Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is called the Citizenship Clause and it states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 after the conclusion of the Civil War. It insured that the freedom of citizenship won with such enormous sacrifice was not undermined by the actions of former slave states. The Fourteenth Amendment was also a direct repudiation of the infamous Dred Scott case decided by the Supreme Court in 1857.

Dred Scott was born into slavery in Virginia sometime between 1795 and 1800. A U.S. Army Major owned him. For a time and because of the major’s postings, Dred Scott and his wife Harriet lived in free states. At least one of his children was born in a free state. After the major died, ownership of Dred Scott and his entire family passed to the major’s widow. Scott tried to buy his family’s freedom but the widow refused. He sued, arguing that his residence in free states had conveyed freedom and citizenship upon him and especially on his child, who was born in one of those states. The case ultimately ended up before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Chief Justice Taney, a southern sympathizer, held that blacks “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it.” Moreover, Taney held that blacks could never be citizens no matter where they were born because the Constitution’s framers considered blacks “beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations. . .”

Reflect on Taney’s words, those of you who seek to abolish or amend the Fourteenth Amendment. Your efforts align with the dehumanizing, racist core of Taney’s views. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment swept away that racism and conveyed citizenship on all people born or naturalized in the United States. Any attempt to undo the Fourteenth Amendment’s birthright will only lead to conflict and as Abraham Lincoln put it, “a house divided.” I say, never again.

Those who see the promise and greatness of this country, reflect on Taney’s words as well. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the rights and privileges that we enjoy no matter our race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual preference. It protects us from people who hold on, still, if not to Taney’s racism, than to his sentiments and his divisive, segregationist vision. To you, I say steel yourself for the struggle, for your birthright is coming.

It’s not an officially sanctioned activity of the GOP. But at least some Republicans are trying to mend fences with Hispanic voters so as to improve the party’s prospects in 2012 and beyond.

This is one of the major goals behind the Hispanic Leadership Network, a new organization that wants to act as a bridge between Hispanics and the “center-right movement.” It recently held its inaugural conference in Miami, and I was invited to participate as part of a media panel.

The event was co-chaired by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush – who has spent most of his life around Hispanics. That includes being married for nearly four decades to Mexican-born Columba Garnica Gallo de Bush.

Bush raised eyebrows when he told those gathered at the conference that, because of the phenomenal growth of the Hispanic community, it would be “incredibly stupid” for Republicans to ignore the Hispanic vote.

Come to think of it, it would be even more stupid for Republicans to continue to do what they do now: antagonize Hispanics by using them as piñatas to entertain white constituents – or, worse, portraying them as bogey men to scare up votes.  This is the modus operandi for too many in the GOP. They reach for low-hanging fruit by pursuing non-Hispanics and,they think, the best way to do that is to use Hispanics as a convenient foil.

This is a dangerous game these Republicans are playing, given the fact that Hispanics are projected to account for 30 percent of the U.S. population by 2050.  So it’s a good thing they have people like Bush watching their back.

Not that this is easy.  It seems not every conservative is in the mood to kiss and make up with Hispanics.  Some still want to fight, and they don’t mind first having to slug it out with Jeb Bush or anyone else who is offering Hispanics an olive branch.

This includes the racist and right-wing website, vdare.com, which published a snarky piece about the conference – the basic point of which seemed to be that these kinds of overtures were themselves racist.

Sure, and when firemen show up to put out a fire, they’re secretly feeding the flames.

Then there was radio talk show host Mark Levin who quickly pounced on Bush for “race-baiting” and called his remarks “divisive” and “destructive of conservatism.” Levin also accused Bush of not being “that bright” and lacking a basic “understanding of the greatness of this nation” and the Constitution.

Levin has it all mixed up. Repairing the breach between Republicans and Hispanics won’t destroy conservatism. In fact, it could help save it. And the greatness of this nation is wrapped up in its immigrant tradition, which some conservatives want to destroy by limiting legal immigration.

Besides, what is this to Levin? It’s not like Bush insulted the Republican Party, and Levin has to rush and defend its honor. Bush simply warned his fellow Republicans that they couldn’t afford to ignore Hispanics. Nothing more. Does Levin want to take the opposite view, and argue that they should ignore them? Talk about doing things that are stupid.

