A U.S. congressional delegation that includes Senate Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, have embarked on trip through Latin America. They will visit Guatemala, Paraguay, Mexico, Colombia, and the Brazil/Paraguay/Argentina “Tri Border” between now and the beginning of December.

According to Reid’s office, "The purpose of the trip is to show the United States’ commitment to strengthening ties with our neighbors in Latin America. The senators will meet with the presidents of Guatemala, Colombia, Paraguay, and Mexico, as well as labor, counter-narcotics, civic, trade, and other officials to discuss issues vital for the security and economy of the United States."

Traveling with Reid are Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Thad Cochran (R - MS), Kent Conrad (D - ND), Mike Crapo (R - ID), Byron Dorgan (D - ND), Robert Menéndez (D-NJ).

The two major Spanish-language television networks in the U.S. launched competing voter registration/moblization efforts. Competition can be great, and I hope there is a giant race to register Hispanic voters because it would be good for the Hispanic community and good for the country.

These TV networks reach millions of people each day. I've seen how one mention of an important issue and a phone number during their programming can convert to hundreds, possibly thousands of direct actions. So if they put lots of time, energy and money into the programs they'll be very helpful.

Last month, Telemundo and mun2 launched "Vota Por Tu Futuro" along with Rock the Vote, People for the American Way's DemocraciaUSA, League of Unitd Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and the U.S. Hispanic Leaderhip Institute (USHLI) at a press conference staged at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

And today, Univision Communications Inc. and partners announced their own coalition effort -- Ya es Hora, ¡Ve y Vota! (It’s Time, Go Vote!) -- at a press conference at the National Press Club (sound familiar?). The other coalition partners so far are Entravision Communications, ImpreMedia, Mi Familia Vota Educational Fund, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund, as well as the National Council of La Raza (NCLR).

They're billing it as the "a non-partisan national voter mobilization effort targeting U.S. Hispanics" seeking "to significantly increase Latino voter registration and turnout in the 2008 presidential elections through an unprecedented multi-media campaign that encompasses grassroots, print and broadcast outreach."

La Politica has done a terrific job of quickly reporting these announcements so they can reach a broader audience.

In a major front-page story today, The Washington Post exposes a dirty secret that complicates the U.S.-Mexico cooperation against drug cartlets. The Post's Manuel Roig-Franzia reports that U.S. guns are arming Mexican drug cartel killings.

The U.S. weapons -- as many as 2,000 enter Mexico each day, according to a Mexican government study -- are crucial tools in an astoundingly barbaric war between rival cartels that has cost 4,000 lives in the past 18 months and sent law enforcement agencies in Washington and Mexico City into crisis mode.

And at least two states are directly implicated; a fact that could be met with calls for emergency reforms from some officials:

Arizona and Texas have become a "gunrunner's paradise," according to Garen Wintemute, a professor at the University of California at Davis who published a study on gun buying in the Southwest. Licensed dealers must conduct background checks, but unlicensed sellers can sell "personal collections" at weekend gun shows without background checks.

We've been blogging about newly announced strategic partnership between the two countries and proposed U.S.-Mexico anti-drug efforts.

What do you think can be done to cut off the flow of American guns to Mexican narcotics trafficers?

Mexicans & Americans Thinking Together is engaged in the debate over how best to reform U.S. immigration policy.

On one hand the organization is working to engage people in both countries about the need to improve the economy in Mexico in order to reduce desperation that fuels illegal immigration. A MATT team has participated in trade missions bringing business-people from the U.S. into Mexico and bringing businesspeople to the U.S. And MATT.org continues to help expand the number of micro-loans to Mexican entrepeneurs through a partnership with Kiva and Admic. And MATT is not alone, there are more groups in Mexico working to improve communities and prevent emigration.

Immigrants come to the U.S. because they need jobs that pay well. But another reason immigrant workers are here is because Americans need them. Immigrant workers strengthen the U.S. economy.

MATT is cognizant of the growing local and federal efforts to crackdown on illegal workers and concerned about the impact they have. There is no doubt that the failed legislation in Congress will lead to many more actions against illegal immigrants and their employers. The organization and many groups we meet with remain concerned about the impact this has on those local economies and the national economy.

One fact about crackdowns, raids and other measures is that they take a toll on workers and the people they support. And new reports shed light on the impact on families in communities in Mexico and other Latin American countries that depend upon the remittances that come from workers in America.

The New York Times published a front page story last Friday (10/26) on this issue.

For years, millions of Mexican migrants working in the United States have sent money back home to villages like this one, money that allows families to pay medical bills and school fees, build houses and buy clothes or, if they save enough, maybe start a tiny business. But after years of strong increases, the amount of migrant money flowing to Mexico has stagnated. From 2000 to 2006, remittances grew to nearly $24 billion a year from $6.6 billion, rising more than 20 percent some years. In 2007, the increase so far has been less than 2 percent.

