Mediaboss Marketing

In 20062007, millions of people participated in protests over a proposed change to U.S. immigration policy.[1] These large scale mobilizations are widely seen as a historic turn point in Latino politics, especially Latino immigrant civic participation and political influence, as noted in a range of scholarly publications in this field.[1] The protests began in response to proposed legislation known as H.R. 4437, which would raise penalties for illegal immigration and classify illegal aliens and anyone who helped them enter or remain in the US as felons. As part of the wider immigration debate, most of the protests not only sought a rejection of this bill, but also a comprehensive reform of the country's immigration laws that included a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants.

The 2006 immigration protests were a series of demonstrations that began in Chicago and continued throughout major cities nationwide for a period of eight weeks. The first major demonstration in Chicago was held on March 10, 2006, and was estimated to have about 100,000 participants. It was the initial impetus for many of the other protests which followed throughout the country.[2] The largest single protest occurred on March 25, 2006, in downtown Los Angeles with an official estimate of more than 500,000 people marching in what organizers called "La Gran Marcha" ("The Great March") .[3] Organizers of La Gran Marcha, however, state that the actual revised number of participants is somewhere between 1.25 and 1.5 million estimated through later photographic analysis.[4] The largest nationwide day of protest occurred on April 10, 2006, in 102 cities across the country,[5][6] with 350,000500,000 in Dallas. The overwhelming majority of the protests were peaceful and attracted modest media attention. Additional protests took place on May Day.

The marches reached a climax on May 1, 2006, and were nicknamed "A Day Without Immigrants." Naming the protests in such way encouraged immigrants and aliens to quit their daily labor-intensive jobs for a day to draw attention to their significant contributions to U.S. daily life. Latino immigrants and aliens across the country were urged to boycott work, school and other economic activities. Those outside the Latino community were shocked to see the growing workforce of janitors, nannies, restaurant workers and many other service workers leave their jobs to join the protests.[7] The mobilization of working-class illegal aliens was intended to challenge the belief that the United States would be able to prosper without illegal immigrants.

The protests took place on May 1, a date meant to honor workers throughout the country. The May 1st marches reflected the immigrant protesters' identities as workers and significant contributors to U.S. society. Most immigrants of Latin American descent come to the United States seeking economic prosperity for themselves and their families,[8] they infrequently accept low wage jobs to survive in the United States. Therefore, missing work for a day burdened their families. Yet, thousands of immigrants risked their jobs and joined the marches to demand political recognition.

Mexicans were not considered "immigrants" until 1960, when the United States issued visas to emigrate to America. Before 1960, Mexicans could only apply for work visas as Braceros or cross the border without inspection. Mexicans didn't have a "legal" way to enter the United States before then.[9]

To understand the 2006 immigrant protests and the discourse behind illegal immigration as a leading topic in U.S. political debate, it is necessary to understand the history of illegal immigration.[1] Since the 19th century, mass illegal immigration from Latin American countries to the United States has greatly impacted Latino politics. Illegal immigrants are individuals who arrive and live in the United States without legal documentation. In many cases, individuals arrive to the United States with legal documentation such as tourist or student visas and overstay the amount of time they are allowed to remain in the United States, thus becoming illegal immigrants.[10] Many others cross the borders between the United States and Mexico, or the United States and Canada, without legal documentation. Today, undocumented entry to the United States is a misdemeanor.Illegal immigration did not always exist to the extent that it does today. Before 1965, the United States did not have numerical restrictions on immigration from countries in the western hemisphere. In 1965, the United States passed the Immigration Nationality Act and repealed the 1924 National Origins Act designed to limit migration from southern and eastern European countries,[11] thus making it possible for eastern-hemisphere countries to have equal access to visas in addition and consequently restricting migration from the western hemisphere for the first time. Furthermore, the 1965 Act provided unlimited number of visas for family reunification because it allowed naturalized U.S. citizens and permanent residents to request permission to bring their family members to the United States.[11] The 1965 Act influenced Latinos/as citizens and permanent residents to request visas that allowed their family members to immigrate to the United States. This resulted in a shift of the country's ethno racial makeup and the creation of a large Latino population in the United States. The 1965 Act's restriction on the number of visas allotted to western hemisphere countries created the phenomenon of large scale illegal western hemisphere migration,[11] particularly from Latin American countries like Mexico.

