A Christmas Present for Only One of Millions

Victor at his Wayne State graduation. (Photo: courtesy of victorshope.org)

Sopuruchi “Victor” Chukwueke got a gift which he describes as the “best Christmas present ever.” He is a step closer to fulfilling his dream of attending medical school, thanks to a private-relief bill introduced on his behalf by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) last year which passed both Houses of Congress earlier this week.

Successful private-relief measures are rare. As Bloomberg.com reports, Chukwueke’s bill is the only one of 83 introduced in the last two years that passed both Houses of Congress. Victor’s story, which won him this privilege, is also special.

Victor has a genetic disorder, neurofibromatosis, which caused a tumor to develop on the top and right sides of his face while he was a young boy in Nigeria. Unfortunately, his condition could not be treated in his native country.

“I don’t know if I’ll ever forget the day,” Victor said, “I went to a large teaching hospital in Nigeria and the doctor touched my face and told me there was nothing they could do. I cried and begged him to do something. I was so tired of the humiliation.”

In 2001, a missionary nun arranged for Victor, then 15 years old, to work with an American plastic surgeon who agreed to operate on him for free. Victor left his family and came to Michigan where he’s since had six major surgeries.

Operations and family separation has not kept Victor back. Last year, he earned a degree in Biochemistry and Chemical Biology from Wayne State University and has been accepted at the University of Toledo’s College of Medicine. The problem is, Victor is undocumented. Unless his immigration status is resolved, he will not be able to attend medical school. Fortunately, Sen. Levin deemed him worthy of the special bill which, once signed by the president, will grant him permanent residency.

“Victor’s amazing courage and determination exemplify much of what is so great about our country,” Levin said in a statement. “Already, his example has enriched Michigan and our nation, but I know that his contributions to our country are only beginning.”

“This confirms my opinion that only in this country can so many miraculous and wonderful things happen to someone like me,” wrote Victor on his blog.

If only hundreds of thousands of other Dreamers like Victor were granted the same miracle of permanent residency. Although the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) gives a two-year reprieve from deportations, it does not resolve the legal status of eligible immigrants.

I do not begrudge Victor’s private bill. I am happy for him, his family, and all his friends and advocates. It cannot be denied however that so many other immigrants share Victor’s courage and determination and could just as well exemplify much of what is great in our nation. There are millions of unauthorized immigrants who have contributed much to the U.S. and could give back much more if only they had the right papers. Until immigration reform which includes a path to citizenship is passed, millions of other dreams remain on hold unless some lawmaker introduces a private bill one person at a time.

Why does it have to be this way?

Originally posted on Feet in 2 Worlds and the Huffington Post.

Legal Violence Against Immigrants and Their Families

Protesting ICE raids. (Photo: Flickr/SEIU)

Legal Violence in the Lives of Immigrants is the title of a report released by the Center for American Progress this week. I found the term “legal violence” unsettling at first, because while our legal system can be unfair at times, I do have faith in it. It’s more than being oxymoronic. Ours is a democracy that does not sanction violence, or ideally should not, on people working for the American Dream and who want nothing more than to be part of our society.

Cecilia Menjívar and Leisy Abrego, authors of the report, argue however that legal violence is indeed inflicted upon immigrants and their families through immigration enforcement. The physical, economic, emotional and psychological well-being of immigrants and their native-born family members are harmed by the cumulative effects of enforcement—detentions, deportations, raids, and traffic stops—along with the crippling fear and stigma that result from the enactment of stringent anti-immigrant policies.

One would think that the Obama administration’s immigration reprieves would allay many immigrants’ fears. The Morton Memo gives Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel leeway, that is, prosecutorial discretion, in deciding who gets detained and deported: mainly hard-core criminals and threats to national security. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program allows eligible immigrants to remain and work in the United States for a couple of years.

The administration’s deportation record combined with state-level immigration initiatives however have seared the dread of separation from loved ones into the immigrant psyche. As the report highlights,

Close to 400,000 people have been detained and deported each year since 2009, and an estimated 34,000 detention beds are available every day. New initiatives such as the Secure Communities program, which checks the status of people booked into county jails in participating jurisdictions, have added another layer to the web of Border Control, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and other immigration agents operating across the country. On top of these federal efforts, some states and localities have passed their own anti-immigrant laws, such as Arizona’s S.B. 1070 … and Alabama’s H.B. 56 … These laws seek to criminalize all aspects of undocumented immigrants’ life and behavior.

