsewhere and the severe restrictions that they're under. I make that point only to suggest that there are a range of steps that could be taken on the part of the Cuban government that would start to show that they want to move beyond the patterns of the last 50 years.

I'm optimistic that progress can be made if there is a spirit that is looking forward rather than backward. My guidepost in U.S.-Cuba policy is going to be how can we encourage Cuba to be respectful of the rights of its people: political speech and political participation, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of travel. But, as I said before, I don't expect things to change overnight. What I do insist on is that U.S.-Cuban relationships are grounded with a respect not only for the traditions of each country but also respect for human rights and the people's -- the needs of the people of Cuba.

And so I hope that the signal I've sent here is, is that we are not trying to be heavy-handed. We want to be open to engagement. But we're going to do so in a systematic way that keeps focus on the hardships and struggles that many Cubans are still going through.

PRESIDENT CALDERÓN: I would not pretend to give advice or suggestions to President Obama on this matter or any other. Let me just say what I personally believe -- or rather what I believe about the Cuban reality. The question that has to be posed rather is whether the U.S. embargo on Cuba has worked. The reality is that the embargo has been there long before we were even born, and yet things have not changed all that much in Cuba. I think we would have to ask ourselves whether that isn’t enough time to realize that it has been a strategy that has not been very useful to achieve change in Cuba.

I do think -- I share fully the idea we do not believe that the embargo or the isolation of Cuba is a good measure for things to change in Cuba. On the contrary; the reality that we see there is that the reality has not changed. And it's because of internal factors, mostly, of course, but also because of external reasons, such as the embargo. Because of that, the Cubans have become impoverished.

I greet -- I welcome the measures that President Obama has taken in order to change this attitude, and to try to attempt -- and the attempt must be appreciated -- to change the policy towards Cuba little by little. But what is clear to me is that we both share the same ideals. I think we would both like to see the world living at some point under a full democracy, a world with full respect for human rights, with no exceptions whatsoever. We would like to see a world working with people being able to take care of their families, to live in peace, and those principles that must protect humanity. That we do share.

We also share the idea that each nation must be respected in its own decisions. It's like we were saying a moment ago when we were talking about the prohibition of assault weapons. Of course, we do not want those weapons to be out in the streets, but at the same time we want those decisions to come from the people themselves and to be self-determinant. And it's the same for Cuba. But I believe that the steps President Obama has taken are very positive.

Mexico is a good friend of Cuba, and Mexico is also a good friend of the United States. We want to be a good friend of Cuba and of the United States. We want both things. And we know that one day, the day that these principles we believe in prevail, that day we will be able to be neighbors, the three of us -- the United States, Cuba and Mexico.

What are the principles we believe in? Democracy, human rights, but also liberty, property, trade, free trade, free economy. And I think as long as those principles can function and bring benefits to the Cuban economy, then things can begin to change. We cannot change anything that has already taken place in the past, but I am certain that as heads of state, we can do a lot to try to make a different future, both for the world, both for our countries, and also in relation to Cuba.

I told President Obama that the best of luck in this panorama that is now so totally different from what U.S. policy has been in the past. I hope for the best, and I hope that more expeditious steps could be taken so that we can move forward in this regard, and that everything will be done with good understanding. And as Mexico can contribute in any way for two of our friends to work out what they have between themselves, I hope that we can contribute. And if our best contribution is just to maintain our respect, that is fine.

Last question.

Q Good afternoon. For President Obama. Mr. President, -- as U.S. senator in 2006 voted in favor of the approval of the construction of the border wall. I would like to know, and I think Mexicans would like to know, what is your real commitment of your administration to present a new migratory -- comprehensive migratory reform? What would be its scope? And when would you approve this reform?

And on free trade, on NAFTA, it seems that because of the last events there's not a great deal of interest in the U.S. to apply or to comply with all the items in NAFTA. I would like to ask President Calderón whether you spoke of some of those issues during your conversations, whether you addressed the migratory issue and some of the NAFTA issues?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, with respect to the immigration issue, I think it would be useful to point out that I also voted twice for comprehensive immigration reform that would have provided a pathway for legalization and improvement of the orderly process of migration into the United States.