Meanwhile, even among those who are willing to go along with the idea that the Republican Party does have a problem with Hispanics, there are those who insist that the problem limited to tone and that the fundamental message is fine.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. As I said during my appearance on the media panel, the fundamentals are not sound. When it comes to immigration, the Republican message is toxic. There is too much dishonesty, too much racism, and too many simple solutions to what remains a complicated problem.

If the GOP wants to make a serious play for Hispanic voters in 2012 and beyond, then that has to change. Yesterday.

Ruben Navarrette is a syndicated columnist.

Just look at what happened with the DREAM Act that recently failed in the Senate. The DREAM Act is the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act crafted by Senator Dick Durbin (D-Il) and Senator Richard Lugar (R-In) and once supported by former Republican presidential candidate John McCain.  The Act was meant to provide conditional permanent residency to young people in the United States illegally if they arrived before the age of 16 and attended two years of college or served in the military. Upon completion of college or military service (and at no time before such completion), these young people would be granted lawful permanent residency status and a chance to apply for American citizenship.  Failure to complete college or military service would subject these folks to deportation.

By most accounts, the DREAM Act was considered a win-win proposition. Kids who had no real choice in coming to this country would get an education either within the walls of our colleges and universities or within the ranks of the different branches of the military. With college educations, they could help power our economy as high-skilled workers. In military fatigues and with weapons they could go off and fight our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Korea, Venezuela, you name it, anywhere that our real or imagined economic interests demanded it.

My transparent cynicism on this last point notwithstanding, think about it for a second.  Those of you on the right who bray constantly against any relief for “illegals” but who also want to kick ass in every corner of the world and make America great again (whatever that means), fear that your kids will be shipped home in body bags from far off battle fields. With the folks covered by the DREAM Act, you have a large group of young people hungry to acquire lawful status, willing to work, fight, and die for it, and who must do so successfully to acquire and maintain that lawful status.  In a word, you have a motivated force captive to their commitment to themselves and, more importantly, to this country. It’s no different than the present situation. “Illegal immigrants” do the chores and fill the jobs that Americans can’t do or don’t want to do and American industries from agriculture to manufacturing love them for it.

But, I guess win-win was way too much to handle; at least it proved so for Republicans and some Democrats in the Senate.

But here’s the rub. It ain’t over. Not by a long shot. Sure, not enough Republicans or anachronistic Blue Dog Democrats had the cojones or foresight to vote for a bill that makes sense for America’s society, economy, and military. Sure, the next Congress will be less sympathetic to immigrants. But, every dog has its day and some dogs you don’t want to keep poking with a stick, especially when all they want to do is help, when all they have been is loyal Americans in all things except status. Here’s why. The dreamers are not alone. They have us and many friends and we vote. And, we all know who drew the line in the sand.

The answer to both questions is: “Yes.”

Someone needs to spell all this out for Arianna Huffington, the founder and editor-in-chief of the wildly successful and just as wildly liberal Huffington Post. The New York-based website, which has an estimated worth of $200 million, does not publish enough Latino writers. No one argues that, certainly not in a country where Latinos are on their way to making up 30 percent of the US population by 2050.

That omission is itself interesting since liberals are always lecturing the rest of us about the need to embrace diversity. Apparently, they need to heed their own sermons.

It’s also a problem. Any media entity – website, newspaper, television network, etc. – that doesn’t keep pace with the country’s changing demographic will soon become irrelevant.

The solution, decided Huffington, is not to recruit more Latino writers to write for the website. That is too obvious. She prefers instead to create a special section for Latinos.

(Another site – for African-Americans – is also on the drawing board.)

This kind of cyber-segregation is creepy, and it’s exactly the wrong path. But it’s not entirely surprising. When liberals try to do the right thing and be more inclusive, they still can’t seem to surrender the need to maintain control. That causes them to open the door only a crack, which in turn reminds everyone just how exclusive their club really is. The message here is: Latinos don’t write well enough to sit at the grownup table, so we’ll put them at the children’s table instead.

Besides, Latinos are an integral and inseparable part of the American community.  Go to Santa Fe, and you’ll find Latinos whose families have lived on that soil for more than 400 years. They have fought and died in every war since the American Revolution, and they represent a higher ratio of Medal of Honor recipients than any other ethnic group. Latinos helped build this country by taking jobs than no one else wanted, while putting up with humiliation and state-sponsored discrimination. And through it all, they’ve loved America even when it wasn’t clear that America loved them back.

