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.

Think about it: who wants to explain why they’re for terror babies or anchor babies?

We have this well-worn script to thank for the recent introduction into the American political lexicon of the words: “ground zero mosque” and “anchor baby” and “terror baby.”

While there might be different definitions for “anchor baby” and “terror baby,” it’s probably fair to say that people are generally supposed to think that undocumented Mexican and Latin American immigrants have anchor babies here, while Middle Easterners (whether undocumented or not) have terror babies here.

Let’s start with the alleged terror baby treat, as laid out by (who else!) representatives from my great state of Texas. In late June, Congressman Louie Gohmert on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives talked about the threat of “terror cells” who were “getting them [pregnant women] into the United States to have a baby” who would go back to their home countries to be “raised and coddled as future terrorists” and then sent to the United States “20 or 30 years down the road” to destroy our way of life. He evidently heard about this risk from an unnamed retired FBI official.

A few days later, Congressman Gohmert “clarified” his comments and added that he also heard about the terror baby threat from a woman on an airplane. Queue the Daily Show clips.

Then, last week, Texas state representative Debbie Riddle picked up the terror baby mantle and was quoted on Anderson Cooper 360 as saying that pregnant foreigners were touring the United States and having babies “with the nefarious purpose of turning them into little terrorists, who will then come back to the U.S. and do us harm.” Representative Riddle then went a step further and characterized “folks having their babies when they’re not here legally” from “south of the border or whether they’re coming from Middle Eastern countries” as security threats to the American people. She too apparently heard about these threats from unnamed FBI officials.

To his credit, Anderson Cooper followed up by interviewing former FBI Assistant Director Tom Fuentes, who stated that the FBI and its 75 overseas offices, including offices in the Middle East, had never seen a “credible report or any report” about a terror baby plot.

While Representative Riddle appears to be the first public figure to suggest that undocumented immigrants from south of the border are a “security threat,” she is not alone in thinking that the alleged anchor baby threat warrants drastic measures. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham and House Minority Leader John Boehner have all come out as saying that something needs to be done about anchor babies.

But are anchor babies really a widespread problem? A recent Pew Hispanic Center study found that of the 340,000 babies born in the U.S. to at least one undocumented parent, “well over 80%” of these births were to women who had been here more than one year, which is not exactly the invasion-by-pregnant-illegals scenario that is being portrayed.

Further, as PolitiFact points out, because of immigration law, a child born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants does not really “anchor” his family here because that child can’t sponsor his parents for citizenship until age 21, and the parents would have had to return home for 10 years before their application would be considered. In rare cases, these undocumented parents may seek relief from deportation, but they must have been in the U.S. at least 10 years, and still, there are only 4000 slots for such undocumented parents annually.

But despite the lack of evidence to support the terror baby and anchor baby charge, we are now hearing that the U.S. Constitution needs to be changed.

The offending language is the first line of the 14th Amendment, which reads: “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.” In 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted this language, which was added to the Constitution in 1868 after the Civil War, to mean that the children of undocumented immigrants born in the U.S. are citizens—i.e. birthright citizenship. This holding has been upheld in later Supreme Court decisions.

Therefore, because it is so unlikely that the Supreme Court would overturn its precedent which has been on the books for over a century, and in light of the Congressional debates which show that the 14th Amendment drafters did not intend to limit its application to free black slaves alone, the only way to change such a long-standing rule would be to amend the Constitution.

The best argument for leaving the 14th Amendment as is that I’ve heard, comes from columnist Michael Gerson, who recently said that the 14th Amendment drafters “essentially wanted to take this very very difficult issue — citizenship — outside of the political realm,” because they wanted “an objective standard, birth, instead of a subjective standard,” which is whatever standard the current legislative majority wants.

However, apart from the wisdom of amending the Constitution is the practical reality that it is almost impossible to amend the Constitution.

