“If they (the Administration) can’t get a hold and change the narrative, it’s going to cause a lot of trouble for the White House,” said Republican strategist Danny Vargas on MSNBC today.

So will the focus on these issues and controversies derail an immigration bill from reaching the President’s desk by the end of the summer?

Immigration supporters in the Senate say this is not the case.

“We are really making a lot of headway through the Senate Judiciary Committee right now; in fact, it’s getting done as we speak,” says José Parra, director of Hispanic media and Deputy Director of Communications for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

“Senator Reid has said from the beginning this is one of his top if not the top priority, and he continues to think so,” states Parra. “He intends to have it on the floor in the month of June,” he adds.

Katherine Vargas, White House Director of Hispanic Media, says the President summed it up best in a recent news conference .  ”I feel confident that the bipartisan work that’s been done on immigration reform will result in a bill that passes the Senate, passes the House, and gets on my desk. And that’s going to be a historic achievement,”  said President Obama, when asked about the prospects of immigration legislation this year.

But others, like University of Notre Dame professor Allert Brown-Gort, are not so sure.

“It’s not whether Benghazi or the IRS or AP sucks the oxygen out of the room for immigration reform – it’s whether some Republicans, especially in the House, will use this as an excuse to put off hearings and not move the legislation forward,” says Brown-Gort, a faculty fellow at the Kellogg Institute for International Studies at the University of Notre Dame.

Brown-Gort says that while the Republican party leadership and the “intelligentsia” are pushing for it, “their base is saying ‘no’ – the Republicans got hoisted on their own petard on the success of the word amnesty,’ he adds.

Immigration reform advocates point to the fact that only a small group of House Republicans joined a press conference yesterday against the current immigration reform bill.  ”The House press conference underscored the fact that these opponents are rapidly losing influence,” said America’s Voice Frank Sharry. Conservative Republican Congressman Steve Stockman said in the press conference they will have a “gang of millions” against the bill.

In the meantime, the Senate Judiciary Committee meets tomorrow again – and at least in the Senate, the bill is on its way.

“I strongly urge that you and President Obama demand the IRS Commissioner’s resignation, effectively immediately,” said Senator Rubio in a letter sent to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew. “No government agency that has behaved in such a manner can possibly instill any faith and respect from the American public,” Rubio said in his statement.

The Senator’s comments immediately elicited comments on Twitter since technically there is no current IRS Commissioner; there is only an Acting Commissioner.

Today Marco #Rubio called for the resignation of IRS commissioner. That position is vacant since November. #gop

— Sona Dilanyan (@SonaDilanyan) May 13, 2013

Rubio spokesperson Alex Conant, however, said Senator Rubio’s letter was referring to Acting Commissioner Steven Miller.

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) today filed an amendment to the Water Resources Development Act to prevent the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from abusing its powers to violate first amendment rights.

Rubio will introduce identical legislation, the Taxpayer Nondiscrimination & Protection Act of 2013, in the Senate tomorrow.

In a press conference today with British Prime Minister David Cameron, President Obama said about the issue, “”If in fact IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that’s outrageous and there’s no place for it,” he said.

Republican lawmakers have called for an investigation and the House Ways and Means Committee is holding a hearing April 17th.

RELATED: Obama: IRS targeting of conservative groups outrageous

Boosted by reassuring jobs numbers, Obama is calling for greater trade and economic cooperation with the U.S.’s southern neighbors, arguing that economic prosperity is the best antidote to drug and gang violence and, by extension, to the illegal immigration the U.S. is seeking to control.

In his radio and Internet address Saturday, Obama also made the case that deepening economic ties with the Americas means more jobs in the United States.

“One of the best ways to grow our economy is to sell more goods and services made in America to the rest of the world,” he said. “That includes our neighbors to the south.”

During the trip Obama has tried to modulate the exercise of U.S. influence. He has refused to insert himself in Mexico’s strategy for confronting narcotrafficking, even if it means more limited access by U.S. security officials to Mexican law enforcement. In Costa Rica, he urged Central American leaders to integrate their economies, reduce their high energy costs and confront the violence in the region.

