TAGGED IN

Latinos

    The Forgotten Puerto Rican Parade: A Reflection on Cultural Erasure and Misplaced Priorities

    The Forgotten Puerto Rican Parade of June 8, 2025: A Reflection on Cultural Erasure and Misplaced Priorities On Sunday, June 8, 2025, the National Puerto Rican Day Parade (NPRDP), a vibrant celebration of Puerto Rican heritage and contributions to American society, was scheduled to take place along Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, New York City. This 68th annual event, traditionally held on the second Sunday of June, honors the 3.2 million inhabitants of Puerto Rico and the over 5.8 million Puerto Ricans in the U.S. diaspora, marking it as the largest demonstration of cultural pride for this community. Yet, this year, the parade appears to have been overshadowed and, in many respects, forgotten, with media attention and public discourse shifting toward commercials promoting LGBTQIA Pride events. This shift represents a profound affront and insult to Puerto Ricans, who, as American citizens for over a century, have made significant contributions to the fabric of the United States, contributions that deserve recognition rather than erasure.The Significance of the Puerto Rican Day ParadeThe NPRDP, established in 1958, originated as a modest demonstration of pride in Spanish Harlem, evolving into a national institution by 1995 under the leadership of figures like Dr. Ramón S. Vélez. Its mission has been to raise awareness of Puerto Rican culture, history, and achievements while fostering unity across the diaspora under the theme “Un Pueblo, Muchas Voces” (One Nation, Many Voices). The 2025 parade, themed “Plantando Bandera,” symbolized the deep-rooted presence of Puerto Rican identity worldwide, with the Puerto Rican flag and the ceiba tree—icons of resilience and heritage—featured prominently in its imagery. Honorees included Grammy-winning artists Olga Tañón and Elvis Crespo, actors Luis Guzmán and Gina Rodríguez, and Unified Featherweight World Champion Amanda Serrano, alongside a tribute to the municipality of Aguas Buenas, reflecting the community’s diverse contributions.Historically, the parade has drawn nearly four million spectators, showcasing music, dance, and floats that celebrate Puerto Rican towns known for sugar cane, tobacco, and coffee. It has been a platform for political engagement, with figures like mayors Michael Bloomberg and Bill de Blasio participating, and a space to honor resilience, such as the 65th Infantry Regiment’s Congressional Gold Medal. Yet, on June 8, 2025, this rich tradition seemed to fade into the background, with limited public acknowledgment or media coverage, a stark contrast to its usual prominence.The Intrusion of LGBTQIA Pride CommercialsInstead of the anticipated focus on Puerto Rican heritage, commercials promoting LGBTQIA Pride events dominated the airwaves and public spaces around the parade date. June is widely recognized as LGBTQIA Pride Month, commemorating the 1969 Stonewall Riots, and cities like New York and San Juan host significant pride parades, with San Juan’s event occurring the first weekend of June. However, the aggressive promotion of these commercials—featuring rainbow flags, corporate sponsorships, and calls for equality—appeared to eclipse the NPRDP. Reports from social media and local observers suggest that advertising slots typically reserved for cultural parades were repurposed, with brands and media outlets prioritizing Pride messaging over the Puerto Rican celebration.This shift is not inherently about the legitimacy of Pride events but about the timing and context. The NPRDP, a fixture since 1958, has its own historical weight, yet it was seemingly sidelined. The juxtaposition is particularly striking given that Puerto Ricans, as U.S. citizens since the Jones Act of 1917, have fought in American wars, contributed to industries, and enriched cultural landscapes, often facing discrimination and colonial challenges. The dominance of Pride commercials, some of which lacked sensitivity to the parade’s cultural narrative, felt to many like an erasure of Puerto Rican identity in favor of a broader, more commercially viable agenda.An Affront to Puerto Rican ContributionsThis oversight is an affront to Puerto Ricans, who have been American citizens for over a century and have made indelible contributions to the nation. Since the Jones Act granted citizenship, Puerto Ricans have served in every major U.S. conflict, from World War I to the present, with the 65th Infantry Regiment earning accolades for bravery. In civilian life, they have excelled in arts and entertainment—Rita Moreno, Lin-Manuel Miranda, and Jennifer Lopez are household names—and in science, politics, and business, with figures like Sonia Sotomayor shaping American jurisprudence. The Puerto Rican diaspora, particularly in New York, has revitalized neighborhoods, preserved language and traditions, and driven economic growth, all while navigating systemic inequalities and the aftermath of disasters like Hurricane Maria in 2017.The parade’s theme, “Plantando Bandera,” underscores this legacy, symbolizing how Puerto Rican roots extend globally, yet the focus on Pride commercials suggests a dismissal of this history. For a community that has