In the 1980s, the United States government began to express concern about the large scale flow of illegal immigration, which led to the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. First, the Act made it illegal for employers to hire workers who could not provide proof of legal immigration to the United States. Second, it allowed for the legalization of immigrants who could prove residency in the U.S. since January 1, 1982 and agricultural workers who began working in the United States prior to May 1986.[12] Out of the 3 million migrants that applied for IRCA, 2.7 million, many of whom were Mexican, were given a path to citizenship. However, in the long term, IRCA was not successful in reducing the flow of illegal immigration to the United States. As a result, the U.S. government began to increase the funding of Border Patrol as a means to regulate the flow of undocumented immigrants to the United States. These actions proved to have little impact on illegal immigration, resulting in about eleven million illegal immigrants living in the United States, the majority being of Mexican origin. Therefore, discourse about the flow of illegal immigration has been known as a "Mexican" or "Latino" problem. The large scale flow of illegal migrants and the significant ethno-racial shift that occurred as a result of 1965 Act, have resulted in anti-immigrant backlash that targets Latino immigrants.[13]

Spanish-language media outlets, in particular Univision, Telemundo, Azteca Amrica and La Opinin (Los Angeles' largest Spanish newspaper), advertised the protests on their front page.[1] They called it a "Mega Marcha", a mega march, as a way to emphasize the large scale of the marches. This strategy allowed for the spread of mobilizations throughout the country. KMEX- TV in Los Angeles, an Univision owned and operated television station, called the protests "Pisando Firme", stepping strong, to remind protesters to march "with pride, with dignity, with order, for your children, for your people, for your community."[8] Although television and newspapers effectively mobilized protesters, it was radio stations which truly promoted the protests.

Various Spanish-language radio stations across the country, in large part aided in mobilizing people for the protests. Eddie "Pioln" Sotelo, a Spanish-language radio personality from Los Angeles, persuaded eleven of his counterparts from Spanish-language radio stations based in Los Angeles to also rally listeners to attend planned protests.[14][15][16] Piolin Por La Maana, is known to be one of the most popular radio shows in the country. The Pioln's radio show, recorded near Los Angeles, is broadcast in 47 markets across the country including Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Phoenix, San Francisco and New York, many of the cities where the protests took place.[17] In addition to mobilizing thousands of immigrant protestors, Eddie "Piolin" Sotelo made multiple appearances during protests, which increased his moral authority towards his Latino audience.

Religious leader Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, showed his support of immigrant protesters and urged Catholics, many of whom are Latino, to support the protests.[1] He urged the Catholic community to spend Lent fasting and praying for an immigration reform that would counteract HR-4437 and the criminalization of immigrants. Cardinal Mahony made an official statement against HR-4437 through which he instructed Catholic priests to defy any law that required them to ask immigrants for legal documents.[18] He stated that immigration was not about politics, rather the way in which human beings treat one another, while asserting that all Americans are of immigrant ancestry and share universal citizenship.

It was not media alone that mobilized protesters, rather the media in partnership with migrant organizations and leaders.[19] When analyzing the immigrant civic participation in the 2006 protests simply acknowledging the media's influence is not enough. It absolutely necessary to understand the "meta-network" of activists and leaders that used media as a call to action.

The initial protests caused much controversy after some protesters waved Mexican and Central American flags instead of American flags. Various talk-radio hosts and columnists played up the contentious nature of displaying non-U.S. flags during the protests.[20] One particular incident referred to involved a protest at Montebello High School in California, where a Mexican flag was raised on a flagpole over a United States flag flying in the distressed (or upside-down) position.[21]

As part of the backlash over the protests and the controversy over the flag symbolism issue, a group calling themselves "Border Guardians" burned a Mexican flag in front of the Mexican Consulate in Tucson, Arizona, on April 9, 2006.[22] The following day the group proceeded to burn two Mexican flags during protest in Tucson which was estimated to have had 15,000 participants. After the police seized a student who had thrown a water bottle at the "Border Guardians", they followed the police officers calling for them to let the student go. As the situation escalated violence broke out and 6 were arrested with dozens being pepper-sprayed. The next day the police arrested the leader of the Border Guardians, Roy Warden, for charges including assault and starting a fire in a public park.