“As governments, our job is to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to provide security and opportunity and ladders for success and prosperity for our people,” he told the regional leaders at the start of a dinner Friday. “Economic growth that creates jobs, security for people so that they can be safe in their own neighborhoods, and development that allows people to live in dignity.”

On Saturday, Obama to speak and takes questions during a forum on economic growth and development.

In addition to its economic aims, the trip served as a nod by Obama to the vast Hispanic population in the United States, which heavily supported him in the 2012 election and which retains strong family and cultural ties to Latin America.

“In fact,” he said Friday in a speech aimed at young people in Mexico City, “without the strong support of Latinos, including so many Mexican Americans, I would not be standing today as president of the United States. That’s the truth.”

A theme during the trip was the U.S. effort to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws, an issue of intense interest among Latinos in the United States and in Mexico and Central America.

The vast majority of the 11 million immigrants illegally in the U.S. are from Latin America, 6 million of them from Mexico alone. Obama supports legislation that would give those immigrants a path to U.S. citizenship and he told Univision in an interview aired Friday that he would not sign a bill that did not provide such a pathway. Republicans are demanding greater border security.

“The truth is, right now, our border with Mexico is more secure than it’s been in years,” he said in the radio address. “We’ve put more boots on that border than at any time in our history, and illegal crossings are down by nearly 80 percent from their peak in 2000.”

The immigration legislation should be a compromise, he said, “which means that nobody got everything they wanted — including me.”

As Congress debates immigration legislation, Obama’s bullish — even overly rosy — depiction of Mexico’s economic prospects were meant to convince the U.S. public and lawmakers that Mexico no longer poses the illegal immigration threat it once did.

“The long-term solution to the challenge of illegal immigration is a growing and prosperous Mexico that creates more jobs and opportunities for young people here,” he said.

Mexico, Obama said, has lifted millions of people from poverty.

But while Mexico’s economy has grown, it has yet to trickle down to average workers. Huge poverty rates held steady between late 2006 and 2010, the most recent year for which government statistics are available. Between 40 and 50 percent of the population of 112 million Mexicans live in poverty, earning less than $100 a month.

Even as he tried to keep the focus on the economy and immigration, Obama did not escape the issue of drugs and violence wracking the region. In the Costa Rican capital Friday, Obama said the U.S. and Latin America share “common effects and common responsibilities” for the troubles and argued to his dining companions Friday that his country has suffered from the drug epidemic as well.

“If you go to my hometown of Chicago, and you go to some neighborhoods, they’re just as violent, if not more violent than some of the countries at this table — in part because of the pernicious influence of the drug trade,” he said.

Drug-fueled violence remains an undeniable part of daily life in many parts of the region. Costa Rica has fared better than many of its neighbors, but it worries about spillover from nearby countries. Honduras, for example, now has the highest homicide rate in the world, with about 7,200 people murdered last year in the tiny nation of 8 million people, most in drug-related crime.

Obama acknowledged the role of U.S. demand for drugs and said his administration has spent $30 billion to reduce demand in recent years. But he acknowledged that the United States remains a “big market” and that “progress is sometimes slower than we’d like it to be.”

Obama also could not avoid entanglements beyond the region. Questions about Syria dogged him and his aides during the trip. On Friday, he virtually ruled out sending U.S troops into the country torn by civil war, saying he did “not foresee a scenario” for doing so.

In the Republican address Saturday, North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory argued that Washington should learn from Republican governors on how to make government work efficiently. He said governors need Washington to give states more flexibility, independence and accountability and called on Obama to show more leadership.

According to new findings from the Pew Research Global Attitudes Project, the U.S. is enjoying a resurgence of goodwill among the Mexican public. The study, which was a national opinion survey of Mexico, says that two-thirds of Mexicans have a favorable view of the United States. That number is up from 56 percent a year ago in 2012.

RELATED: Opinion: President Obama has the chance to improve U.S. Mexico relations

One of the factors behind the rise in esteem may be a push toward immigration policy reform. Back in 2010 when Arizona’s restrictive immigration SB 1070 law passed, favorable attitudes toward the United States slipped to just 44 percent.

But perhaps one of the most striking findings of the poll was that the majority of Mexicans would not move to the United States if they had the chance. Six in ten Mexicans say they would not move to the U.S. even if they had the means and opportunity to do so. Still, a large minority of 35 percent would move, including 20 percent who would do so without authorization.