Based on Section V of the U.S. Constitution, and the process by which the 27 Amendments in the Constitution were added, there is a two-step process involved: two-thirds of both houses of Congress must vote to propose an amendment, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures (38 of 50 states). In other words, the Framers of the Constitution deliberately made it difficult to amend the Constitution. Knowing this, it seems virtually impossible for a new amendment that removes birthright citizenship to ever be proposed and ratified.

But this near impossibility may not matter to those who only want to score political points by saying that that Democrats or President Obama are for terror babies and anchor babies, or that they are endangering our country by ignoring this threat

There are some elected officials, like Texas state representative Rafael Anchia, who are admirably seeking to inform public opinion about the lack of any evidence to support the existence of a terror baby / anchor baby threat, let alone one so ominous that we must change our Constitution.  Let’s hope others also come forward with facts and reasoned arguments to dispel the baseless and unsubstantiated myths surrounding the supposed anchor/terror baby plot.

Perhaps the best test to see how ominous this supposed threat is, will be to see if these same people are still talking about it after this November’s election.

Sharron Angle fascinates like a train wreck. Her outrageous statements are legend. In Nevada, we await the next gaffe, the next lunacy so that we can cringe, laugh, and perhaps shake our heads. Meanwhile, down deep we prepare excuses and half-hearted apologies so as to be ready when folks ask whether Ms. Angle is really on the ballot.

My interest in Angle’s public comments and the underlying principles they expose arises not because I support her, because I clearly don’t. No, my concern is more with the readiness of some people to embrace the intellectually and historically dishonest arguments Angle throws about without much thought as to how silly and un-American such declarations truly are. Apparently, no falsehood is big enough to rupture the hypnotized rapture of Angle’s Tea Party followers in Nevada and across the country.

There are several of Ms. Angle’s comments that could have been the focus of this opinion piece including her condemnation that social security is welfare and her exhortation for people to take “Second Amendment remedies” against elected officials.  However, the set of statements that triggered my train-wreck watching curiosity related to Angle’s disagreement with the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state embodied in the First Amendment to the Constitution.  Much to the delight of her Tea Party acolytes, Angle claimed that such separation and the religious freedom and tolerance it has guaranteed for over two centuries were not part of the constitution and that “Thomas Jefferson has been misquoted” as often as she.

In 1779, Jefferson wrote “An Act for Establishing Religious Freedom.” He wrote this bill because he was profoundly committed to the principles of freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion.  Jefferson feared that Europe’s historic religious intolerance and the numerous wars such intolerance had unleashed would take root in America.  As governor of Virginia, he introduced the bill to the Virginia General Assembly which enacted it into law on January 16, 1786.  It states in part: “no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion.”  Elsewhere the bill stated, “. . . our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions.”

This bill included Jefferson’s core views on religion, religious tolerance, and formed the foundation for the First Amendment to the Constitution which has universally been considered to guarantee the “First Freedom”, i.e., the freedom of religion.  That freedom has two parts: the prohibition against the establishment of a state religion and the freedom to exercise a religion or no religion without fear of reprisal.  Jefferson’s politics clearly were not beholden to any religious views and rested on the force of reason over the supernatural. In 1787, Jefferson said: “Question with boldness even the existence of God; for if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” In Query XVII of Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson wrote, “it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no god . . . . Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error.”

Sharron Angle undoubtedly believes that the louder and shriller she repeats a falsehood, the more likely it will be believed. And, the Tea Party constituents she represents could not be more shrill but sadly more wrong in their attempt to rewrite our great nation’s history and founding principles. I guess that’s good, blindfolding politics for some.  And, it works at times and in certain places and with a populace willing to be misled. On this planet there are governments and terrorist groups who are led by leaders that claim monopolies over religious beliefs and practices.

I’m sure the vast majority of Americans do not want to replicate those theocratic systems here in our country. I’m also absolutely certain that Thomas Jefferson, the architect of our Constitution, would vehemently disagree with the Tea Party and Sharron Angle that the separation of church and state is absent from the First Amendment and should be banished from our national fiber. Now, once again I ask, what do the Tea Partiers and people like Sharron Angle want to take our country back to? Thank goodness for reason and critical inquiry and the fact that, after a while, even train wrecks lose our interest.