Huffington seems to think that you need a Latino section to cover Latino issues. But that raises the question: What are Latino issues anyway?

It’s true that Latinos care a lot about a hot-button issue like immigration, especially when they’re under-fire and politicians are busy reloading. But polls show that the top three issues for Latinos are always generic: education, jobs, and health care. Those aren’t Latino issues but American issues.

Huffington could have handled this whole project much better. She could have hired more Latino writers for the main website, and run more pieces dealing with Latinos. Not to be politically correct, but to survive the tidal wave of changing demographics.

Or she could have launched a stand-alone product aimed at Latino readers. If she had done that, then there would have been no problem. It’s not condescending to have a Spanish-language newspaper like La Opinion, or a Latino-themed magazine like PODER. And there is nothing inappropriate about Latino-themed websites like Red, Brown and Blue. In each case, we’re talking about a separate media product specifically aimed at Latinos. Not a mainstream product with a Latino section.

If Arianna Huffington wants to build a new home for Latino writers, then more power to her. We could certainly use the shelter. But all she’s done so far is to invite Latino writers into her existing home – while requiring them to use the servants’ entrance.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a nationally syndicated columnist, an NPR commentator, and a weekly contributor to CNN.COM.

The word is “illegal.” You and I know that word to simply describe something that is against the law. But, to those activists who agitate on behalf of illegal immigrants – including people who favor an open border and a suspension of all laws against unlawful entry into the United States – the word is an unfair and dehumanizing slur against a group of people who are more accurately described as “undocumented.”

To this bunch, “illegal” is a bad word. And those who use it are bad people. Ironically, that includes a wide swath of the liberal media that often expresses support for comprehensive immigration reform and condemnation of reactionary measures like virtually anything coming out of Arizona these days.

These are natural allies for those on the left, and so it makes little sense that radical left-wing activists would declare war on them. But that’s what happened when The Fresno Bee, the largest newspaper in Central California, ran a seven-day series called “In Denial” which explored the contradictions in popular attitudes and public policies over “illegal” immigration. The series asked: “We’re unhappy about illegal immigrants. So why do we make it so easy for them to live and work here?”

Good question. It points to the hypocrisy and dishonesty in a debate that often seems disconnected from reality. People talk about ending illegal immigration, but is there a national consensus that Americans want to see it ended? And if it were to end, who would do our chores for us?

These are the kinds of questions that one would have hoped people would have asked following the Bee series, but instead the conversation was hijacked by a silly and juvenile controversy over – yep, you guessed it – the “I-word.”

Like most of the media, the Bee uses the term “illegal immigrants.” The newspaper follows recommendations from the Associated Press Stylebook to employ neutral terms for reporting. In doing so, it eschews pressure from the left to use terms like “undocumented workers.” But it also resists pressure from the right to use the more inflammatory term, “illegal alien.” In this case, the middle-of-the-road approach is also the most reasonable and most accurate.

But not to Michael Medrano, an English professor at Fresno City College, who started a Facebook group that urged people to boycott the newspaper during the series. “HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT ILLEGAL,” Medrano has written. “Being called such is a violation of their human rights.”

Wrong, Professor. Human beings may not be illegal. But they can commit illegal acts. And the acknowledgment of that fact isn’t a violation of anyone’s human rights.

Elsewhere, another group of activists have launched a national “Drop the I-Word” campaign, which claims it is dedicated to eradicating the use of the word “illegals” in everyday life and in the media. The campaign urges everyone to sign a pledge not to use what it calls a “racist” word and offers a toolkit for journalists and organizations to use in discussing immigration.

Oh brother. Speaking as a Latino journalist who has been on the job for 20 years, I’m sure I speak for many of my colleagues when I say: I don’t need no stinkin’ toolkit.

But these people need to get a clue. There is nothing wrong with the word, “illegal.” Or with the phrase, “illegal immigrant.” They’re not demeaning or dehumanizing. They’re descriptive.

Besides, this isn’t about a word. It’s about what the Fresno Bee series tried to examine: denial. Many on the left are in complete denial that the people they’re trying to help have done anything wrong, broken any laws, violated any statutes or trampled any borders.

Guess what? They did. And we have a word to describe that sort of activity: illegal.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a nationally syndicated columnist, a regular commentator for NPR, and a weekly contributor to CNN.COM.