Menjívar and Abrego illustrate that it is the “ever-present fear of enforcement actions” which impacts immigrants and their families the most.

“This fear can take many forms, such as a community refusing to leave their houses or take their children to school because of an impending raid, or an unwillingness to speak out against abuse in the workplace,” write Menjívar and Abrego. They add that even “those with temporary legal statuses, such as deferred action or Temporary Protected Status, also fear that they too could be victims of detention or deportation.”

The legal violence wrought by hardline immigration laws meant to encourage self-deportation not only impacts immigrant communities but our nation as a whole. We have created an environment that hampers the integration of immigrants who could otherwise contribute more to our economy, engage more fully civically and politically, and strengthen our society. We have turned our backs on our immigrant history and legacy.

Violence to immigrants might not be written into law, but it is certainly inflicted through enforcement of draconian immigration laws.

Originally posted on Feet in 2 Worlds, December 14, 2012 and the Huffington Post, December 17, 2012.

As Supreme Court to Take up Gay Marriage, Groups Rally Troops

December 8, 2012; Source: Reuters

The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will review two cases involving discrimination against same-gender couples. As early as March, the court will hear arguments for and against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which only recognizes heterosexual couples, thereby denying federal benefits to legally married lesbian and gay couples. The justices will also weigh in on California’s Proposition 8, which narrowly passed by ballot initiative in 2008 and denies gay and lesbian Californians the same right to marriage that opposite-gender couples enjoy.

It didn’t take long for advocacy groups to send out appeals and calls for action through e-mail blasts and websites. The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) membership organization, immediately sent an e-mail on behalf of its president, Chad Griffin. Griffin hails the Supreme Court’s decision to take up DOMA and Proposition 8 and stresses that “a win in either of these cases would mark an incredible, decisive point in this movement’s history.” He warns, however, that “extreme right-wing leaders are going to immediately rally their base” and claim that “the Court can’t outpace public opinion.” He thus asks people to sign a petition reminding opponents that a majority of Americans now support marriage equality.

Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, a LGBT civil rights group, also cautions supporters that “opponents are still as determined to keep us down” and “will continue to fight against our freedom to marry in the courts, oppose efforts in the legislative branch to repeal the so-called ‘Defense of Marriage Act’” in order “to reverse many of the gains we have worked so hard to achieve over the past few years.” She promises that her organization is “as determined as ever to fight for LGBT equality” and requests donations. Kevin Cathcart, executive of Lambda Legal, the oldest legal LGBT organization, in turn reminds e-mail recipients that this latest development “doesn’t just happen” and that it is “the result of years of strategic, impact litigation.” He asks for support to help “continue the fight.”

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), the sole sponsor of the challenge to Proposition 8, blogged their appeal. The nonprofit had brought together Theodore Olson and David Boies, adversaries in the historic Bush v. Gore case that decided the 2000 presidential election, to convince the Supreme Court justices of the unconstitutionality of the ballot proposition. Arguing that their legal team has “successfully argued our case in Federal District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, showing that Prop. 8 violates basic constitutional principles,” they “will defend those victories before the highest court in the nation” and also request support in reaching their fundraising goal.

This movement is now expert at keeping its troops rallied and its ability to mobilize quickly is impressive.

Meanwhile, the nonprofit advocacy group leading the opposition to marriage equality, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), also responded swiftly to the news. The group issued a press release on Friday in which it applauded the Supreme Court for taking up the Proposition 8 question and predicted that the high court will uphold the California law. It also notes that NOM “was the largest contributor to qualifying Proposition 8 to the ballot and has been a major supporter of legal efforts to uphold it.”

Originally posted on Nonprofit Quarterly Nonprofit Newswire, December 10, 2012.

Will the “New” Consensus on Immigration Work with the Old?

Will the “new” consensus lay the groundwork for reform? (Photo:Jack Gordon)

A group of leaders that carry bibles, badges, and business plans gathered in the nation’s capital last week. Forging a New Consensus, a group of conservative faith, law enforcement, and business leaders convened to “tell the administration and the Congress that there is a new consensus on immigrants and America.” The coalition also released Voices of the New Consensus: Bibles, Badges and Business, a report that spells out a framework for comprehensive immigration reform.