In a twist on this issue, one major regional newspaper columnist recently wrote that through immigrant workers and the monies they send home the U.S. is "relieving world poverty, just by hiring."

What do you think?

Should we be concerned about policies that make life more difficult for people who receive remittances in Mexico?

If these crackdowns impact our economy should we be concerned?

What if the impact is felt in both places? Perhaps that is an indication that the status quo is flawed. Tell us:

What's new in the U.S.- Mexico Relationship? A massive, multi billion-dollar anti-drug campaign.
What's the best way law enforcement can beat the narcotics traffickers? With endless resources and the support from the government and the people. That's exactly what Mexico and the U.S. hope to acheive with a historic effort that will total more than $7 billion, with $1.4 billion pledged by the U.S.

Will successful anti-drug efforts in Mexico, like the historic operation last week, become the new norm? It's tough to say for sure, but the administrations of Felipe Calderon and George W. Bush are ready to try, if their governments will support them.

What do you think? Will Congress fully fund the effort? Will it be successful? Will it help improve the flow of other commerce between our two nations?

The Los Angeles Times focuses on the massive scope of the effort. LAT's headline: "Bush wants $1.4 billion for Mexico drug war, It would be the largest U.S. aid package to Latin America since 2000."

The White House announced Monday a $1.4-billion military and security package to assist Mexico and several Central American countries in their fight against drug-trafficking groups threatening the region's democracies.

President Bush requested an initial $550-million appropriation from Congress, with the rest of the funds to be distributed over one or two years. The aid is to go for helicopters, police training and communications and data-processing equipment.

Coverage is largely friendly to the White House
The Dallas Morning News article has this glowing quote its story titled "Bush announces $1.4 billion drug plan for Mexico, Backers say proposal opens dialogue; foes way of U.S. military."

U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza said the plan "is the single most aggressive undertaking ever to combat Mexican drug cartels and the associated violence they pose to citizens in both the U.S. and Mexico."

Garza's op-ed on the "Strategic partnership" ran in the Dallas Morning News.

Will the Mexican People Accept U.S. Aid?
The Houston Chronicle reports: Bush's drug war funding plan draws fire in U.S., Mexico

The proposal — which U.S. officials said would help Mexico fight the cartels that threaten to overwhelm its security forces — stoked traditionally deep suspicions here of Washington's motives, with politicians and journalists voicing concerns about U.S. intervention in Mexican affairs.

USA Today summarizes the history/challenge this way:

The request marked a major shift in Mexico's dealings with the United States. Mexico has long avoided U.S. military intervention, turning down most military aid offers, refusing to participate in joint military exercises and barring U.S. troops from operating on Mexican soil.

The distrust dates from the Mexican-American war in 1846-1848, in which Mexico lost half of its territory to the United States. The increase in organized crime has made the problem more urgent to the Mexican public, overwhelming objections to U.S. involvement, said Ana Laura Magaloni, a professor of international law at the Center for Economics Research and Education, a top foreign policy school in Mexico City.

Challenges Ahead
The Associated Press reports today that: The U.S. government is vowing to spend $1.4 billion to help Mexico battle violent drug gangs, but the money will be largely wasted if authorities here don't cut the ties between police forces and organized crime, security analysts say.

And there's lots of doubt to go around Capitol Hill. The San Antonio Express-News reports on doubts being raised there.

Our Recent Focus on this Issue
We've been blogging about this new "Plan Mexico" during the last few weeks and our writers have focused on the broader topic for many moths. When the news first broke we asked our members: "Can Mexico win the war against drug cartels with U.S. help?"

MATT columnist E.J. Rangel recently wrote about the urgency of a binational approach to the anti-drug efforts. And last March, just two months after the new Mexican president took office, wrote about a drug crackdown that he argued was right on target.

Is Mexican drug violence going to spill into the United States?

"The deteriorating security situation has profound implications not only for Mexico but also for the United States, since drug violence increasingly crosses the border," says the report, submitted to Gov. Rick Perry's Texas Border Security Council.

Lou Dobbs is at it again. In his latest column for CNN.com he slams President Bush and brings back the alarmist, conspiracy theory: that the U.S. is headed down the tubes:

Sadly, this president has diminished a great nation and may diminish it further. President Bush has pressed hard for the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the first step toward a North American Union that will threaten our sovereignty. This administration has permitted American businesses to hire illegal aliens, encouraged the invasion of 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens and has given Mexico and corporate America dominion over our borders and our immigration policy.

This week we’re asking you to weigh in on whether the Mexico can win the war against drug cartels with help from the United States.

The U.S. Congress may soon be asked to vote on a massive billion-dollar anti-drug aid package. Do you think this enormous budget is enough to win the war on drugs in Mexico? Should the U.S. be investing in the battle within Mexico?