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.

But sometimes what a Harvard student needs is the real thing: a U.S. passport. Or, for that matter, a birth certificate, Social Security card, or any proof of legal residency to avoid being deported to a country you don’t know.

That sort of thing would have come in handy for Harvard sophomore Eric Balderas, a 19-year-old biology major who recently became internationally known after he was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for being in the United States unlawfully. The arrest occurred on June 7 as Balderas tried to board an airplane to Boston after visiting his mother in San Antonio. Because he lost his Mexican passport, he tried to board the plane using only his Harvard student ID card and his Mexican consular card. That tipped off authorities. So Balderas was quickly slated for deportation to Mexico.

This didn’t make sense to a lot of people, and the case triggered international outcry, support from Harvard officials, involvement by U.S. Senator Richard Durbin, and a lobbying effort on Facebook that drew more than 5,000 supporters.

Why, supporters wanted to know, would the federal government want to deport Balderas to Mexico when he hasn’t been there since he was 4 years old. Besides, coming here fifteen years ago was hardly his idea; it was his parents who made the decision to bring him without the United States without proper documents. Also, with all the hand-wringing about how many U.S.-born students perform so poorly academically, wouldn’t the United States want to keep an intelligent and driven former high school valedictorian, Harvard student, and aspiring cancer researcher? Is this really the kind of export we want to send to Mexico? Why? So he can contribute to that country and not this one?

Good arguments, one and all. Good enough, it seems, to have convinced ICE officials to back off and abandon their changes to deport Balderas. Instead, they granted him “deferred action,” a discretionary authority that federal immigration officials can use to halt a specific deportation based on the merits of an individual’s case. Balderas can stay in the country until the deferred status expires. When it does, he can apply to have it renewed. In the meantime, while he remains in the United States, Balderas can finish his studies at Harvard and apply for a work permit.

This particular story had a happy ending, and that’s great. But not everyone is so lucky. Not every college student in the United States, who is also an illegal immigrant, has the benefit of having Harvard fight for them, or U.S. senators lobby on their behalf because their story is so compelling and their plight so sympathetic. There’s no question that the main reason Balderas captured the imagination of the media and, in turn, won the support of powerful members of Congress was because of his affiliation with Harvard. But there can’t be one set of rules for Harvard students, and another set of rules for everyone else.

That’s why we need for Congress to stop sitting on its hands and finally pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Both Democrats and Republicans have actively ducked the issue because, in each case, the debate divides their party. That needs to stop. Congress needs to fix a broken system.

And while they’re at it, lawmakers should also approve the Dream Act. This is a piece of legislation, introduced in 2001 with bipartisan support, that would allow young people who are in the country illegally to apply for legal residency if they finish two years of college or join the military.

It’s a good deal for participants, who get a chance to earn their spot in our society. And it’s a great deal for the United States, which gets to keep precisely the kind of people who countries all over the world dream of having.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board, a nationally syndicated columnist, and a regular contributor to CNN.COM.

In that state, whose population is 30% Latino, the government seeks to broaden police powers to identify and apprehend undocumented immigrants, in effect legalizing racial profiling of Latinos, trampling on federal jurisdiction over immigration policy and enforcement, and undermining the ongoing efforts of the US Census to accurately count undocumented immigrants.

Just as the Civil War was largely about race and the balance of power between states and the federal government, Arizona’s bold – and reckless – move echoes an inglorious chapter from our nation’s past.

The sweeping immigration bill passed by the Arizona Senate and signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer is an attack on undocumented immigrants, Latinos and all Americans who abhor discrimination.

Isabel Garcia, an Arizona legal defender, told CNN: “We have not seen this kind of legislation since the Jim Crow laws.”

The situation brings to light an issue that all Americans must acknowledge and confront: that the debate over undocumented immigrants conflates perceptions, feelings and attitudes regarding all Latinos, legal and not. My own personal example is that I’d never faced much discrimination for being a Latino until I wrote in support of immigration reform. I was then flooded with hateful emails and comments demanding that I “go back where I came from.” The thing is I’m American. I came from here.  I was born here. Where am I supposed to go? Get my point? Suddenly I was seen not as an American exercising free speech but as a foreigner in my own land.