The general view of the United States wasn’t the only image on the rise. President Obama also received higher approval ratings from Mexicans than he has in recent years. Approximately half, or 49 percent, of Mexicans are confident that he would do the right thing when it comes to world affairs. Although President Obama’s rating has yet to return to the 55 percent high it was at during his first few days in office, the number is on the rise from 38 percent in 2011 and 42 percent in 2012.

RELATED: Mexico urges U.S. court to prevent Arizona’s ban on harboring of undocumented immigrants

When the president heads to Mexico later this week, deepening economic and commercial relations between the United States and Mexico will likely be key items on the agenda. When it comes to key interests like these, Mexicans also believe that the United States takes their country’s interests into account when deciding international policy. An estimated 51 percent say Washington considers their country’s interests while 45 percent say that it does not. While the margin of Mexicans who think positively of the United States in this respect is narrow,  it represents a major shift from 2012. Opinion leaned in the opposite direction then, with 56 percent saying the U.S. did not consider Mexico’s interests.

Released on April 15, the deadline to file taxes, Bush calls it Obama’s favorite day of the year and contrasts his conservative values with an Obama he says is only interested in growing federal government and collecting taxes.

“While our president is celebrating higher taxes and bigger government, here in Texas we’re creating jobs and building economic opportunity for everyone,” Bush says, alternating his talk to the camera with video of Obama dancing at fundraisers and on the Ellen DeGeneres show before his 2008 election.

RELATED: George P. Bush running for powerful Texas office

Bush also included a hashtag, #Obamataxday, for viewers to send a message to the president.

Check out my #ObamaTaxDay video at georgepfortexas.org and let’s remember to keep fighting for limited government #txlandcomm

— George P. Bush (@georgepbush) April 15, 2013

George P. Bush hits the nail on the head with this #ObamaTaxDay video youtu.be/R86hK5nkeTw

— Mike Garcia (@mikeGsays) April 15, 2013

Check out @georgepbush lastest clip on georgepfortexas.orgabout #obamataxday.Keep up the momentum. #sayfie @marcacaputo

— Luis A. Gazitua (@Gazi2a) April 15, 2013

But not everyone loved the George P. Bush focus on Obama.

#ThingsRepublicansWould Say #GOP #obamataxday twitter.com/FRANKBISHOP2/s…

— FRANK VELASQUEZ (@FRANKBISHOP2) April 15, 2013

Meanwhile, conservatives have launched the hashtag #ObamaTaxDay because Obama invented taxes

— Martin Gelin (@M_Gelin) April 15, 2013

And this morning, The RocNation president did just that.

Releasing a new song titled “Open Letter,” the “Empire State of Mind” emcee addressed the backlash from conservatives that came with his fifth wedding anniversary trip to Cuba with his wife, pop star Beyoncé.

To read the rest of the story and to listen to the track go to www.thegrio.com

Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico are independent-minded states that once leaned Republican but are trending Democratic, partly because of increasing numbers of Hispanic voters alienated from the GOP by its tough stance on illegal immigration.

California, a GOP bastion for decades, is now solidly Democratic and the ultimate example of the dangers for Republicans on this issue.

Nowhere is a harder line on immigration taken than in Arizona, where Republicans have a lock on statewide offices and dominate the Legislature.

In November, Democrats picked up two congressional seats, but Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney easily won the state with a slightly better margin against President Barack Obama than Arizona Sen. John McCain posted in the 2008 White House contest.

RELATED: Court asked to bar a piece of the Arizona immigration law

That record has led advocates of tighter immigration restrictions to point to Arizona as a model for how Republicans can maintain their tough stance on the issue and still win elections.

“It’s an example of a different way for things to play out than the conventional story,” Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank that favors tighter immigration policies, said of Arizona. “What’s happened there is the non-Hispanic vote has become increasingly Republican.”

National Republicans, aware of demographic trends, are pondering how to win over more Hispanic voters in order to be more competitive in presidential elections. It’s unclear whether Arizona will remain a GOP stronghold.