Because of the controversy, organizers of the protests encouraged protesters to leave their Mexican flags at home, with Cardinal Roger Mahony telling Los Angeles protesters to not fly any flag other than the United States flag because, "...they do not help us get the legislation we need."[23] As a result of this controversy later protests featured fewer Mexican flags and more protesters carrying American flags.[24]

In addition, California's Oceanside Unified School District banned flags and signs from its campuses after "Mexican flag-wavers clashed with U.S. flag-wavers."[20]

The Washington Post reported that, in the Washington, D.C. suburb of Herndon, a day labor center at which suspected illegal aliens gathered was closed and its mayor and two aldermen lost reelection, in part due to immigration concerns.[25][26]

Membership in the Minuteman Project increased due in part to backlash from the protests. On May 3, responding to the May 1 boycotts, the Minutemen embarked on a caravan across the United States in an effort to bring attention to a need for border enforcement. The caravan was expected to reach Washington, D.C. on May 12.

Regarding the Tucson-based anti-immigration movement: In 2006, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote: "Roy Warden, 59, emerged this spring as one of the country's most controversial, volatile, and, many believe, dangerous characters of the anti-immigration movement."[27]

Although HR-4437 failed to pass through the Senate, it left a trail of consequences that affected the immigrant community. One of those consequences was intensive Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids during the final years of the Bush administration which continued throughout the Obama presidency. In the next couple of years, more than 300,000 undocumented immigrant were deported to their home countries, that is 100,000 more than the number of deported immigrants in 2005, a year before the protests.[28] The increase in deportations caused fear of retaliation within the undocumented community and resulted in rapid demobilization.

Although HR-4437 did not become a law at the federal level, it did not prevent individual states from passing similar laws. In 2006, Pennsylvania passed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, which fined landlords who rented housing to undocumented immigrants and also fined business owners who hired them. The State of Arizona passed S.B. 1070, which led to racial profiling and required police officers to request legal documentation from anyone they suspected was undocumented. Both laws, along with similar others, were deemed unconstitutional in part because the U.S. Constitution assigns control over immigration to the federal government, not individual states.[29]

Since undocumented immigrant communities were unable to vote, lobby, or influence politicians in more traditional ways, Latino leaders mobilized immigrants through non-voting activities, such as protests.[30] Many Latinos indicated that the marches were the beginning of a new social and political movement that sought to gain civic empowerment.[1] A report released by the Pew Hispanic Center indicated that Latinos would most likely vote in subsequent elections and The National Immigration Forum found that Latino voters were more enthusiastic to vote in 2006 due to the immigration debate,[31] and the need to prevent legislation like HR-4437 from being approved by Congress. "Today we march, tomorrow we vote," was one of the most popular slogans during the 2006 immigrant protests.[32] Such slogan indicated the value and need for Latino/a political contribution and recognition.

H.R. 4437 (The Border Protection, Anti terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005) was passed by the United States House of Representatives on December 16, 2005, by a vote of 239 to 182. It is also known as the "Sensenbrenner Bill", for its sponsor in the House of Representatives, Jim Sensenbrenner. H.R. 4437 was seen by many as the catalyst for the 2006 U.S. immigration reform protests.[68]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 previously gave "amnesty" to 2.7 million undocumented immigrants. Proponents of the measure, including then-President Reagan, said the measure, paired with stricter employer rules and a better path for legal entry, would reduce illegal immigration.

The companion bill passed by the United States Senate was S. 2611, which never passed conference committee. The House Republican leadership stated that it rejected S. 2611 wholly and would only pass legislation that addressed border security. The end of the 109th Congress marked the death of this bill.

The USA Supreme Court on June 16, 2008, ruled in Dada v. Mukasey, per ponente Justice Kennedy ruled (54) "that someone who is here illegally may withdraw his voluntarily agreement to depart and continue to try to get approval to remain in the United States." The Court held that complying with a deportation order did not strip an immigrant of the right to appeal that deportation order.[69] The lawsuit is about 2 seemingly contradictory provisions of immigration law. One prevents deportation by voluntary departure from the country. The other section allows immigrants who are here illegally but whose circumstances have changed to build their case to immigration officials, and who must remain in the US. In the case, Samson Dada, a Nigerian citizen, overstayed beyond the expiration of his tourist visa in 1998. Immigration authorities ordered him to leave the country as he agreed to leave voluntarily, but to allow his legal re-entry, unlike if he had been deported.[70][71]

The following organizations mobilized from hundreds (FAIR) to millions of people (Great American Boycott) around immigration reform in the United States during 2006.