Anti-immigrant sentiment, fervor and the type of misguided legislation that has passed in Arizona only boils the cauldron of hatred bubbling within certain groups in our country. And when that hatred overflows, undocumented immigrants are not the only ones that will be targeted, pulled over without reason, humiliated or abused, thrown into the back seat of a squad car with cuffs on because they didn’t have their ID handy. It’ll be anyone who “looks like” or “sounds like” a Latino immigrant. And that could be – if left up to the interpretation of someone who is not an expert in anthropology or someone with less than honorable intentions – just about any Latino on any given day. This moral hazard that Latino citizens, our shared society, and even police officers may be asked to bear should be offensive to all Americans who value fair treatment – if not of undocumented immigrants – at least of our own citizens.

Interestingly, the legalization of this racial profiling of Latinos is also an example of “tyranny of the majority.” Because, although nearly a third of Arizona’s population is Latino, none of the largely Republican statewide elected officials – and only one of the Arizona legislators who voted for the bill appear to be so. That’s discrimination without representation.

It ought to serve as a wake-up call to Congress and the White House, as they have typically been the ones to step in to protect Constitutional rights when racist policies are being implemented on the state or local level.

But that’s not the only reason the Feds should intervene. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) is planning legal action to stop the measure, arguing that it violates due process and Supreme Court precedents, infringing on federal government jurisdiction over immigration policy and enforcement.

As if that weren’t enough to heighten the sense of urgency on the national level for immigration reform, Arizona is also flying in the face of the US Census’ unprecedented and ongoing push to fully count all Latinos and all undocumented immigrants in 2010. The Census reportedly invested 20% of its ad budget on this effort. Arizona’s rogue maneuver, one that is sending shockwaves through the Latino and undocumented communities, can only heighten fear and undermine participation by undocumented immigrants, an intent measured by a RedBrownandBlue.com survey as 76% nationally, compared to only 43% participation by undocumented immigrants in the country ten years ago.

If you are an undocumented immigrant, or an outsider looking in, all these mixed signals from diverse government entities might frighten and confuse you. But as an American-born Latino, border native, patriot and longtime student of government, to me they’re a reminder of Palmetto Hill. My only hope is that the final outcome also echoes history.

For back in those fateful days in May 1865, on a stark and unforgiving landscape of sandy brush and shifting sand dunes, where two nations meet and a then-untamed Rio Grande flowed unbridled into the treacherous waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the Confederate rebels may have won the battle but the Union won the war.

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.

It’s a relationship that is center stage now that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has signed SB 1070, a ghastly piece of legislation intended to get rid of one group by targeting and inconveniencing the other. It is no surprise that, when opponents of the law turned out recently in dozens of U.S. cities to condemn what is a license to racially profile in trolling for illegal immigrants, Mexican-Americans were well represented among the protesters.

They know a bad thing when they see one. The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act is a hypocritical and self-destructive law that is probably – in a legal sense – not long for this world. Hypocritical because Arizona now wants to play the victim of an illegal immigration problem that it helped create by offering illegal immigrants a friendly hiring climate for decades. Self-destructive because Arizona – if it succeeds in ridding the state of illegal immigrants — is sure to suffer from boycotts, diminished productivity, and lost federal revenue tied to Census figures. Not long for this world because it violates the 4th Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure, the 5th Amendment’s right to due process, and the Necessary and Proper Clause which makes plain that enforcing immigration law is the job of the federal government and not of individual states.

SB 1070 violates all those rules by requiring: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official, where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made when practicable to determine the immigration status of the person.”

In doing so, the law doesn’t just allow for the possibility of racial and ethnic profiling of anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant (read: Latinos). The statute all but requires it. In fact, it includes a provision by which concerned citizens can sue law enforcement agencies that they believe to be non-compliant.