Plenty of Arizona Republicans fear their state will go the way of its neighbors unless the GOP softens its immigration stance. That includes McCain, who in 2005 joined with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., to sponsor legislation that included a pathway to citizenship for immigrants in the country illegally.

A staunch supporter of strict border enforcement in 2008 and 2010, McCain has swung back after last year’s election to supporting an overhaul of the immigration system that includes citizenship for those in the U.S. without authorization. He says he was convinced the GOP could not survive with a hard-line stance in states like his.

RELATED: Sen. McCain faces tough immigration questions at town hall

“If you have a large bloc of Americans who believe you’re trying to keep their … fellow Hispanics down and deprive them of an opportunity, obviously that’s going to have an effect,” McCain told reporters earlier this year.

During the 2012 presidential campaign, Romney called for “self-deportation,” or creating an environment so uncomfortable for immigrants here illegally that they would choose to return to their original countries. Romney also praised Arizona’s approach to immigration.

Two years earlier, the state became well-known for restrictive immigration legislation with the passage of legislation requiring police officers, while enforcing other laws, to question the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally. While that part of the statute survived, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down three other provisions of the law.

Arizona’s stance has national implications as leading Republicans try to reorient their party following the 2012 election, when Hispanics, African-Americans and Asians went for Obama in overwhelming numbers.

A Republican National Committee panel recently released a report that advises more outreach to minorities and support for an immigration overhaul that eventually would legalize the status of most immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally. That’s an idea that’s anathema to some Arizona Republicans.

RELATED: GOP to spend $10 million in outreach to Latinos, African-Americans and Asians

A bipartisan group of eight senators, including McCain and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. – is drawing up a bill that includes such a provision.

Arizona was always one of the less-promising states for Democrats for reasons other than immigration, said Scott Smith, the Republican mayor of Mesa, a Phoenix suburb.

“You have a lot of retirees in Arizona – Midwestern, conservative Republicans,” he said. “Republicans far outnumber Democrats in registration, and the independents tend to be conservative more than liberal.”

President Bill Clinton helped make immigration a major issue in Arizona.

In an attempt to tamp down illegal immigration in California, his administration fortified the border with Mexico in the late 1990s.

RELATED: At Arizona’s border morgue, bodies keep coming

The bolstered enforcement effectively pushed migrants east into the mostly empty desert that straddles Arizona and the Mexican state of Sonora.

As crossing into the U.S. became harder, drug cartels and criminal syndicates expanded into human trafficking, with Phoenix becoming a major hub. The federal government warned Arizonans to stay out of various parks and swaths of public land for fear they could stumble across armed smugglers. There was widespread fear.

“That entire impact just changed the way undocumented immigrants were seen in Arizona,” said Alfredo Gutierrez, a former Democratic president of the state Senate and an immigrant rights activist. “It raised all kinds of opportunities for people to exploit this.”

Since the passage of SB 1070, the battles over immigration have torn the state’s Republican Party.

Business leaders successfully stopped the passage of more aggressive measures in 2011. The law’s architect, former State Senate President Russell Pearce, was recalled from office and last year lost a Republican primary trying to return to office.

“Republicans in Arizona have shifted pretty dramatically in how they look at this issue,” said Glenn Hamer, president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, which spearheaded the push to block more stringent immigration legislation and supports the federal immigration overhaul.

“If the current voting patterns hold, it’s impossible to see in 10-20 years the same sort of results for Republicans” as they enjoy here now, he said.

From Hamer’s perspective, the math is basic.

Arizona has stayed Republican because in exit polls over the past decade whites, currently 74 percent of the state’s voters, have backed GOP presidential candidates by roughly 3-to-2 margins, even while Hispanics vote Democratic by 3-to-1. By contrast, whites only narrowly supported Republican presidential candidates in neighboring swing states.

Hispanics are 30 percent of Arizona’s population but made up only 18 percent of its voters in November. One-third of them are not citizens and cannot vote, while 18 percent of the Hispanics are here illegally.

But Arizona’s Hispanic population is unusually young, with a median age of 24, while its white population is significantly older, with a median age of 44. Political analysts say that makes it inevitable that at some point in the next decade or two Hispanic voters will overwhelm white voters.

Nonetheless, plenty of Arizona politicians are holding their strict stance in the immigration debate.