Last week the Dallas Morning News reported on some of the initial details (excerpts):

Tucked in the Pentagon’s massive budget request is at least $1.4 billion in U.S. aid to Mexico for its fight against increasingly violent drug kingpins – including better training and high-tech tools.

Negotiators for the two countries have agreed on the package now awaiting U.S. congressional approval, officials familiar with the proposal said Monday.

Both U.S. and Mexican officials have said the package is needed to fight a common threat – one that has leeched over the border and into North Texas.

According to a report from the Financial Times today (excerpts):

The US intends to supply Mexico with a $1bn aid package to help combat an increasingly costly and violent war against drugs, according to a top Mexican diplomat.

The agreement, which some experts have dubbed ”Plan Mexico” after the controversial multi-billion-dollar anti-narcotics package that the US established with Colombia in 2000, would be spread over two years and include the supply of intelligence, training and equipment such as helicopters and boats.

However, Carlos Rico, Mexico’s undersecretary for North American affairs, said the plan would not resemble the aid package with Colombia. In particular, he said, no US troops would be allowed to operate on Mexican soil, thus sidestepping the particularly sensitive issue of Mexican sovereignty.

The programme, which is to be called the Joint Strategy to Fight Organised Crime and which requires approval by the US Congress before it can be rolled out next year, will probably be seen as a significant victory for Felipe Calderón, Mexico’s centre-right president.

Just last week the U.S. and Mexico announced a milestone in the joint fight against drugs and are claiming key victories. Has the price of cocaine risen because of the crackdown? Are successes rising simply because drug shipments are increasing?

Interestingly, Reuters has an article about the obstables the U.S. government faces in fighting against drug producers in other countries and how their best allies may not be the policy but rather the militaries (two excerpts).

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has won praise from Washington for deploying about 25,000 troops to fight drug-smuggling cartels since he took office last December.

Some Latin American countries, where memories of U.S.-backed dictatorships are still fresh, are reluctant to involve their armed forces in such a role. The Brazilian military has resisted joining the fight against drugs gangs in Rio de Janeiro, saying soldiers are not trained for such missions and it would be unconstitutional.

But at least one major human rights advocate in Mexico wants the country’s military to be taken off the anti-drug assignment. Has the Mexican army committed human rights violations during the war on drugs?

Does Mexico has a recent record of cross-border cooperation on this issue? The San Antonio Express-News editorial board raises doubts about the potential for success based upon systemic problems in Mexico (excerpt):

Mexico, meanwhile, faces its own problem in the war against drugs — corruption. It is hard to fight the bad guys when the bad guys wear badges. The federal government has launched an initiative to weed out dirty cops, but the problem is so systemic that it may take years before a resolution is reached.

With such an enormous challenge, Mexico cannot succeed without help from its neighbor across the river. Cooperation is vital. If problems do not stop at the checkpoints, neither should the solutions to those problems.

Last month, MATT columnist E.J. Rangel wrote about the urgency of a binational approach to the anti-drug efforts. And last March, just two months after the new Mexican president took office, wrote about a drug crackdown that he argued was right on target.

What do you think about the apparent U.S. plan to fund a $1 billion Mexico anti-cartel effort? Join MATT.org and comment here!

See a CNN slideshow of Latinos who are changing the face of America, including MATT.org's own Executive director Lionel Sosa, who founded the largest Hispanic advertising agency in the U.S., and is also an accomplished painter, author, and consultant.

Others who made the list?

Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico and Democratic presidential hopeful

Gloria Estefan, Cuban-born entertainer who fled her home country in 1959 as a 2-year-old with her family

Jose Gomez, Archbishop of San Antonio, Texas

Pedro Alvarado, former undocumented immigrant and current head of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network

Mel Martinez, Cuban-born Republican Senator from Florida

Robert Rodriguez, Mexican-American filmmaker and created of "El Mariachi", "Sin City", and many other films

Jorge Ramos, Univision news anchor

Anthony Romero, Puerto Rican Director of the American Civil Liberties Union

Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez, pioneering "chica lit" author

Alex Rodriguez, Domincan-American Yankees slugger

Franklin Chang-Diaz, Costa Rican-born astronaut

The San Antonio Express-News's David Hendricks penned a column last week on a Mexico-to-U.S. trade mission that stopped in San Antonio before heading to Washington, DC. He writes that:

In San Antonio, the Mexican delegation visited the University of Texas at San Antonio's Institute for Economic Development before meeting in Washington with U.S. Small Business Administration officials and U.S. House Small Business Committee members.

The group would not have visited any other U.S. business development center other than UTSA's.

The UTSA institute's International Trade Center already has trained about 40 groups at Mexican universities to start similar business development centers. The grass-roots Mexican centers may be newer, more informal and simpler versions of U.S. centers, but Mexico's federal government senses their potential.

The Mexicans aim to boost the reach of the business-assistance centers by creating a national framework for their operations and adding incentives for the development of small- and medium-sized businesses.