The document hits the right notes. It stresses that the need for reform is “urgent and critical,” and that bipartisanship, along with a “willingness to compromise on short-term agendas to reach longer-term solutions that uphold America’s commitment to fairness and humane values” is necessary.

The report lists four points of consensus based on a series of interviews with faith, law enforcement, and business leaders. First, aspiring citizens and temporary workers should be afforded a path to lawful status and citizenship. Second, our immigration laws should be modernized to ensure that future immigration is legal, fair, and orderly. Third, our borders should be safe and secure. Finally, President Obama “must lead members of Congress from both parties through an honest, transparent legislative process” that results in comprehensive immigration reform. Conservative leaders acknowledge that “Congress will not be able to succeed without strong leadership.”

But there’s the rub. While the president has been calling for immigration reform from day one, and a framework that embodies the spirit of this “new” consensus has existed for some time now, obstructionist lawmakers, spurred by the anti-immigrant fringe, have stymied the process.

The report points out that “broad and non-traditional coalitions are powerful vehicles to help legislators see common interests. Faith, law enforcement and business leadership working together at the local level can provide unique support and pressure on a member of congress supporting practical immigration reforms.”

Will this legion of bibles, badges, and business be able to mobilize their constituencies to pressure representatives into action and compromise with a duly-elected president these lawmakers unabashedly abhor and long to fail? Moreover, will these conservative players, new to the immigration reform arena, play along with the progressive consensus which has already laid the groundwork for a truly comprehensive and inclusive immigration reform?

Stephan Bauman, President and CEO of World Relief, is quoted as saying “We call for a bipartisan solution for immigration that respects the God-given dignity of every person, that protects the unity of the immediate family, that respects the rule of law.” Does that include the dignity of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender immigrants and the protection of LGBT immigrant families? Will Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family, a rabidly homophobic organization, persuade its members to support immigration legislation that covers lesbian and gay binational couples?

Originally posted on Feet in 2 Worlds, December 10, 2012. Re-posted on the Huffington Post, December 11.

Disaggregating the Monolithic Model Minority

Better data is the key to understanding the diverse and often ignored population of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders (AANHPIs) living in the United States, according to the National Council of Asian Pacific Americans. Last week, the Council—a coalition of 30 AANHPI organizations—gave a briefing to Urban Institute researchers about policy issues salient to the community. They also suggested research specific to AANHPIs, the fastest growing racial/ethnic group in the United States.

Over 18.5 million AANHPIs live in the United States, representing 6 percent of the total population. They originate from more than 30 countries and speak over 100 languages and, yet, are often treated as one monolithic group. Individuals in this community are often cast as the Asian American “model minority:” highly educated, affluent, hard working, and self-sufficient, a constituency that has no need for government assistance. Moreover, its smaller size compared with the Latino and African American communities renders AANHPIs virtually invisible or ignored in the policymaking process and ultimately, in the allocation of resources.

Council presenters sought to dispel the myth and put the spotlight on economic, employment, housing, healthcare, education, civil rights, and immigration issues for AANHPIs. They argued that there is a general lack of data about Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders. When research is conducted, the information gathered is not disaggregated, thereby painting an inaccurate picture of the various ethnic groups that comprise the population. This stymies policy initiatives beneficial to AANHPIs and their families, resulting in little to no access to benefits and resources.

Taken together, for example, only 14 percent of AANHPIs experienced job loss since 2008, meaning they fared better than most Americans. When the data is broken down however, we learn that not all AANHPIs had the same experience. Seventeen percent of Chinese and 20 percent of Hmong experienced job loss since 2008; and close to a quarter of Cambodians lost their jobs.

Researchers interested in communities of color, and Asian Americans in particular, need to find ways to collect representative and adequate data on the various subgroups that comprise the Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander community. They need to ensure that data is disaggregated when presented, especially to policymakers, in order for the disparate needs of the communities to be addressed.

Additional information on AANHPI policy issues and recommendations can be found in NCAPA’S 2012 Policy Platform.