Recently, Attorney General Tom Horne, who came to prominence by banning a Mexican-American studies class in Tucson schools, argued for the constitutionality of a 2005 referendum that requires all voters to prove citizenship before casting a ballot.

The Legislature is considering tightening voting procedures in a way that Latino activists contend will lead to a disproportionate number of their voters being dropped from the rolls.

Gov. Jan Brewer became a heroine to those who favor immigration restrictions after signing SB1070. She has lashed out at the suggestion by the Obama administration and immigrant rights groups that the border is secure enough to legalize the status of many immigrants.

“A lot of the legislation we passed is in concert with what the people demanded of us,” said state Rep. Steve Smith, a Republican who is author of a bill allowing the state to collect donations to build a border fence.

“We have a front row seat to it. People see the direct, detrimental effect of the drugs, the gangs, the smuggling and what they are doing to our state.”

Smith said he thinks Republicans should not abandon their forthright stance on immigration because it has won them support in Arizona and beyond. “Don’t sell your morals, beliefs and thoughts down the river,” he said. “When I, or other elected officials, or our governor, go to other states, people there say `Thank God for Arizona.’”

—

In an interview with Telemundo’s Lori Montenegro, Obama acknowledged a stumbling block between labor and business over wages and guest worker programs, but said that it would not derail introduction of legislation.

“I think we’ve seen enormous progress over the last month and a half,” Obama says. “I think both sides — Democrats and Republicans have been very serious about the negotiations.  I’m actually very optimistic that when they return in early April that we’ll see a bill ready to move through the process.”

The president also stressed once again that a pathway to citizenship will be included in the final leglislation.

RELATED: Poll: Immigration reform now top issue for Latinos, path to citizenship vital to winning their support

“The most important thing is that we’re seeing a strong commitment to finally solve this problem in a way that strengthens our border security, makes sure that there’s a pathway to citizenship,” he said.  ”An earned one, a tough one, but a pathway so that people can live out their dreams and make sure that they have a better life for themselves and their kids.

Obama reiterated that he sees a commitment from both parties to cross the finish line, but addressed concerns that the immigration reform timeline will be dragged on, noting that he has a fail safe.

“I’ve always said that if I see a breakdown in the process, that I’ve got my own legislation,” he said.

“I’m prepared to step in.  But I don’t think that’s gonna be necessary.”

Obama said immigration reform should be complete by the end of the summer.

RELATED: Opinion: McCain should drop the “I-word” — and Schumer should too

The U.S. and Venezuela have not had Ambassadors in two years.  Despite this, the U.S. has had a long relationship with Venezuela, explains Shannon O’Neil,  Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“What has been interesting is that for all the rhetorical animosity over the last decade, the oil flows have continued,” says O’Neil.  ”For Venezuela, the U.S. is still the most important export market; we’re 40 percent of their exports, and the relationship will continue,” she adds.

Regarding Maduro’s recent comments, University of Illinois Urbana-Champlain political scientist Damaris Canache says this is part of the Venezuelan Vice President’s campaign for the presidency. “Maduro needs to continue keeping his base of support united,” Canache says.  It would be too costly politically for Maduro to engage in improving U.S. relations now.  ”That will have to wait until after the elections,” says Canache.

So the question is, how does the U.S. begin to form relations with the new government?  U.S. officials say the most important thing moving forward is that elections, expected in 30 days, are fair and democratic. Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, said Chávez’ passing has left a political void, “that we hope will be filled peacefully and through a constitutional and democratic process, grounded in the Venezuelan constitution and adhering to the Inter-American Democratic Charter.”

But as Venezuela gears up for elections in the next few weeks, the U.S. is better off standing back a bit, according to O’Neil.  ”There is not a lot the U.S. can do actively that would not be counterproductive,” she says.  Neighboring countries like Colombia and Brazil, who have a big stake in the stability of Venezuela, could encourage free and fair elections in a way which might be more difficult for the U.S., O’Neil explains.

Republican Senator Marco Rubio said the U.S. should keep a “watchful eye” on the security situation in Venezuela. State Department officials, however, said they have no reason to think there are any security threats to American personnel and the mourning in the country has been quiet and peaceful.