Typically anti-illegal immigration movements focus on grassroots recruiting tactics; the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps and Minuteman Project use these methods to boost membership. After the 2006 immigration reform protest, anti-immigration movement participation increased by 600%.[citation needed]

Anti-illegal immigration groups often do not pursue the same agenda in the same ways; however, they do form coalitions when their agendas match other movements. One of the major joint efforts that these groups engage in is access to mailing lists for individuals who have donated money in the past to support the movement; Federation for American Immigration Reform and Minutemen Civil Defense Corps have shared lists of mailers with one another in recent years.[citation needed]

Continue reading here:
2006 United States immigration reform protests - Wikipedia

William Lyons| Guest columnist

You've seen the move before. In fact, you may have seen it last month in "Top Gun: Maverick" when Tom Cruise's character pilots a fighter jet at incredible speeds past scores of enemy fighters and later just happens upon a functional U.S. plane undamaged in a hangar in an enemy airfield. It takes a willing suspension of disbelief to make this all so appealing. I willingly suspended mine.

White House: Migrants bused, flown north is a 'political stunt'

GOP governors are taking credit for busing and flying migrants and asylum seekers north in order to spotlight various immigration issues.

Scott L. Hall, USA TODAY

Were mixing Tom Cruise movie metaphors, but todays political Mission Impossible is bipartisan immigration reform. Can there be no doubt that an open border is not acceptable or sustainable?

This, like so much, is caught deep within the gears of todays political dysfunction machine. Governors have a lot at stake and a lot of opportunity to help on the margins. But this is a national challenge that has sadly gone unmet for decades. The belief is that this issue is politically unsolvable.

Washington once engaged. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was the last gasp of bipartisan cooperation. That was at a time when the Republican Party had a significant constituency who fully understood how newcomers could fill the need for motivated, talented employees. But newcomers must come through a legal process.

The legislation was sponsored by Sen. Alan SImpson, D- Wyoming, and Rep. Romano Mazzoli, D-Kentucky. It was supported by bipartisan majorities in both houses and signed by President Ronald Reagan. It balanced needed security with a process for legalized entry. Over 3 million people were granted permanent residency. The act is widely regarded as a failure. It did not fulfill its intention of discouraging the often exploitive hiring of undocumented workers. Conservative critics pointed to its amnesty as a beacon for more immigrants.

There was one more serious try in 2013. Sen. Marco Rubio, along with others in the gang of eight four Republicans and four Democrats, advanced a major immigration reform bill through the Senate. However, it failed in the Republican-led House.

Hear more Tennessee voices:Get the weekly opinion newsletter for insightful and thought-provoking columns.

The legislation would have provided border security, made sure foreign workers left the country when their visas expired, put 11 million of those here illegally on a path to citizenship, secure the borders and ensure that foreigners left the United States upon the expiration of their visas. It all fell apart. Rubio stepped back. Immigration reform became impossible, and since then its been a recurring policy failure.

First theres the status of those who came without documentation to the country as children. A majority of Americans favor a path to citizenship for them, but it hasnt happened. And Rubio, once the Republican spokesperson for change, read the party tea leaves and stepped back behind the curtain..

Democrats have not exactly embraced immigration as a major line of demarcation between the parties. The issue has simply become too divisive. People want some kind of reform, but theres no consensus on what that would look like.

Easing a path for citizenship is a persisting, worsening challenge. Millions of those who came illegally and their children are here, working hard and making major contributions. Yes, it is challenging to appear to reward prior illegal behavior. But reality is a compelling concept, and the reality is the status quo is not sustainable. The border is becoming a concept in name only. Another reality is that the country needs the energy and work ethic these newcomers bring.

Ironically, busing newly arrived Venezualians to New York and other cities shows signs of benefiting both the asylum-seekers and communities in need of willing workers. Thats always been the point of common interest that just might encourage a few brave political souls to take on this mission and motivate those in their separate but adjacent theaters to cautiously cheer them on.

Theres an opportunity, if anyone chooses to accept it, for the kind of political heroics that can only come from a willing suspension of political disbelief. And, of course, with a very large dose of courage.

William Lyons is Director of Policy Partnerships for the Howard Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Tennessee. He also served as Chief Policy Officer for Knoxville Mayors Bill Haslam, Daniel Brown and Madeline Rogero.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Howard Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy or the University of Tennessee.

Read this article:
Mission Impossible: Immigration reform and the suspension of disbelief - Knoxville News Sentinel

Gov. Charlie Baker criticized national Republicans and Democrats Monday, who he said have used a group of Venezuelan migrants sent to Marthas Vineyard earlier this month to score political points.