It was a great idea. It embodied that concept that you can’t get something for nothing. Instead, here, participants would have gotten something (legal status) for something (attending college or joining the military). It also happened to be the last best hope that Congress would do anything even faintly resembling comprehensive immigration reform before mid-century.

Of course, the DREAM Act had a troubled history. The idea of swapping college or military service for legal status isn’t new. It was first proposed way back in 2001, and it spent nearly ten years on Congress’s back burner. When that happens, it’s a giveaway that lawmakers in both parties find themselves in a tough spot.

In this case, conservatives knew they couldn’t very well support a measure that many in their base consider “amnesty” for college students; but they were afraid to come out against a group of individuals who seem sympathetic to much of the general public. Meanwhile, liberals were inclined to support the measure; but they were afraid that tackling the immigration issue piecemeal in this way would undermine whatever support there might be for a more sweeping comprehensive immigration reform bill.

But, after the 2010 election, there was a new sense of urgency to get something done and try to make the DREAM Act a reality. Perhaps Democrats were eager to repay the support of Latino voters. Or perhaps, with Republicans poised to take the control of the House of Representatives in January, some liberals concluded that this was their last chance to get the bill through.

Whatever the reason, the House of Representatives recently scheduled a floor debate on the bill and held a vote. C-Span viewers were treated to the spectacle of GOP Congressman saying a host of ridiculous things, such as when Rep. Dana Rohrbacher, R-CA, suggested that the bill would give college admissions “preferences” to illegal immigrants over U.S. citizens and thus amounted to an “affirmative action amnesty.”

When the votes were cast, to the surprise to many, the bill passed – mostly along party lines.

Then the spotlight shifted to the Senate, where those who oppose a piece of legislation have an additional weapon at their disposal: the filibuster. The concern of Democratic supporters of the DREAM Act was that Republicans might filibuster the bill, and that this would amount to a humiliating defeat. So naturally, they did the logical thing and simply surrendered.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pulled the bill from consideration when it became clear that he didn’t have enough votes to avoid a filibuster. He might re-submit it, or he might not.

It doesn’t matter. The DREAM Act is dead. That is clear. The only question is whether supporters should direct their anger at the party that attacked the bill, or the one that abandoned it.

Answer: Both.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a nationally syndicated columnist, a regular commentator for NPR, and a weekly contributor to CNN.COM.

So why the big hoopla?

Is this another example of how America is simply so polarized that we’re primed for a fight?

Conflict drives theater. It fuels drama. It excites. It draws ratings and eyeballs. It gets attention for vocal politicians at a moment when they might not otherwise be in the limelight. It rallies political bases during a pivotal campaign fundraising season as the mid-term elections approach.

Why is this such a big controversy? Maybe because the healthcare fight is over and the Left and the Right still have a raging cauldron of angst boiling inside of them, always eager for a chance to spill over. Or maybe it’s because the pain of 9/11 cuts so deep and we’re still at war in the Middle East, the explanation which would be most justifiable.

But if you really think it through, this should not be that big a debate. As Americans we should encourage freedom even when it makes us uncomfortable, especially when it makes us uncomfortable. Otherwise, we will find ourselves calling for self-censorship and self-constraint by all Muslims, the vast majority of whom have nothing to do with the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center and took so many lives indiscriminately. How can it be in the American spirit to ask an entire religion, with an estimated 7 million believers on our soil to forever be apologists and live in shame, when they themselves have committed no crime?

There are two main reasons why we should stand back and let the group planning the mosque – as well as the local zoning commission – make their own decision. The first is that our Constitution clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Freedom of religion and the way and place where people practice it is right up there with freedoms of speech and assembly in the American pantheon of principles. How can we not recall that the very quest for such liberties impelled the early Pilgrims to leave England for what was then a harsh and rugged land? It’s the same reason so many people of so many creeds have flocked here over the centuries. And it is at the bedrock of our nation’s diversity. Nowhere is this more evident than in the very community in question: New York City, the original melting pot and today the most colorful and dazzling tapestry of diverse cultures, languages, religions, races and ethnicities in the world.

For people such as the former Governor of Alaska to decry the building of a place of worship that would embody the very spirit of multiculturalism and tolerance that characterizes New York City is downright bizarre and pure political theater. Imagine how riled up her base is getting? The Right is vocally incensed about the concept of a mosque so near to what has gone from being a sacred commercial and financial site to hallowed American ground. Regardless of the level of sincerity versus the level of politically motivated agitation, the debate is sure to spark increased fundraising to fuel a Republican rebound in the upcoming elections.