Senior State Department officials say they hope they can forge a future relationship with Venezuela on issues such as regional security or counternarcotics.  For now, there is a certain wait-and-see period. While some analysts worry about an entrenched animosity toward the U.S., other experts say there is reason to believe relations could improve – and say the U.S. should seize the opportunity, in Venezuela and in the region.

“In Venezuela there will be a lot of rhetoric about the elections in the next 30 days, but I think long-term there will be an opening,” says Miguel Tinker Salas, a history professor at Pomona College and the author of  “The Enduring Legacy: Oil, Culture and Society in Venezuela.”      ”The bottom line is, this is not the Latin America of the 1990s or even 2005,” says Tinker Salas. “There are new sectors demanding a mutual conversation.”

In that column, I expressed hope that Latino voters would punish Obama at election time for failing to live up to his promise to lead on immigration reform. I observed that he’d been spectacularly insulting in how he’d gone about doing outreach on the issue earlier that year.

Calling on such public policy luminaries as Don Francisco, the host of a weekly variety show and jiggle-fest, “Sabado Gigante,” and Piolin Sotelo, a California-based shock jock, to be part of a group of “influential Hispanics,” Obama got them to publicly state that he must obey the letter of the law and wait for Congress to act. At that time, I also quoted immigrant activists who were trying to get Latinos to the polls, but asking them to not vote for president in order to send Obama a message.

Despite some influential Hispanics actually calling for a no-Obama vote in the days leading up to the election, we know the president won with hefty Latino support. Still, at the end of January, Obama traveled to Las Vegas to deliver his support for a compromise, leaving those who were paying attention to the substance of his remarks to note, as did Julianne Hing in a tweet, “Obama’s very first immigration reform promise is more of the same: enforcement, enforcement, enforcement.”

In mid-February, USA Today reported that last year, U.S. immigration officials intentionally increased expulsions of immigrants convicted of minor crimes such as traffic violations in order to meet their criminal deportation targets.

Soon after, when the president’s framework for an immigration reform was leaked, tongues started wagging that Obama was actually hoping to tank a grand immigration bargain so Democrats could have a hammer with which to pummel Republicans during the 2014 midterm elections and the 2016 presidential race.

The evidence that Obama is not really leading on immigration is incontrovertible, but he’s still got Latinos wrapped around his little finger.

According to a recent survey by the Pew Hispanic Center and USA Today: “There has been a complete turnaround in how Hispanics view Obama’s handling of immigration.” Today, 63 percent approve while only 27 percent disapprove.

“In November 2011, that margin was reversed: 28 percent of Hispanics approved of the job Obama was doing on immigration policy while 59 percent disapproved,” Pew reports. Overall, 44 percent of Americans approve of how Obama is handling immigration policy, compared with 43 percent who disapprove. “Approval is up 12 points from November 2011 and marks the first time in Obama’s presidency that disapproval has not outweighed approval,” a change that Pew says was “driven in large part by improved ratings from Hispanics.”

Why?!

I’m infuriated that Obama is manipulating voters with this issue and I just don’t understand why other Latinos aren’t angry, too. Are we just that dumb?

“No, it comes down to three things: status, partisanship and trust,” said Stephen A. Nuno, an assistant professor in the department of politics and international affairs at Northern Arizona University. “For one, Latinos are very diverse and they’re as split along class lines as is the rest of the country. You have Latinos that aren’t affected by immigration policy, such as the wealthy Latinos who have been in the U.S. for multiple generations. And, of course, status also can mean citizenship status, which is varied among Latinos as well.

“Then there’s partisanship,” Nuno told me. “Party is as important to Latinos as to other folks. Latinos are loyal to Democrats and when your party is doing something wrong, even to the people you empathize with the most, you’re more likely to give them that latitude.

“Last is trust. When you distrust the alternative so much, you’re willing to tolerate a lot more from the one you do trust. It’s kind of like a battered child who still loves their parents — they might beat you but they’re your parents so you still trust them.”

This is what happens when a whole body of voters get dehumanized and demonized by an opposing party: They become unable to realize how disrespected, neglected and taken for granted they are by their own.

It isn’t just gullibility, it’s tragedy.

Esther Cepeda is a syndicated columnist and NBC Latino Contributor.