Mexican-Americans who are in the streets protesting this law must understand they’re in the crosshairs along with legal residents, illegal immigrants and anyone who looks Latino. The only way for law enforcement officers to round up scores of illegal immigrants is to sift through even larger pools of Latinos that will necessarily include Mexican-Americans. So it’s clear which group of U.S. citizens will bear the brunt of this law.

Some Americans assume that these groups are natural allies.

Not necessarily. There is built-in tension tied to a shared culture, and the lengths to which some folks will go to escape it. By assimilating into U.S. culture, Mexican-Americans are susceptible to accusations that they’ve strayed from Mexican culture.

Also, each group challenges the other. Mexican-Americans remind Mexican immigrants of the fact that, in the United States, ethnicity and language need not be impediments to success. Mexican immigrants remind Mexican-Americans of, well, the same thing. In fact, there is a lot that each group can teach the other about the American Dream and how to realize it.

Still, this partnership has the makings of a powerful alliance.  And ironically, SB 1070 might just do more to forge it than all the cross-border initiatives implemented over the years.

This is the thing nativists have always feared. They would almost certainly prefer to pick on those who have no voice without worrying about pushback from those who do. There is even a paranoid strain in the restrictionist movement that propagates the fantasy that Mexican-Americans and Mexican immigrants are scheming to retake the Southwest and return it to Mexico.

Yet, given that the territory in question includes Arizona, which is full of Arizonans, is there any evidence that, at this point, Mexico even wants it back?

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board, a nationally syndicated columnist, and a regular contributor to CNN.COM.

When I got to my car, I tuned into KUNR and listened bemused at the news that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer had signed that state’s new immigration bill into law. It was to be expected after all. Arizona has been the flashpoint for many immigration-related acts of stupidity over the last several years if not decades and Arizona officials seem to repeatedly “decide” to take same unconstitutional, un-American, anti-immigrant positions despite the best efforts of rational, cooler heads, including until recently, Senator McCain. To illustrate Arizona’s latest plunge into idiocy, let me cull out portions of this foolish experiment.

Under the law, state police officers must make a “reasonable effort” to determine the immigration status of people for whom the officers have “a reasonable suspicion” of being in the country illegally. If the status of the individual can’t be verified, officers can arrest. This begs the question of what constitutes a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is in the country illegally. Attempting to address constitutional concerns about the law’s apparent embrace of illegal racial and ethnic profiling, Arizona’s law claims to prohibit police questioning of people solely on the basis of race or ethnicity. Nobody in Arizona’s government, however, could articulate what could form the basis for this so-called reasonable suspicion not based upon race or ethnicity.  Governor Brewer certainly couldn’t.

When asked what facts would support a reasonable suspicion to question someone regarding their immigration status, Governor Brewer stammered, “I don’t know what an illegal immigrant looks like.” Yet, the good governor has ordered police officers to be trained in detecting signs of illegal status, clues that neither she nor any legislator who voted for the bill can even articulate. Moreover, any officer who erroneously questions and/or arrests anyone who turns out to be lawfully in the country can be sued individually. Alternatively, if any citizen believes that an individual officer or police department isn’t enforcing the law, they can sue as well. Some of my colleagues in private practice are anxious to try to fix stupid and get paid handsomely for it.

Now, my final observation.  All three Republican candidates for Nevada’s governorship, Mssrs. Sandoval, Montandon, and Gibbons, applauded Arizona’s efforts. (See, RGJ, Sunday, 4/25/10) In Texas, Republican State Representative Debbie Riddle plans to introduce a similar version of the Arizona experiment. (See, NBC/DFW 4/28/10) I’m sure there will be other elected officials to jump on the anti-immigrant bandwagon. Come November, however, voters get to prevent stupid. If we don’t, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Raised in a migrant farm worker family in the poverty-stricken area of the Lower Rio Grande Valley of South Texas, Vito de la Cruz was taught to value hard work, education, family, and community by his grandmother and his aunt. Now, he is an instructor at the National Judicial College, National Institute of Trial Advocacy, the National Criminal Defense College, and the ABA-ROLI Latin American trial advocacy programs in Venezuela, Mexico and Ecuador. De la Cruz is a regular columnist with the Reno Gazette Journal.