A group of 50 migrants unexpectedly landed on the island nearly two weeks ago at the behest of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who quickly claimed credit for flying them from San Antonio, Texas, to Massachusetts. It was a move that renewed a national conversation over immigration policy, outraged locals, and touched off a lawsuit filed in federal court in Boston.

Baker said he has watched national Republicans and Democrats who are jockeying to run for president tee off on each other, a situation he said does not help solve the problem of immigration reform.

What we really need is immigration reform in this country, Baker said on GBHs Boston Public Radio. Ive been saying this for over 10 years, and it means that both Republicans and Democrats would have to compromise, and they would probably lose some edge that they might currently have with this issue. But the vast majority of the country would like to have this issue dealt with. And I think the way its being dealt with now gets us nowhere.

Baker, who has decided not to run for reelection and is now a lame-duck governor, also backed off criticizing DeSantis for the move, which some Democrats on Beacon Hill have described as a political stunt.

Im not running for president, he said. So why engage in what is obviously a presidential debate.

The migrants, many of whom had crossed thousands of miles before ending up Texas, were shuttled off Marthas Vineyard after spending two nights in a local church. Officials on the island scrambled to provide immediate shelter, food, medical services and legal assistance when they first arrived on two private jets.

The Baker administration moved the group to Joint Base Cape Cod, and in the weeks since, a debate over proper immigration policies, challenges communities face at the southern border, and how unauthorized immigrants should be dealt with has ensued.

Boston-based legal firm Lawyers for Civil Rights also filed a lawsuit in federal court last week where they are asking a judge to prohibit DeSantis from transporting migrants across the county. The suit alleges the Florida governor violated the Constitutional rights of the migrants, as well as other federal laws.

DeSantis Communications Director Taryn Fenske said in a statement that it is opportunistic that activists would use illegal immigrants for political theater.

If these activists spent even a fraction of this time and effort at the border, perhaps some accountability would be brought to the Biden Administrations reckless border policies that entice illegal immigrants to make dangerous and often lethal journeys through Central America and put their lives in the hands of cartels and Coyotes, Fenske said in a statement.

Baker said many of the migrants left Texas before they were processed by immigration officials.

One of the reasons why theres been a lot of activity with the attorneys is to actually clean up a lot of the work that normally would have happened when they were in Texas, he said, adding some of the migrants have already left Massachusetts to stay with friends and family.

Florida public records show the DeSantis administration paid out a total of $1.5 million to Vertol Systems Company Inc. for a relocation program of unauthorized aliens, including $615,000 a week before the migrants landed in Massachusetts and $950,000 the day after they arrived.

Top Democrats in Florida have asked their House speaker and budget chief to formally object to the spending, which they argue is contrary to a $12 million program the states Legislature authorized over the summer to send unauthorized aliens out of state.

Baker said immigration policy in the United States should be enforceable.

Canada, many other countries that we consider to be sort of moderate on this issue, have figured it out, he said. Theres no reason why we cant if we want to.

More:
Bluster over migrants sent to Mass. impeding immigration reform, Baker says - MassLive.com

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis political stunt of flying 48 Venezuelan migrants to Marthas Vineyard, a Democratic stronghold and wealthy vacation community, may have won applause from Republican supporters but it also appalled many who saw vulnerable people being used as political pawns. The scheme may trigger a criminal investigation and has brought the question of immigration reform to the forefront at a time when the U.S. is seeing a record number of migrant arrivals.

For decades, politicians and policy experts have talked about the need to fix our broken immigration systemfrom securing the border to paving a path to citizenship so why has reform remained so elusive? Well talk about our immigration policies, why historic numbers of people are coming to the U.S. and why the issues has become so politicized.

Theresa Cardinal Brown, Bipartisan Policy Centers managing director of immigration and cross-border policy who served in both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations. @bpc_tbrown

Hamed Aleaziz, immigration policy reporter for the Los Angeles Times. @haleaziz

Los Angeles Times, The Biden administration remade ICE after Trump: But will it last? True to Trumps harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric, ICE officers in his administration were directed to make nearly every immigrant without legal status a priority for arrest even if the person had deep roots in the U.S. and no criminal record.

New York Times, I Ended Up on This Little Island: Migrants Land in Political Drama After long, perilous journeys, Venezuelans unexpectedly found themselves on Marthas Vineyard, wondering what comes next.

Texas Tribune, Arrests along U.S.-Mexico border top 2 million a year for the first time Federal authorities are on pace to make more than 2.3 million arrests during the 2022 fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. That will far exceed last years record of more than 1.7 million arrests.

