“I think that both candidates are still not doing enough to frame the concerns of Hispanics in the United States as it relates to the economy; this is somewhat depressing given the significance of Hispanics making strides to move toward the middle class—even if only aspirationally,” said Richard Pineda, a communications professor at the University of Texas at El Paso, who was disappointed that neither candidate brought up during the recent debate how Latinos play an important role in continuing America’s economic recovery.

With eligible Latino voters at historic highs, shouldn’t America’s largest demographic be one of Obama’s and Romney’s campaign focal points? That’s 23.7 million voters each candidate potentially is passing up from this rapidly growing group, which the Pew Hispanic Center’s Mark Lopez discusses in the video below.

Is it because Blacks and whites are 30 percent and 32 percent, respectively, more likely to show up at the polls? The Pew Research Center reports that less than half of eligible Latinos (9.7 of 19.5 million) actually cast a ballot during the last election, 69 percent of them for Obama.

Perhaps more pertinent Latino issues, such as immigration, never came up because both candidates know President Obama pretty much has this demographic in the bag: About 70 percent of Latinos said they would vote for Obama, according to a CNN poll the night preceding the debate, and a Latino Decisions poll released the day after showed the president leading Romney 78 percent to 17 percent. Romney was reported to hold favor with only 21 percent prior to the debate, which is well below his campaign’s goal of 38 percent—not surprising considering his strong opposition for immigration policies such as the DREAM Act puts him in direct conflict with much of the Latino population.

Either way, observers agree that Obama and Romney missed a great opportunity to swing a few more electoral votes in their direction.

Read the debate questions Latino civic leaders wished PBS host Jim Lehrer would have asked. What other domestic issues and Latino concerns do you think were neglected at the debate? Can Obama and Romney regain traction among Latinos before the election, or will they continue to marginalize this demographic segment?

Share your comments with us below, then read these articles for more of DiversityInc’s coverage on Latinos and political issues:

‘Racist’ Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Struck Down

Romney’s ‘47%’: Racism or ‘Insensitive’ Rhetoric From ‘Out-of-Touch Man’?

Improving Healthcare for 68,000 Black & Latino Children

Hispanic Heritage Month: Facts & Figures for Diversity & Inclusion

The post Are Obama & Romney Ignoring Latinos? appeared first on DiversityInc.

An article about a white immigrant from Mozambique, Paulo Serodio, who describes himself as an African American, was forwarded to DiversityInc.com by a reader who asked, “What is your opinion?”

This is a simple answer: Serodio is NOT an African American, he is a Mozambican American. Since he is white, he is most likely a descendant of the former colonial occupiers from Portugal. If he were Black and recently emigrated, he would be able to identify himself by country or native ethnic group–for example, Macua American.

African Americans are descendants of enslaved people brought here against their will. We must use the broad description of a continent (Africa), rather than the specific description of a country (for example, Mozambique), because American slave owners purposefully broke up ethnic groups and families as a means to break the spirit of the people they enslaved. Since it was also illegal in many states to teach an enslaved person to read and write, it became impossible for African Americans to pass down history from their homeland.

The use of the term “African American” became a popular SELF-descriptor, popularized by the Rev. Jesse Jackson. It is a term of pride, documenting the achievements and culture of a group of people uniquely oppressed and uniquely American.

Serodio is suing the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey for suspending him after he revealed that he identified himself as an African American. By doing so, he wishes to stand on the shoulders of the many African Americans who fought and died to attain freedom, in order to benefit from programs that are in place to redress past wrongs. His court suit is frivolous. His ignorance and lack of sensitivity indicates that he’d make a horrible doctor.

Luke Visconti’s Ask the White Guy column is a top draw on DiversityInc.com. Visconti, the founder and CEO of DiversityInc, is a nationally recognized leader in diversity management. In his popular column, readers who ask Visconti tough questions about race/culture, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability and age can expect smart, direct and disarmingly frank answers.

The post Is a White Immigrant From Africa Really an African American? appeared first on DiversityInc.

“While I firmly believe that a business climate conducive to growth is critical to our future, I realize our decision affected many of you in a way I did not anticipate, and for that I am genuinely sorry,” wrote Steinhafel.