But that leads me to the second reason we should stand back and observe as this minority religious group exercises its freedoms and responsibilities in peace: one of the most basic tenets of Christianity itself, which is important since Christianity is an essential philosophical contingent of the Right Wing and more broadly the predominant spiritual fabric of our nation. This is not the moment to attack the Muslim group planning its mosque. This is not the moment – as a nation – to dwell on our pain and loss. For any sincere Christian this is the moment to turn the other cheek. I am not about to quote scripture or cite verses, but we all know what I’m talking about. To reference popular Conservative bumper sticker vernacular: What Would Jesus Do?

So whether we view the issue as Americans or as Christians, or as both, we should stop yelling and yammering about the horror of this action. We should respect all people’s rights, including Muslims. We should acknowledge and internalize that the folks hoping to build this mosque are not the same people who hurt us on 9/11. And, most importantly, we should stand up for American principles of freedom. Because doing so when it’s easy is merely convenience. Doing so when it’s tough requires courage and faith in their underlying wisdom. And it’s also what makes them principles.

What do I think of King’s dream? One thing is for certain: I think it is very worthy of celebration. His dedication to civil rights, his charismatic leadership, and unwavering energy helped ignite one of the largest social movements in human history. However that dream was not his alone, but rather the culmination of many like-minded individuals who wanted to move towards a world free of racial oppression. Dr. King was not the first person to have a dream of Black kids and White kids playing in the same playgrounds together­ – learning in the same class rooms together­ – experiencing life together. No, there were many people who shared in that dream a sense of hope and the idea that we had transcended the ideology that race was the determinant factor of social mobility, academic attainment, and intellectual ability. In that dream, there was a message that we were ready to step forward – together. That dream was then, and remains today, an inspiration for us to reach our potential as a collective group of people.

With any powerful message there needs to be a powerful messenger. Without a capable person to transmit the message, much of its significance is lost. In this case, King was definitely a worthy and ideal candidate for this challenge. The dream may have not been his alone, but he had the rare ability to deliver an extremely well articulated vision of the future and a thorough knowledge of the trends that would later set the stage for a critical social movement to take place. Rosa Parks was not the first person that refused to give up her seat and move to the back of the bus. No, that distinction belongs to Irene Morgan. Why then do we tend to give Rosa Parks credit for igniting the Montgomery Boycott?

Ms. Morgan, albeit a courageous and strong woman, was not the proper image for the movement. At the time she refused her seat she was an unmarried mother of two children, resisted with physical force, and did not have most pristine reputation among the people in her community. Ms. Parks, on the other hand, was older, more respected, and the secretary of the Montgomery chapter of the NAACP.  Also, Parks’ resistance was orchestrated as part of a tactical strategy. Given the sensitive state of affairs regarding civil issues and the legal strategy the NAACP was employing to resist oppression, they couldn’t afford to feed the media with any more fodder to battle the movement than already existed. Although Irene Morgan won a court case with her defiance, the NAACP chose Parks because opponents would be less able to undermine the movement based on character flaws.

So, what do I think about King’s dream? I think that dream was important then, and remains important today. I think he was definitely the right person to deliver the message. However, I don’t think it exempts us from having our own dreams. In the wake of issues such as diminishing energy reserves to support global demands and a flawed education system that is not preparing our children for the future of highly skilled labor demands, along with acknowledging the old issues such as immigration and terrorism, I think we have plenty to dream about. Martin Luther King, Junior had a great dream, one that has stood the test of time, but I too have a dream. Do you?

Michael Maine is dedicated to global communication, collaboration, and cooperation. Originally planning on utilizing his problem solving and strategic strengths in the corporate sector, his eyes were opened and life changed after taking his first Sociology class at Southwestern University, where he graduated with a bachelor in Business and minors in both Sociology and Communications.

"Los Cantores"

Reflections on the art of Carla Veliz, featured in the Instituto Cultural de México’s “Remarkable Paradigms” exhibit for International Women’s Month.

Staring at Carla Veliz’s Los Cantores, I swoon with the rhythms implied in its curves and undulating lines. I yearn to tap my feet in unison with the festive percussion of a geometrically rendered pineapple pattern in the background. I am inspired by the pair of lovers interlaced and framed within the voluptuous and fiery heart of a Latina, represented by a ruby mane shaped like a corazón. The two dance and jointly hold a malleable guitar as their figures intertwine indistinguishably. Who is strumming? Who is playing? Who is watching? None of it matters as the cantores fuse into one kaleidoscopic being, two Latinos singing, dancing and loving as one vivid manifestation of culture and passion.