Follow this link:
The politics of immigration reform - WHYY

SAN DIEGO

Former President Barack Obama said Sunday that the Republican Party is standing in the way of immigration reform and embracing rhetoric that is dangerous for the country.

Obamas comments came during an in-person question-and-answer keynote at San Diegos annual LAttitude conference at the Manchester Grand Hyatt. The event spotlights Latino business, innovation and consumers.

Right now, the biggest fuel behind the Republican agenda is related to immigration and the fear that somehow Americas character is going to be changed if, people of darker shades, there are too many of them here, Obama told moderator Gary Acosta, the co-founder and CEO of the National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals.

I wish I could be more euphemistic about it except (theyre) not that subtle about it theyre just kind of saying it, Obama said. You hear it on hard-right media, you hear it from candidates and politicians, you hear things like great replacement theory I mean, this is not subtle. Unless were able to return to a more inclusive vision inside the Republican Party, its going to be hard to get a bill done.

The great replacement theory falsely asserts that theres an active and ongoing effort to replace the White majority with non-Whites, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Such language prevalent today is dangerous, Obama said.

A lot of toxic rhetoric in the atmosphere that characterizes those people as different and wanting to tear down America as opposed to build it up, he said. When you have that kind of rhetoric floating around out there, weve seen in history that is dangerous rhetoric. Its dangerous wherever it appears and its dangerous here in the United States.

Its not part of whats best in us; its not part of what makes this country exceptional.

Obama said he did not mean to be partisan and acknowledged the Democratic Partys history as the party of segregation. He also noted some ambivalence among American Latinos on the issue of immigration, noting that Latino voting rates in Texas lagged that of Colorado and California Latinos.

If Latinos in Texas voted at the same rate as Latinos in Colorado, Texas would be a blue state, Obama said. Culturally, we havent built up voting habits and connected that to power. In no other parts of your life do you just give your power away.

Obama did not mention his successor, former President Donald Trump, by name during the one-hour discussion. He did, however, reference Trump twice once as the driving force behind the GOPs embrace of restrictive immigration policies and again to highlight Trumps continuing refusal to accept the result of the 2020 election.

Obamas jab at Trump came as he lamented how the proliferation of COVID-19 vaccine conspiracies prevented millions in the U.S. from taking the shots, likely resulting in preventable deaths. He pivoted from vaccine misinformation to election disinformation.

It goes beyond just that I mean look at elections, Obama said. We used to have arguments about policy. But now, people just make stuff up: I didnt lose.

The line was one of several that received applause from the crowd of about 1,500.

Other topics that came up during the Q&A were centered on the conferences theme, the new mainstream economy, a nod to the economic power and influence of the more than 62 million Latinos in the U.S.

Obama said its not enough for business to have diverse leaders they also need to listen to them.

If you want to make good decisions you have to have as many points of view as possible, because we all have blind spots, Obama said. And that means, for example, that its been shown time and time again that the more women you have on the board, the more successful you company (will be).

Conference attendees staked spots in line as early as 5:30 a.m. almost six hours before the former presidents keynote.

Bethy Beas, a real estate broker from McAllen, Texas, said she was among the first in line at the hotels Seaport Ballroom.

Her forethought appeared to pay off. By 9:30, a line of thousands stretched from the second-floor ballroom and around the event space to the first floor lobby.

Karen Carreno, 32, said that as a DACA recipient, that Obama had changed her life.

DACA Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals is an Obama-era policy that allows undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children to work and live in the country.

Carreno, who came to San Diego from McAllen with Beas, said she appreciated San Diegos status as a border city like McAllen.

People are really welcoming, she said. Theres overwhelming love and pride for our heritage.

Chumahan Bowen, an attorney from Santa Ana, said he staked his spot in line at 5:30 a.m. As a Native American and member of the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin, Bowen said he is inspired by whats possible for people of color in the U.S.

Mr. Obama represents what this countrys capable of, he said.

After the hour-long keynote, Jacqui Gibbs, a bank lending manager from Newark, N.J., said she connected with Obamas message about listening to communities who arent always given a voice.

I am one of the few African Americans in the audience, she said, and it was as if he was speaking to a group of African Americans a lot of the same things apply.

Gibbs said Obamas parting comments about listening and empowering the next generation stood out to her most.

It was powerful to hear, she said.

More here:
Obama in SD: Republicans embracing rhetoric on immigration that is 'dangerous' for the country - The San Diego Union-Tribune