I've said before that we have to have a comprehensive approach, recognizing that the United States has a very legitimate concern -- if you've got hundreds of thousands of people from other countries coming into the United States without anybody knowing who they are, who when they arrive can often be exploited and, because they're not protected by various laws, undermine the wages of U.S. workers -- those are legitimate concerns on the part of the United States people and the United States government. And so working effectively with the Mexican government to create an orderly border is very important. And there are a whole host of strategies that we need to pursue.

What I've also said is that for those immigrants who are already in the United States -- and by the way, we focus a lot on Mexicans who have come into the United States, but the number of immigrants from Central America, from Ireland, from Poland are substantial as well; it's not -- this is not just an issue with respect to Mexico -- for those immigrants who have put down roots, may have come there illegally, I think they need to pay a penalty for having broken the law. They need to come out of the shadows, and then we have to put them through a process where, if they want to stay in the United States, they have an opportunity over time to earn that opportunity, for a legal status in the United States.

Now, we came close to getting that kind of reform done several years ago and then it became politicized. And my whole goal is to remove the politics of this and take a very practical, common-sense approach that benefits people on both sides of the border -- and creates a secure and safe border so you don't have people who are dying in the deserts as a consequence of a disorderly and illegal migration process. I think that's a goal that President Calderón and I share and one that we discussed during our bilateral meeting.

With respect to trade, Mexico is one of our largest trading partners. The amount of commerce that flows back and forth creates wealth in Mexico and it creates wealth in the United States. I have said repeatedly that I'm in favor of free trade. I know that there has been some concern about a provision that was placed in our stimulus package related to Mexican trucking. That wasn't a provision that my administration introduced, and I said at the time that we need to fix this because the last thing we want to do at a time when the global economy is contracting and trade is shrinking is to resort to protectionist measures.

My team is working with President Calderón's team to resolve this issue. I'm hopeful that we can resolve it in an effective way. It's not helpful to a number of U.S. producers who are interested in selling into Mexico and are fearful that they may be subject to countervailing tariffs or retaliation.

So we're going to see if we can get this fixed. But I can tell you that President Calderón and I are entirely on the same page in believing that we can create greater opportunities for trade and strengthen our commercial relationships between our two countries.

I have said before in the past, and I will continue to say, that as part of the NAFTA framework, that it would make sense for labor and environmental provisions to be enforceable within that agreement rather than just be viewed as a side agreement. But I recognize that we are in a very difficult time right now economically on both sides of the border and that those kinds of negotiations are going to need to proceed in a very careful and deliberate way, because we don't want to discourage trade; we want to encourage trade right now.

So I'm confident that our administrations are going to be able to work together, and it's going to be to the benefit both of Mexico and the United States.

PRESIDENT CALDERÓN: We spoke at length on migration and on trade, and particularly on the economy in general between both nations. President Obama is well aware, is very knowledgeable about the problem, and his position in favor of a comprehensive migratory reform is well known. I would simply repeat the idea -- refrain the idea that we share the objective of achieving an orderly, legal, productive migration between both countries.

I have said, and I maintain, that as a Mexican, as President of Mexico, it doesn’t make me particularly happy to see our people risk their lives going across a border, because I know that with every migrant that leaves we have the best of our people leaving -- the youngest, the most courageous, the strongest, the hardest-working -- they are the ones that are leaving. Because I have seen in many communities here in Mexico, and particularly the state I come from, where there are phantom towns now, where there are only the elderly, children, women, and no one else is left there.

So I am working hard to create in Mexico the conditions, the opportunities of work, of employment for our people here in Mexico. That is really the only way out that can put a stop to migration. I think that is the best way out, to create opportunities and employment in our country. But in the meantime, President Obama is very clear on what the problem consists of, and it's very important to establish those instruments that will enable people to come out of the shadows, as he himself has said, and that our region can gradually become more orderly, more legal and better migration flows.

I think the two of us share the idea that trade produces benefits on both sides of the border. Not only are there many Mexican workers that depend on their exports to the United States today -- by the way, in a very delicate situation that we're going through because of the economic situation, the drop in U.S. industry is very co-related to the drop in our Mexican industry -- but there are also many workers in the United States that depend on the purchases that we make of U.S. products. Today Mexican consumers are among the best buyers of U.S. products. Few consumers in the world buy as many U.S. products as we do here in Mexico.