I sit in another room, and yet again I cannot help but stare, fighting back my strict, traditional upbringing. My eyes open wide as a fascinated child’s, absorbing a vast landscape of muted tones, ochers and browns, rust and hints of the pale blue sky of yet another in a seemingly endless series of melancholically squandered afternoons fading into dusk. A swath of tattered screen spanning the vertical length of the canvas transports me to moments trapped behind a closed porch door, listening to the adults converse outside and yearning to be heard. The words grooved onto the canvas – “Tenia tanto que decir, pero nadie me escuchaba” – lament the unrequited desire for expression, for acknowledgement, for validation. “I had so much to say, but no one would listen.”

They say it’s not polite to stare, but in this case it’s okay because in studying Carla Veliz’s works of art you are taking a long, hard look at your self. Her works speak directly to the diverse soul of Latino culture: capturing a dazzling range of emotions and imagery, from figurative to abstract, from celebration to sorrow, from longing to loss, from shimmering beauty to foreboding darkness. But in her ambitious artistic odyssey, something magical happens amidst swirls of paint, explosions of wax and fragments of found objects colliding and fusing: Carla Veliz transcends her roots and her context. She taps into currents that run universally through all of us. Love, danger, joy, tragedy – at times surely experienced as a Latina raised along the US-Mexico border, a mother, a wife, a daughter, a sister, a friend – are presented in such a way through Carla’s paintings that we are reminded that the common truths that bind us together outweigh the nuances which render us unique.

Carla Veliz

I have always believed that the border is not just an end, but a beginning. Carla Veliz’s work is evidence of this optimistic concept. For not only did her life and career commence where our nations meet, but her oeuvre constantly reinforces the hope that the border can generate not only discord but harmony, not only chaos but order, not only war but peace. It is a reminder that through artistic expression diverse people and disparate visions – much like contrasting colors and incongruent materials – can be brought together and made whole.

In anticipation of an exhibit of Carla Veliz’s work by the Insituto Cultural de México in acknowledgement of International Women’s Month, I spoke with her in hopes of unearthing further insights into the artist and person behind the colorful canvasses. The interview follows in its entirety. By all means, feel free to leave your manners behind, become lost in the moment and stare. In doing so you may contribute not only to the fulfillment of the artist’s lifelong wish to be seen and heard but also to your own ongoing quest for self-discovery, enrichment and transcendence. After all, if Carla Veliz’s work teaches us anything, it’s that borders are meant to be crossed.

Rudy Ruiz: How has growing up on the border made it easy or natural for you to cross the line in your life? In terms of from one style of painting to another? From one professional role to another, painter to actress, art director/advertising professional to artist, mother/wife to entrepreneur? Drawing from Latino culture but speaking to a broader audience?

"I am neither from here, nor from there." 2008, mmoc, 60 x 72 in.

Carla Veliz: I believe that the versatility of my work has a lot to do with me being from a small border town. One must be willing to go up and down, right or left, fast and slow in order to survive. And in order to thrive, one must choose wisely, especially when you only are presented with one option. I had to stay or to go, and I left, but all of it remained with me as I started a new life in the US. As life went on I had to apply the same principal to all that I do and that I am. My life literally became a painting, other people started to find treasures in it, one by one, and then I realized it was taking great form, and I started to embrace it. By this I mean that what once was consider my handicap – “being Latina” – later on became my greatest asset. Even though I grew up right on the other side of the river, it took another country to allow me to come to terms with – and accept, love and embrace – the person I had been born to be.

Rudy Ruiz: What’s your ultimate goal with your art? How would you like to be remembered someday?

Carla Veliz: I tend to express what I feel, at times sadness, anger, or ecstasy, then at the end always find tranquility, peace, and hope. I do not want my art to be a monotonous repetition. My life is definitely not monotonous. If my art becomes too mechanical, I step back and start again, still going to the same destination but perhaps needing to create a new route. I just want to be a vehicle to the viewer, the one that encounters my work and might take a few more minutes to meditate upon my art. If my creations can touch one person, I will be more that content.