Originally posted on Urban Institute MetroTrends Blog, December 4, 2012.

Despite Promised Reform, Impasse on Immigration Prevails

Originally posted on the Huffington Post, this is an expanded version of an earlier Feet in 2 Worlds entry.

In their desire to rehabilitate their anti-immigrant image, Republican lawmakers have been scrambling to put forth immigration bills far short of anything comprehensive as initially called for by House Speaker Boehner.

Earlier this week, Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) introduced their watered-down version of the DREAM Act, which they christened the ACHIEVE Act. While young undocumented immigrants brought unwittingly into the country would have a chance to gain permanent residency through higher education or military service and after a long process that could span a decade, they are not offered a pathway to citizenship unlike the DREAM Act. Moreover, they would not be eligible for federal public benefits or assistance, including student loans.

“The problem with the ACHIEVE Act is it does not achieve the dream,” quipped Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) during a press conference Wednesday. Congressman Luis Gutierrez, chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’ Immigration Task Force, dismissed the initiative as “too little, too late.”

On Friday, the House of Representatives voted on the Science, Technology, Engineering of Mathematics (STEM) Jobs Act, which amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to make up to 55,000 visas available to qualified immigrants who have advanced STEM degrees from a U.S. university, at the expense of the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program.

Guitierrez also opposed the STEM bill, saying that it “is more about politics and optics for the Republicans than about anything substantive.” He believes that GOP lawmakers “are more interested in killing the Diversity Visa program, which goes mostly to immigrants from Africa, than in creating a program for science and tech graduates.”

The White House also chimed in through a statement which stresses that the Obama administration “is deeply committed to building a 21st-century immigration system that meets the Nation’s economic and security needs through common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform,” and as part of a broader immigration reform effort, “strongly supports legislation to attract and retain foreign students who graduate with advanced STEM degrees.” The administration however, “does not support narrowly tailored proposals that do not meet the President’s long-term objectives with respect to comprehensive immigration reform.”

Although the STEM bill passed in the House of Representatives, there is little to no chance that it will survive the Democratic-led Senate, where leaders like Charles Schumer (D-NY) prefer that STEM legislation be part of comprehensive immigration reform. Moreover, the ACHIEVE Act, another narrow GOP-led immigration initiative is a non-starter as its sponsors are ending their terms.

Democrats in the meantime, continue to push for comprehensive immigration reform. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus released Wednesday “ONE NATION: Principles on Immigration Reform and Our Commitment to the American Dream,” a manifesto that insists on full and inclusive reform.

The set of principles includes an earned path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, the inclusion of families of binational same-gender couples as well as a commitment to attracting the best and the brightest while ensuring national prosperity and security.

Less than a month after both sides expressed purported seriousness in tackling immigration, it looks like we’re back to the same o’ same o’. Republicans refuse to seriously consider comprehensive and inclusive immigration reform while Democrats refuse to compromise their vision to once and for all rehabilitate our dysfunctional immigration system. If no one budges, everyone pays come 2014 and 2016.

The Risks of Limiting Charitable Deductions

November 30, 2012; Source: The Government We Deserve

In his Urban Institute blog, The Government We Deserve, the Tax Policy Center’s Gene Steuerle looks to the past to auger the future of charitable deductions. He suggests that rather than eliminate charitable deductions altogether to increase much needed revenue, government should consider other options. He cites a 2003 GAO study which details what happened when tax deductions on donated cars were curtailed: claims for donated vehicles dropped. This was dramatically illustrated as only a graph could.

Based on this, Steuerle, reiterates the argument that limiting charitable deductions will dampen giving, which threatens nonprofit coffers and ultimately hurts those who benefit from programs and services provided by the sector.

The Wall Street Journal reports that “there is no specific plan to eliminate deductions for charitable giving” in the ongoing haggling over the fiscal cliff. There are, however, proposals to cap overall deductions which some argue would negatively impact charitable donations.

Is the change that occurred in auto donations after the enactment of new regulations likely to be comparable to any potential change that might be enacted in the charitable tax deduction? We’d love readers’ opinions on this.

As with so many other tax revenue and deficit reduction proposals being floated, we really don’t know what will be in the final mix that keeps us from falling over the looming precipice. Steuerle and others think policymakers should be equipped with as much good and evidenced-based information as possible in making such monumental decisions. Weigh in.