While campaign finance laws allow corporate political spending—and Target initially defended its position, saying it “seek[s] to advance policies aligned with our business objectives, such as job creation and economic growth”—the company’s support of Emmer runs counter to its commitment to diversity.

Target is No. 40 on The DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity list and holds a 100 percent score on the Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equality Index. It also offers domestic-partner benefits (a DiversityInc Top 50 requirement), distributes $3 million each week to philanthropic programs nationwide and has sponsored Twin Cities Pride.

Despite its reputation, this firestorm highlights the potential risks companies face when mixing business and politics and will illustrate how far companies must go to “make good.”

Here’s the full letter, posted on Target.com:

Message From Gregg Steinhafel, Chairman, President and CEO – 8/5/2010
Dear Target Leaders,
I have heard from many of you, and our team members, over the past week regarding Target’s contribution to MN Forward, and I appreciate your engagement and candor, both of which clearly demonstrate your loyalty and passion for our company.

In situations like this, it is often difficult to find the right words, but I would like to respond with the same honesty you have shown me.

The intent of our political contribution to MN Forward was to support economic growth and job creation. While I firmly believe that a business climate conducive to growth is critical to our future, I realize our decision affected many of you in a way I did not anticipate, and for that I am genuinely sorry.

We remain fully committed to fostering an environment that supports and respects the rights and beliefs of all individuals. The diversity of our team is an important aspect of our unique culture and our success as a company, and we did not mean to disappoint you, our team or our valued guests.

Going forward, we will soon begin a strategic review and analysis of our decision-making process for financial contributions in the public policy arena. And later this fall, Target will take a leadership role in bringing together a group of companies and partner organizations for a dialogue focused on diversity and inclusion in the workplace, including GLBT issues.

Thank you for sharing your input and for your continued commitment to making Target an even stronger company.

Sincerely,
Gregg Steinhafel
Chairman, President and CEO

Reactions to Steinhafel’s apology:

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese: “We appreciate Mr. Steinhafel’s statement to company employees this afternoon but it doesn’t go quite far enough. Target’s apology is welcomed but without tangible action behind it, the LGBT community and our allies will continue to question the company’s commitment to equality. The promise to evaluate political contributions in the future, while a step in the right direction, is provided without details and does not mitigate their $150,000 supporting an outspoken opponent of equality for LGBT people. Target can still make it right by making equivalent contributions to equality-minded organizations and by making clear the procedure by which they will evaluate potential contributions in the future to include issues of LGBT-equality.” (HRC.org)

Boycott  Arizona Minnesota (BAM!), a group that opposes Arizona’s controversial law SB 1070: “While CEO Gregg Steinhafel wrote employees to say the discount retailer was ‘genuinely sorry’ over the way a $150,000 contribution to MN Forward donation played out, no real steps to correct the situation have taken place. It’s not out of the ordinary for a political contribution to ask for a contribution to be returned … Target should ask for its money back. Sorry doesn’t cut it! We want action!” (The Minnesota Independent)

OutFront Minnesota: “OutFront Minnesota calls on Target to do the right thing and make amends for the damage it has done by taking back its donation to Minnesota Forward, or by donating an equal amount to a political committee or cause of its choice that works to combat the attacks, dehumanization and marginalization of GLBT people, immigrants, and low-income workers represented by Emmer and Minnesota Forward. Emmer stands alone among candidates for governor in opposing equality for GLBT Minnesotans. Target should not stand with him.” (OutFront.org)

A Facebook page promoting a nationwide boycott has gained traction with more than 44,000 fans, but Target is not the only company in support of MN Forward. Six other companies each contributed $100,000: Best Buy, Pentair, Hubbard Broadcasting, Davisco Foods International and Polaris Industries.

The post Target CEO Apologizes for Supporting Anti-Gay Candidate appeared first on DiversityInc.

Comment:
I’ve tended to notice more people using undocumented, without papers, noncitizens, etc. Is it rude, racist to say illegal? I’m also curious to know what exactly, or who exactly these illegal immigrants’ rights people are fighting for. BTW, I think it is very offensive to compare the fight for the rights of illegals to that of Blacks, which were already citizens. The law states that race cannot be used to make stops. The police will not, and cannot stop you on the street. But truly the most ironic thing about this whole issue is with all of this talk about “rights” there has been very little in regards to responsibility.