SAN ANTONIO, TX – RedBrownandBlue.com (RBB), a news and commentary website aiming to increase multicultural perspectives in mainstream media – in conjunction with Interlex Communications, a Top 25 Hispanic-owned advertising agency – has released important data pointing to a potentially unprecedented turnout in 2010 Census participation by undocumented Latino immigrants.

With 1100 undocumented immigrants interviewed in six cities – New York, Los Angeles, Houston, Phoenix, Miami and Washington, DC – 76 percent of all respondents said they would participate in the 2010 Census. Furthermore, of respondents who have lived in the U.S. 10 years or more, 43 percent said they participated in the 2000 Census and 85 percent said they would participate in the 2010 Census.

“The increased participation could be the result of a perfect storm,” says Rudy Ruiz, founding editor of RedBrownandBlue.com. “Never in the history of the Census has so much been invested in ensuring that Latinos, especially the undocumented, participate in this milestone. The Census Bureau has gone to great lengths to reach out and dispel myths and misconceptions about the Census among the undocumented, helping dissipate fears of deportation by participation.”

The US Census reportedly spent 20 percent of its total advertising budget on paid ads aimed at the Hispanic community, mainly Spanish speakers, to increase Hispanic Census participation.

“But there’s more to it than that,” continues Ruiz. “This is a sign, along with the marches and the growing calls for immigration reform, that undocumented immigrants are yearning to come out of the shadows, be counted, and be given a legitimate shot at contributing to – and partaking in – the American Dream.”

National Results*

• 76 percent of undocumented immigrants said they would participate in the U.S. Census
• 16 percent of undocumented immigrants said they would not participate in the U.S. Census
• 8 percent of undocumented immigrants said they don’t know whether they will participate
• 24 percent of undocumented immigrants said they have participated in a U.S. Census before
• 72 percent of undocumented immigrants said they have not participated in a U.S. Census before.
• 4 percent of undocumented immigrants said they don’t know if they have participated in a U.S. Census before.

*National results encompass all undocumented Latino immigrants surveyed, including those who have been in the country less than 10 years.

City-to-City Comparisons

• Undocumented immigrants in Washington, DC ranked first in declared participation of the 2010 Census at 86 percent; Los Angeles at 81 percent; Miami at 80 percent; Houston at 72 percent; Phoenix at 71 percent; and New York at 63 percent

• Of those undocumented immigrants who declared they would not participate, New York ranked first at 35 percent; Phoenix at 26 percent; Houston at 15 percent; Los Angeles at 8 percent; Miami at 7 percent; and Washington DC at 6 percent

• Of those respondents who said they don’t know whether they will participate; Houston and Miami ranked first at 13 percent, Los Angeles at 11 percent; Washington, DC at 8 percent; and New York and Phoenix at 3 percent

• Of those respondents who have been in the United States for 10 or more years, in Phoenix more than half – 61 percent – said they have participated in a U.S. Census before; New York at 60 percent; Washington, DC at 44 percent; Houston at 43 percent; Los Angeles at 31 percent; and Miami at 25 percent

• Of those respondents who said they have been in the United States for 10 or more years and have not participated in a U.S. Census; Miami ranked first at 73 percent; Los Angeles at 63 percent; Washington, DC at 56 percent; Houston at 48 percent; New York at 40 percent; and Phoenix at 38 percent

“When you compare the numbers of undocumented immigrants who did not participate in the Census ten years ago to those who will participate in the 2010 Census, one can predict that the projections of Latinos living in the United States will be impacted profoundly, from accelerating growth projections to reshaping immigration reform dialogue,” says Brittani Pena, research director for RedBrownandBlue.com, who oversaw the execution of the survey. “Immigration is a polarizing subject matter, but once we grasp the true number of undocumented immigrants living in the United States, it may give immigration reform a new urgency that those on both sides of the political aisle will share.”