Originally posted on Nonprofit Quarterly Nonprofit Newswire, December 3, 2012.

STEM Bill Passes House but Real Reform Still to Come

Congressman Luis Gutierrez is a vocal critic of both the STEM and ACHIEVE acts.

In their desire to rehabilitate their anti-immigrant image, Republican lawmakers have been scrambling to put forth immigration bills far short of House Speaker Boehner’s call for comprehensive reform.

Earlier this week, Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) introduced their watered down version of the DREAM Act, which they christened the ACHIEVE Act. While young undocumented immigrants brought unwittingly into the country would have a chance to gain permanent residency through higher education or military service and after a long process that could span a decade, they are not offered a pathway to citizenship unlike the DREAM Act. Moreover, they would not be eligible for federal public benefits or assistance, including student loans.

“The problem with the ACHIEVE Act is it does not achieve the dream,” quipped Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) during a press conference Wednesday. Congressman Luis Gutierrez, chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’ Immigration Task Force, dismissed the initiative as “too little, too late.”

Today, the House of Representatives voted on the Science, Technology, Engineering of Mathematics (STEM) Jobs Act, which amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to make up to 55,000 visas available to qualified immigrants who have advanced STEM degrees from a U.S. university, at the expense of the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program.

Guitierrez also opposed the STEM bill, saying that it “is more about politics and optics for the Republicans than about anything substantive.” He believes that GOP lawmakers “are more interested in killing the Diversity Visa program, which goes mostly to immigrants from Africa, than in creating a program for science and tech graduates.”

The White House also chimed in through a statement which stresses that the Obama administration “is deeply committed to building a 21st-century immigration system that meets the Nation’s economic and security needs through common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform,” and as part of a broader immigration reform effort, “strongly supports legislation to attract and retain foreign students who graduate with advanced STEM degrees.” The administration however, “does not support narrowly tailored proposals that do not meet the President’s long-term objectives with respect to comprehensive immigration reform.”

These narrow GOP-led immigration initiatives are thus, for all intents and purposes, dead.

Democrats in the meantime, continue to push for comprehensive immigration reform. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus released Wednesday “ONE NATION: Principles on Immigration Reform and Our Commitment to the American Dream,” a manifesto that insists on full and inclusive reform.

The set of principles includes an earned path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, the inclusion of families of binational same-gender couples as well as a commitment to attracting the best and the brightest while ensuring national prosperity and security.

Originally posted on Feet in 2 Worlds, November 30, 2012.

Will Immigration Reform Be Comprehensive and Inclusive?

Pelosi and Boehner. (Photo: Flickr/talkradionews)

Republican leadership in Congress now appears to be on board with immigration reform, shocked into action by the potency of the Latino vote and awakened to a new political order that includes people of color. But will reform be truly comprehensive, offering a path to citizenship for some 11 million unauthorized immigrants? Will it be inclusive, embracing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) immigrant families?

Speaker Boehner, supported by talking heads who dramatically “evolved” on the issue a day after Gov. Romney’s drubbing, seems determined to fix our immigration system and address the plight of our undocumented neighbors. There are those in the GOP however, who bristle at the idea of a compromise that goes beyond tighter border enforcement and visas for much needed scientists and farm workers.

While I remain skeptical about any major legislation breaking Washington’s congressional impasse, comprehensive immigration reform is conceivable if both parties harken back to the day, not too long ago, when they actually agreed on a comprehensive immigration framework. I am concerned however that along the way, gay binational couples will be thrown under the bus as lawmakers “compromise.”

Steve Ralls, Director of Communications at Immigration Equality assures me that this is unlikely to happen. Immigration Equality has been at the forefront of pushing immigration reform that is both comprehensive and inclusive.

“All signs are pointing to an immigration reform effort early in the new Congress,” Ralls said. “Immigration Equality is confident we can ensure that effort will include LGBT binational families. The combination of steadfast allies on the Hill; a president who has vowed to end the separation of our families; and a vigorous grassroots mobilization makes us more optimistic than ever that we can win this within the next year.”

His confidence stems from having key lawmakers such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on the side of LGBT immigrant families.