As far as how would I like to be remembered, well… that I lived, and loved, that I cried and cared, that I tried to be sensitive to all my surroundings and that all my dreams where based on reality.

Rudy Ruiz: Who are your most profound artistic influences?

"I had so much to say, but no one would listen." 2008, mmoc, 60 x 72 in.

Carla Veliz: The best colorist that ever existed: Henri Matisse. Of course, Pablo Picasso for his boldness and creativeness. The romance of Amedeo Modigliani portraits… I love the Mexican muralists – Tamayo, Rivera, Siqueiros, Orozco – their colors, forms, scale. Great admiration for Hans Hofmann. Applaud the works of Helen Frankenthaler & Joan Mitchell, two remarkable, strong female artists. Also deKooning, and Robert Rauschenberg’s works are amazing! I can go on and on, but like Alberto Mijangos often said, “We are all artists.” At first, I didn’t really get it, but now I think that yes, we all are, some are artists who actually create, and some who inspire.

Rudy Ruiz: Do you think it’s harder for Latino/Latina artists to break through on the US and global art scene?

Carla Veliz: Today, I don’t think it is as hard as it was before. More and more, our voices are being heard, and we are starting to matter. We have so much to share, and the world wants to listen. It could be mere curiosity or a trend, but as they get to know more about who we are and how we think, the walls of discrimination, stereotypes, apathy or ignorance start to crumble down.

Rudy Ruiz has been hailed as a cultural visionary. A published author and multicultural advocate, Ruiz is an acclaimed multicultural communications entrepreneur. He founded Red Brown and Blue as well as Interlex, one of the nation’s leading advocacy marketing agencies ranked by Ad Age as one of the Top US Agencies across all disciplines. Prior to that, Ruiz earned his BA in Government at Harvard College and his Masters in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

I think the first issue we, those who would like to support the movement, have with participating is not the word boycott but the circumstances surrounding the boycott. Although the word may not necessarily evoke a negative connotation, we are typically asked to boycott institutions we deem negative. We boycott work when we feel work conditions are unsafe, workers are underpaid, or otherwise treated unfairly. We boycott stores, businesses, and brands when we feel they are involved in unethical practices. With the marriage boycott, we are being asked to abandon an institution not because we see it as unlawful, unethical, or unfair but because the environment surrounding that institution deprives a right to a specific group of people. Marriage itself does not grant one partner more rights or controls than the other. Although culture and customs play a major role in the how the marriage is run, it’s largely up to the couple to determine how to run their marriage. In American culture, marriage is often taught as one of life’s major goals. Tax breaks, the ability to share medical benefits, and other rewards that are often reserved for married couples further emphasize the importance we place on the right to marry. Why should these rights be available to some couples and not to others? While legislature and practices are slowly changing, until everybody is granted the same set of rights, we are not all created equal.

Another major issue is the archetype of the member of the majority who wants change, but doesn’t want to sacrifice the advantages they currently enjoy in order to realize that change. In order to be an agent of change, one must be willing to make sacrifices in order to identify with and help the oppressed. Many people don’t want to give up the opportunity to marry for an undetermined amount of time while the fight is fought to grant marriage rights to all. As mentioned earlier the right to marry is not only important for those who want to legally signify their love and commitment to one another, but also to enjoy the rights often designated only to married couples. Denying oneself the opportunity to marry is a sacrifice that many are either not willing or ready to make. It may be much easier for somebody who is very young, single, or doesn’t want to get married to sign and participate in the petition than somebody who is deeply in love and planning to take that step. Those that are already married may want to support the cause, but because they are married, feel they can’t. Fortunately, the National Marriage Boycott has come up with solutions for those that want to show their support but  can’t check the “single” box.

Do you remember the first time you fell in love? If so, do you remember the feeling that person gave you? Do you remember the first time your heart fluttered when you came in contact with that person, how you looked at them and everything else disappeared? How would you feel if it wasn’t legal for you to enter into the institution of marriage solely because of their gender? What if the “norm” was flipped, and it straight people didn’t have equal rights. Until we all work together to correct this injustice we will not be allowed to live as true equals.

For more information visit: National Marriage Boycott Website.

Michael Maine is dedicated to global communication, collaboration, and cooperation. Originally planning on utilizing his problem solving and strategic strengths in the corporate sector, his eyes were opened and life changed after taking his first Sociology class at Southwestern University, where he graduated with a bachelor in Business and minors in both Sociology and Communications.