“The increased turnout should also have a major positive impact on Census-based funding for communities with large undocumented populations,” adds Ruiz.

The Census participation section of RBB’s research project was a small part of the 70-question survey. RBB will announce more compelling data throughout 2010, dealing with a variety of hot-button issues concerning undocumented immigrants.

According to Ruiz, “The results will challenge public perception of this group, as well as impact public policy discussions on the kinds of immigration reform being proposed by Congress.”

Methodology

RBB’s Survey of Undocumented Latino Immigrants is comprised of 1,100 Spanish-language surveys conducted between December 2009 and January 2010 in six U.S. cities including Houston, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Miami, New York, and the Washington DC metropolitan area. The markets were selected based on their Hispanic composition and population concentration. According to the Department of Homeland Security, California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Arizona are among the top ten states with the highest concentration of undocumented immigrants.

Surveys were conducted at Laundromats, areas where the segment congregates to find day labor, immigration centers, and flea markets. Participants were required to be at least 18 years of age, be of Hispanic origin, and living and working in the United States without legal permission.  The survey included questions on immigration reform, adaption to the American lifestyle, the 2010 Census, experiences in the U.S., racism and discrimination, and demographics.

Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-SC, seems to be backing away from a partnership with Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, to write a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Graham says the White House hasn’t done enough to push the issue.

Still, this is the perfect time for Congress to restart the immigration debate because of…

(1) Honesty – Americans need to clear the air once and for all about illegal immigration. This is not an invasion. It’s a self-inflicted wound. Americans drive the phenomenon by hiring illegal immigrants, or turning a blind eye to those who do, or patronizing businesses that use illegal immigrant labor.

(2) Liberation – Congress has long been afraid of an issue that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has called the “new third rail” of politics. If you touch it, you die. Democrats don’t have to be afraid anymore. Because of health care reform, the opposition is already coming after them. Why not try to get more done?

(3) The Economy – Opponents of reform claim that illegal immigrants are taking jobs from U.S. workers and that the reason this is happening is because the undocumented are easily exploited and so they enjoy an unfair advantage. Solution: remove the advantage by making these workers legal so they can’t be exploited.

(4) Security – In the post-9/11 era, we simply can’t people streaming across a 2,000-mile-long border between Mexico and the United States. Nor can we afford to continue to have millions of people living amongst us whose identities are unknown and intentions are unclear.

(5) Justice – A civilized society can’t keep 10 million people in a state of permanent indentured servitude just because its leaders don’t have the guts to bring them out of the shadows. If these people are willing to admit wrongdoing, make amends, and work toward obtaining legal rights, they deserve to have them.

(6) Principles – While many Americans who oppose reforms do so in good faith, there are those guided by base instincts such as racism or xenophobia. Those people can’t be allowed to derail reform, because those emotions have never been allowed to stand in the way of social progress in this country.

(7) Efficiency – Even the opponents of reform acknowledge the current system is broken and inefficient. They just have different ideas about how to fix it. The border is porous. And at the same time, it’s nearly impossible to migrate to the United States legally from a country such as Mexico.

(8) Prosperity – We’ve raised one, perhaps two generations of Americans who eschew hard work because they think they’re entitled to something better. In order for our economy to survive in the age of globalization, we need to draw workers from around the world and the current system doesn’t allow for that.

(9) Courage – The real crisis is in Congress, and it’s a shortage of moral courage and an unwillingness to take on tough subjects that make enemies. Everyone wants to be popular, and so no one wants to lead. As with health care reform, this is an opportunity for members to show the country that they are worthy of their title.

(10) Tradition – A country of immigrants has a special burden to welcome and offer a second chance to those who have to feel as if they flee their own country for the promise of a brighter tomorrow. It’s part of the American fabric, and it’s a tradition that has served the United States very well for more than 200 years.

And that’s for starters. There are plenty of good reasons for Congress to take on immigration reform next – and no good reason to take a pass.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board, a nationally syndicated columnist, and a regular contributor to CNN.COM.