So we must protect trade. And the best way of doing so is to allow it to flow naturally, with no restrictions. So going beyond the autonomous decisions that every country can take, and the legitimate exercise of the rights that are part of the pacts and agreements that we have in order to protect free trade, I agree with President Obama, we have to go further. We have to go beyond in order to improve trade between both our countries. And we do not want to restrict it. We can come to agreements; we might have certain differences; I believe that we can move a great deal forward in labor and environmental issues, but it concerns me that to reopen those things that have been proven to work well can merely create further obstacles and worsen the situation we have today.

Our focus today on practical matters -- and this is why --let me just mention three things that I believe we can work on. One is infrastructure at the border. I have talked to President Obama, I have shown him a list of 200 infrastructure projects of a larger or smaller scale that can generate employment both in the U.S. and Mexico at the border, and improve our competitiveness at the border. So we have focused on six projects of border bridges, border crossing points that can lead to further employment and prosperity for our people.

The second item is customs cooperation that will enable us to have better cooperation, more expeditious cooperation, with no drop in productivity -- to maybe have one single customs form, whether we're talking about exports or imports from one country to another; to have one single form that will allow us to reduce bureaucracy and make trade more expeditious.

And then also, third, concrete measures to have a harmonization of standards. Certain U.S. products, for example, need to have the units measured in pounds, and here we need them measured in kilos or in grams, we need to be able to have standards. If certain requirements differ from our two countries, I think we have to work towards a harmonization of these requirements.

So these practical matters that seem to be minor are actually quite important. And I think they can truly help us.

And let me wrap up by saying that one of the things we emphasized is that both of us are going through economic problems because of this international crisis that we're undergoing. But if we act intelligently we will understand that if we improve the North American competitiveness as a region that entails Canada, United States and Mexico, if we improve the competitive conditions of our entire region, vis-à-vis other regions such as Asia or Eastern Europe or the rest of Latin America, then I do believe we will be able to come out of this problem much, much faster.

Trade means opportunities, equal opportunities of employment and of prosperity for our peoples, always, always, and particularly today in these times of crisis and economic difficulties.

President Obama is undergoing tremendous efforts to improve things in the United States and he is exercising in international leadership to face this economic situation. We firmly support on our side this situation, doing everything we can in order to revert this critical situation. And I do believe one way to do it is by strengthening trade, not restricting it.

So, ladies and gentlemen, we now bring to an end our press conference. Thank you so much. We thank you.

END 5:24 P.M. CDT

###

"600 Words by Esther J. Cepeda"

Crooked politicians have run Chicago since I was born – that is a fact.

Google Al Sanchez, "Hired Truck Scandal," Ed Vrdolyak, Jim Laski, "pay-to-play," I could go on and on but won’t bother because we all know this. It’s the stuff of legend. It’s the Chicago Way!

But we’re supposed to believe that no backroom wheeling and dealing occur when fat cats get together to carve out Tax Increment Financing Districts that take property tax money and supposedly reinvest it in communities?

And I’m the queen of England, nice to meet you.

TIF districts make people’s eyes glaze over because they’re difficult to understand, difficult to track, and it takes decades to see the results of bad governance – perfect conditions for pulling the wool over residents’ eyes when it comes to how these things come to pass in their own back yards.

So Alderman Manny Flores and Alderman Scott Waguespack suggested bringing the whole process out into the klieg lights of this thing we call the internet so everyone who doesn’t have time to hang out in council chambers can wrap their heads around what multi-million dollar deals might happen in their neighborhoods. And where the money will go since TIFs take that money out of local schools, parks, and libraries and put it…somewhere else.

Slam dunk, right? Ha, not in Chicago it ain’t.

Nope, all the king’s men…I’m sorry I meant the majority of City of Chicago Aldermen and Women… took a pass on more open, accessible, and accountable government.

I asked Manny Flores why you should care, given that there’s the sticky business of your husband’s job, the car note, the price of milk, and the entire global economy to worry about.

"These are Chicago taxpayer dollars we’re talking about," Flores told me over the phone earlier today, "when is enough, enough?"

