RECENT ARTICLES

Ebryonmic Stem Cell Research- The Power to Cure Millions of Latinos

School Choice and Hispanic Dropouts

The Right to Stay Home

Supreme Court to Decide if Immigrants Deserve Effective Legal Counsel

EPA may regulate carbon dioxide under Clean Air Act

READ FULL ARTICLES

Ebryonmic Stem Cell Research- The Power to Cure Millions of Latinos

 

Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to cure diseases and injuries that affect millions of Americans, including Latinos who are the fastest growing segment of our population.  Every day, Latinos struggle disproportionately from chronic health conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s, lupus and diabetes, and it is clear that we must provide scientists the resources needed to potentially save millions of lives.  Stem cell research holds great promise in finding new and better treatments for debilitating diseases.   72 percent of Americans and more than half of all Latinos (including 71 percent of Hispanic Catholics) support embryonic stem cell research.

Potentially Eliminates Health Disparities Among Latinos:

Latinos are disproportionately threatened by life-threatening illnesses, such as diabetes, heart disease and Alzheimer’s, and the promise of embryonic stem cell research could mean the difference between life and death.  Compared to whites, Latinos are almost twice as likely to have Type 2 diabetes, and nearly half of Latino children born in the year 2000 are likely to develop diabetes in their lifetime.  Heart disease is also the leading cause of death for all Latinos, responsible for almost 30 percent of all Latino deaths and Latinos have a higher risk for lupus and certain cancers, such as stomach and cervical cancers.  As well, the impact of Alzheimer’s disease on the Latino population will increase six-fold by 2050.  

Embryonic stem cell research holds the key to unlocking the door to finding cures and treatments for the most debilitating diseases of our time, including those that disproportionately impact Latinos. 

Federal support of this research is also critical to keeping our nation competitive in a global economy.  President Obama’s overturning of the ban on stem cell research will ensure our government provides adequate resources for research that has the vast potential for curing diseases, alleviating suffering and saving lives.

Source: Sentor Robert Menedez’s Latino Leadership Links

School Choice and Hispanic Dropouts

In 2005, more than one-fifth (22.4 percent) of Hispanics 16 through 24 years of age were dropouts, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).  This means they were not enrolled in school, and had not graduated from high school or passed General Educational Development (GED) tests. These dropout numbers do not accurately measure the performance of U.S. schools in educating Hispanic students because they include immigrants educated abroad. However, even after adjusting for the portion of Hispanic dropouts who never attended U.S. schools, the dropout rate for Hispanic students is higher than for other major ethnic groups in America.

Fortunately, there is a proven way to increase the success rate for Hispanic students: school choice.

 School choice would greatly increase opportunities for Hispanics to excel by requiring public schools to compete for students. Charter schools, for example, are publicly funded schools that are free of many of the regulations imposed on traditional public schools. Charter schools characteristically serve a disproportionate number of minority students who have had limited academic success in public schools. Unlike most public schools, charter schools do not have a local residency requirement. According to the Center for Education Reform, students attending charter schools are beginning to perform better academically than their peers in the public school system:
 

• Hispanic students have a greater chance of being proficient in math and reading if they attend a charter school.
• Students’ test scores at charter schools are “rising sharply” and beginning to outperform underprivileged students in public schools.

In order to inform yourself about charter schools in your area check the following websites:

National Alliance for Charter Schools

Center for Education Reform

California Charter School Association

 

Authors:  Madison Jones and Renee Bou-Waked interns for the National Center for Policy Analysis

To read full report click here.

The Right to Stay Home

Global Exchange has released a new book online entitled, The Right to Stay Home: Alternatives to Mass Displacement and Forced Migration into North America.  The report is written by economists, anthropologists, law professors, journalists, and leaders of social organizations from the United States and Mexico.  The aim of their analysis, ideas, and proposals is to stir conversation about the forces driving Mexican migration north of the border among the public, advocates, policy makers, opinion leaders and journalists.  As immigration reform moves again to the center of public debate.   

The  analysis, on-the-ground reporting, photographs, and proposals in The Right to Stay Home take a look at NAFTA, equality and human rights, and international policy change that is friendly to workers and small farmers. 

Some of the articles include: “Against the Current: Looking for Alternatives to Migration in the Mexican Countryside,” by John Gibler and “Reinventing the Traditions of the Lower Triqui Region,” by Maria Dolores Paris; which argue that durable and just immigration reform must include a commitment to help stabilize Mexico’s most vulnerable immigrant sending communities.

To read the book online or to find out how to order it click here.

Supreme Court to Decide if Immigrants Deserve Effective Legal Counsel

On Jan. 7, just two weeks before the inauguration of President Obama, Attorney General Michael Mukasey ruled that immigrants have no right to be represented by a lawyer, and no right to appeal an adverse ruling based on a lawyer’s mistakes.

This last-minute decision has gotten little media attention, but it has dismayed immigration lawyers, who say clients frequently come to them with legitimate asylum or other claims that should allow them to remain in the United States, but that their previous lawyers either didn’t know the law, missed a critical deadline or just didn’t bother to communicate with their client. For the last 20 years, immigrants have had the right to re-open a case if they could show that they were denied a fair hearing due to their lawyer’s mistakes.

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide this frequently recurring question involving immigrants: whether they must be told by their lawyers that they face deportation if they plead guilty to serious crimes.
The justices stepped into a case from Kentucky involving a Honduran national who pleaded guilty to trafficking in marijuana after his lawyer assured him he would not face deportation. Jose Padilla is a Vietnam-era veteran who has lived in the United States for decades, although he never became a U.S. citizen.

Padilla’s lawyer was mistaken and the federal government began proceedings to deport Padilla because trafficking is regarded as an ”aggravated felony,” for which deportation is mandatory.

When he realized the consequences of his plea, Padilla sought to withdraw it. A Kentucky appeals court ruled in his favor, but the state Supreme Court said criminal lawyers have no duty to advise their clients about immigration issues.

State and federal courts around the country have come to differing conclusions about immigrants’ rights under the Sixth Amendment to effective legal representation. But the issue arises often in U.S. courts, particularly since Congress tightened the rules in the mid-1990s to make deportation automatic for many crimes.

The U.S. high court will hear arguments in the fall. The case is Padilla v. Kentucky, 08-651.

Source: Washington Post

EPA may regulate carbon dioxide under Clean Air Act

February 18, 2009

WASHINGTON - The Environmental Protection Agency said yesterday that it would reopen the possibility of regulating carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, tossing aside a December Bush administration memorandum that said the agency would not limit those emissions.

The decision could mark the first step toward the regulation of greenhouse gases emitted by coal plants, an issue that has been contested by the coal industry and environmentalists since April 2007, when the Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide should be considered a pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

The industry has vigorously opposed efforts to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, asserting that it should be left to policy set by Congress. Moreover, current technology for capturing such emissions is expensive and virtually untested.

Environmental groups, however, say that building new coal plants with conventional technology locks in new greenhouse gas emissions for the entire 30- to 40-year lifetimes of the power plants, making it difficult to slow climate change. They have been urging the Obama administration and state governments to use the Supreme Court ruling to block air permits for new coal-fired power plants and rely on renewable energy and energy efficiency to meet power needs.

In response to a Sierra Club petition over an air permit for a coal plant in Bonanza, Utah, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said the agency would take a new look at the issue and solicit public comments.

Jackson did not issue a stay on the Bush administration memorandum and coal industry advocates found some hope in that.

Read full article

Source: Boston.com