Response:
Regarding rights, please refer to the Declaration of Independence. It states that rights come from the creator; governments are formed by people to administer the protection of these rights. Further, the rights are “unalienable” and do not belong exclusively to people with certain documents or within a boundary. These rights are for all people. So, therefore, describing a human being as “illegal” should be offensive to any loyal American. It’s more offensive than spitting on someone.

Further, there are an estimated 10 to 16 million undocumented people in this country. Do you think they’re here by mistake? They’re here because they were needed—and they were allowed to work here without restriction. Do you blame the undocumented, or do you blame the people responsible for the administration of our borders?

In 2006, Newt Gingrich wrote an article for National Review that contained this sentence: “In 2004, there were zero (0) federal enforcement fines imposed on American employers who were breaking the law by hiring people illegally.” What Newt doesn’t catch is that this is evidence of a conspiracy. People who are here without documents don’t have Social Security numbers—they use fake cards or other people’s numbers. That means that the federal government collected billions of dollars in Social Security taxes without a corresponding expectation to pay benefits. If the people in the federal government had Italian last names, the FBI would crawl all over this. The people responsible would be prosecuted under RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act and the Ill-Gotten Gains would be confiscated. So I agree with you about not hearing enough about “responsibility,” but it’s not the kind of responsibility you’re thinking of.

Follow-up Comment:
Just as an aside; what happens when Mexico finds out someone is an “illegal immigrant” [sic] in their country? You stated that “these people are here because they were needed,” etc. and “What Newt didn’t catch is that this is evidence of a conspiracy.” OK, so be it, maybe it was. Uh, let’s try to fix that, maybe by enforcing our own immigration laws? But really, do you think that ALL of the ‘Undocumented Workers” paid into Social Security? What it comes down to is that the U.S. has laws, protocol if you will, for people who want to have the same benefits as a U.S. citizen. These people are breaking our own law, and AZ is trying to enforce it. What’s happened to hospitals along the border, schools also? Whatever happened to border security? Remember that, please. The security of the U.S. is in danger because we really don’t know who’s coming into our country. The AZ law does not call out people from Mexico. If a person deserves to get stopped for a traffic violation, and that person doesn’t have a driver’s license or insurance, or if there is any reasonable suspicion, the officer can inquire about that person’s legal status. The officers are being trained, they have consequences if they get out of line. Just take a breather people. Racial profiling?? Get a grip people. According to the ’09 Census, 30 percent of AZ’s population is Hispanic. These Hispanics are U.S. Citizens or documented, “going through our system.” Do you realize the police force it would take to stop somebody and question them if they were “racial profiling.” They don’t have the time or the resources. Check this out. The only reason we caught the Times Square terrorist Faisal Shahzad is because he became a U.S. Citizen last year. That’s what I call border security. Come to this country the right way, or don’t come at all.

Ask the White Guy Response:
I didn’t say the porous borders we have are a positive thing. I said they constituted a criminal act. I am not a Mexican citizen, so I will not comment on their constitution and how they treat their citizens. The situation speaks for itself; the fences are not for Americans trying desperately to work in Mexico. I completely agree with you about people emigrating here legally. The problem is the current system is dysfunctional—and we have human beings here who need to be treated like human beings (because that’s what our founding documents demand of us). I am not comfortable with police arbitrating constitutional rights.

On your other point: Let’s say half of the undocumented people working in this country pay into Social Security—they ALL pay sales tax. It amounts to billions of dollars collected … quite a racket. ZERO enforcements as little as six years ago. ZERO. Not even ONE.

This law absolutely promotes racial profiling. They’re not concerned about Polish undocumented workers in Arizona. This is all about Mexicans. It’s nonsensical to give rhetorical arguments to tangible situations. This law is all about rabble rousing and race baiting. It’s hateful and anti-American.

The post Ask the White Guy: Is the Term ‘Illegal Immigrant’ Offensive? appeared first on DiversityInc.