"People are looking at AIG nationally but you don’t have to look any farther than the Republic Window company fiasco here," Flores said. "They received $10 million dollars of TIF money, whether they ever really invested into the community as they agreed to is questionable and then when they ran into trouble, they closed their doors – under cover of night – to relocate, and refused to pay the workers their due."

So we should get mad as all hell and declare we’re not going to take it anymore?

"We have an opportunity to very easily provide more transparency in our government by publishing what should be public information and letting people participate in making those decisions," Flores said, "the taxpayers need to have better control over how their money is spent."

Make it happen – find your alderman here and tell him or her that spring is here and it’s time to let the sunshine in.

Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com

"600 Words by Esther J. Cepeda"

I’ll give you a bit of insight into my world: I get a zillion crazy emails a day from anti- and pro- illegal immigrant interest groups.

"Stop deportations NOW!!!!!!!!, blah, blah, blah," and "Local Leaders call for REFORM, blah, blah, blah," sprinkled in with, "End Illegal Invasion NOW!!!!!, blah, blah, blah" and "If you ain't mad [about illegal immigration], you ain't payin' attention! blah, blah, blah."

But I have yet to get one that screams "Obama disappoints on immigration reform!!!"

That’s OK, that’s why I have subscriptions to actual newspapers and actually read them.

After getting heat from Latinos far and wide for daring to imply that Obama has been utterly flaccid on the issue of illegal immigration – my Tweet regarding Obama’s March 18 meeting with the Hispanic Congressional Caucus pretty much said it all: "Obama's 1hr "robust and strategic" meeting w/Congressional Hispanic Caucus yielded: we’ll work on [immigration] together…" pretty much said it all – someone else has finally noticed that Obama is not the Latino population’s great savior.

This is straight from today’s New York Times unsigned editorial:

March 24, 2009 Editorial - Obama Flinches on Immigration

I’m not here to hate on the prez, rather, I’m glad that I’m not the only one who was remotely excited about this new presidency who realizes the man doesn’t actually walk on water.

Rather than blow his cover, though, all the major Latino organizations have been comedically tepid in their reaction to his stunning silence on the matter. Exhibit A: the press release that probably spurred the NYTimes’ editorial which was released last Wednesday by the National Council of La Raza.

Titled: "NCLR EXPRESSES PROFOUND DISAPPOINTMENT WITH DECISION AGAINST SAENZ" it quoted their supreme leader Janet Murguia thusly:

"I am confident that at his confirmation hearing Mr. Saenz would have been able to address any questions related to his litigation work on immigration based on the facts of the cases he argued and the law.  Unfortunately he will not be given that opportunity," Murguía said.  "This action may lead some to question whether the White House is ready to fulfill its promise on immigration reform."

Oooooh, I’m sure that made the Obama administration quake in their boots. You just wait until some strident activist starts whipping out their standard "If it weren’t for Latinos, Obama wouldn’t have gotten elected" line – and the White House completely ignores it. That’ll be quite the "ouch" moment, just you wait and see.

I’ve been asked time and time again when the issue of reform for this country’s miserably ineffective immigration laws will be taken up by the Obama administration and I always answer the same way – and as of today see no reason to alter my initial prediction:  "Don’t hold your breath!"

Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com

"600 Words by Esther J. Cepeda"

Set aside the DREAM Act for a moment, I’m not here to tell you whether you should be for or against legislation that would make young illegal aliens with "good character" eligible for a conditional path to citizenship in exchange for a mandatory two year commitment in higher education or the military.

Let’s talk about how things stand today.

Currently, an illegal alien student can, in many cases, attend an institute of higher education if he or she is able to afford the tuition – many times at the "out-of-state" rate – and can make the grades to finish.

Then they get plopped out into the world and have two choices: 1) take a menial job, illegally or 2) take all that U.S.-bred brain power somewhere else.

Darn.

At any rate, I came across two pieces of information that just seemed to cry out for six hundred words, or so.

This from the American Association of Collegiate Registrars, who conducted a survey from February 25 to March 8, 2009 to "better understand the processes related to undocumented students that are used by U.S. postsecondary education institutions."

Of the 613 institutions of higher ed who responded – 260 full responses and 353 responses not completely filled out – here are a few salient facts for your consideration:

·

96.9% of respondents answered that they do seek information about applicants' citizenship/residence status on their admissions application