“Leaders on immigration and LGBT issues – such as Congressman (Jerrold) Nadler (D-NY), Congressman (Mike) Honda (D-CA), Congresswoman (Zoe) Lofgren (D-CA) and Congressman (Luis) Gutierrez (D-IL) – have committed that they will work for an inclusive bill,” he added. “And in the Senate, any immigration reform measure will first have to be approved by the Judiciary Committee before moving to the full Senate for a vote.”

The Judiciary Committee is chaired by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt), a lead sponsor of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA)which brings equality to gay couples under immigration law. Senator Leahy has promised that only an inclusive bill will leave his committee, and that he will work hand-in-hand with other lawmakers – including Republicans – to make that a reality.

One of these Republicans is Senator Susan Collins. When asked whether Senator Collins would support an inclusive immigration reform bill, her office sent a statement reiterating her commitment to UAFA.

“This legislation would simply update our nation’s immigration laws to treat bi-national couples equally,” Collins said. “More than two dozen countries recognize same-sex couples for immigration purposes. This important civil rights legislation would help prevent committed, loving families from being forced to choose between leaving their family or leaving their country.”

Another key player is the president himself who received overwhelming support from LGBT and immigrant communities in his bid for reelection.  Mr. Obama has signaled action on immigration in 2013.

“Immigration Equality’s team has already started reaching out to our key allies – on the Hill, in the Administration and among LGBT and immigration advocacy organizations – to ensure we have the public support, Congressional votes and allied support we need to get an inclusive bill introduced and passed,” Ralls said. “The seismic shift on LGBT and immigrants’ rights issues that has taken place in Washington and across the country makes us believe that passage of an inclusive bill isn’t just possible, but indeed is likely.”

Let’s hope so.

Originally posted on Feet in 2 Worlds, November 19, 2012 and the Huffington Post, November 20, 2012.

Community-Based Organizations Helped Deliver Asian American Vote

November 8, 2012; Source: Bloomberg

In the week since Election Day, much has been made of how the Latino vote helped deliver another term to President Barack Obama, and rightfully so. Asian American groups, however, want to make sure that we also know that the Asian vote, while not as large, was also crucial on November 6th.

Less than 24 hours after the President Obama won reelection, the National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development (National CAPACD) and the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) released a statement touting the fact that, while only four in ten Asian American voters identify as Democrats, they “broke for Barack Obama by a huge margin, with 72% voting for the President and 26% for Mitt Romney.” In congressional races, seven in ten Asian American voters also backed Democratic candidates.

Lisa Hasegawa, National CAPACD’s executive director, believes that the Romney campaign and the Republican Party lost valuable votes by ignoring Asian Americans. “Mitt Romney had room to win the overlooked Asian American community,” said Hasegawa. “While Barack Obama’s narrative attracted Asian American voters, Mitt Romney missed an enormous opportunity to offer a direct appeal to this group.” Hasegawa also acknowledges the pivotal role of community-based organizations in mobilizing Asian Americans. “Community organizations’ efforts are especially critical in getting Asian Americans to the polls when traditional party vehicles ignore this demographic,” she said. “National CAPACD supported 25 groups in 14 states over the election season to help educate Asian American and Pacific Islander voters and get them to the polls on Election Day.”

Another group that energized the diverse Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) communities was the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC) and its local Cambodian, Hmong, Lao and Vietnamese community-based affiliates. These immigrant-serving nonprofits focused on voter outreach and education in areas with high concentrations of Southeast Asian American eligible voters. According to a statement released by SEARAC Executive Director Doua Thor, “Because of the high numbers of Cambodian, Lao, Hmong, and Vietnamese in areas like the Central Valley of California and the Twin Cities in Minnesota, our communities had a real potential to impact the vote in these parts.”

KAYA Filipino Americans for Progress, a tech-savvy grassroots organization founded in 2008 to support then-Sen. Obama’s first presidential run, was likewise key in mobilizing the second largest AAPI group in California and in the “swing states” of Nevada and Virginia. As the United States transforms into a majority minority nation, it would be folly for any political party to ignore communities of color and the organizations that serve and mobilize them.

Originally posted on Nonprofit Quarterly Nonprofit Newswire, November 13, 2012.