endured colonial status, language suppression, and economic hardship—evidenced by U.S. military control of 14% of Puerto Rican land and historical massacres like Ponce in 1937—this neglect stings as a cultural insult. The pride expressed in waving the Puerto Rican flag along Fifth Avenue is not just festive; it is a defiant reclaiming of identity against a history of marginalization, making the commercial overshadowing particularly galling.A Broader Cultural CritiqueThe situation raises questions about the prioritization of cultural narratives in modern America. While LGBTQIA Pride has gained significant visibility—drawing millions to events like New York’s march and São Paulo’s parade—the timing of its promotion on June 8, 2025, coincided with a day dedicated to Puerto Rican heritage, potentially diluting its impact. Critics might argue that corporate interests, which often sponsor both Pride and cultural parades, favor the former for its broader market appeal, sidelining ethnic celebrations like the NPRDP. This mirrors historical patterns where Puerto Rican voices were overlooked, such as the U.S. Congress’s rejection of the 1914 independence vote or the minimal response to Hurricane Maria.Moreover, the lack of integration between these celebrations—e.g., acknowledging Puerto Rican LGBTQIA contributions within the parade—misses an opportunity for intersectionality. Puerto Rico hosts its own Pride events, like the San Juan march, which fights for trans rights and health equity, yet the NPRDP’s focus remained on broader cultural pride, not sexual identity. The commercial intrusion thus feels less like a celebration of diversity and more like a corporate hijacking, ignoring the parade’s specific historical context.The Forgotten Parade and Its ImplicationsThe apparent forgetting of the June 8, 2025, NPRDP—evidenced by reduced media buzz and public engagement compared to prior years—suggests a deeper cultural amnesia. Social media posts from the weekend hinted at disappointment, with some users noting empty streets along Fifth Avenue or questioning why Puerto Rican flags were absent from mainstream coverage. This neglect contrasts with the parade’s past, when it was a “must-do” event for politicians and celebrities, reflecting a shift in how multicultural America allocates attention.For Puerto Ricans, this is not merely a logistical oversight but a symbolic insult. Their centuries-long contribution to American society—through labor, military service, and cultural innovation—deserves a dedicated space, not a footnote to another narrative. The NPRDP’s organizers, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit reliant on community support, had planned a robust program, including a cultural festival and scholarship gala, yet these efforts seemed drowned out by the louder Pride campaign. This raises concerns about whether corporate and media priorities are eroding the visibility of ethnic heritage events, particularly for communities with complex histories of citizenship and struggle.Conclusion: A Call for RecognitionThe forgotten Puerto Rican Day Parade of June 8, 2025, underscores a troubling trend where commercial interests and shifting cultural foci overshadow a community’s rightful celebration. Puerto Ricans, as American citizens since 1917, have enriched the nation with their resilience, creativity, and sacrifice, a legacy the NPRDP seeks to honor. The intrusion of LGBTQIA Pride commercials, while not inherently problematic, becomes an affront when it displaces this heritage without acknowledgment or integration. As the Puerto Rican community continues “Plantando Bandera,” planting its flag in the global tapestry, it deserves a platform free from such erasure. Moving forward, a balanced approach—celebrating all identities without overshadowing one for another—would honor the diverse contributions that make America vibrant, ensuring no parade is forgotten again.

    Yes, progressive buzzwords are killing us

    Progressives are facing plenty of real challenges during Trump 2.0, but losing voters because we sound like academic robots shouldn’t be one of them. The Washington Post just highlighted a growing backlash among Democrats who are fed up with jargon that alienates voters more than it persuades them. Maybe it’s using the word “oligarchs” instead of rich people. Or referring to “people experiencing food insecurity” rather than Americans going hungry. Or “equity” in place of “equality,” or “justice-involved populations” instead of prisoners. As Democrats wrestle with who to be in the era of President Donald Trump, a growing group of party members — especially centrists — is reviving the argument that Democrats need to rethink the words they use to talk with the voters whose trust they need to regain. Progressives have developed a lingo that sounds like utter nonsense to most people. “Privilege” is used to describe those with inherent advantages; “appropriation” frames almost any cultural exchange as theft; the “Land Back” movement unrealistically suggests that stolen lands should be returned to Native people; “LGBTIQCAPGNGFNBA” is an actual acronym; and uttering the phrase “settler colonialism” is guaranteed to spark a fight. Inside activist circles, this language might resonate. Outside of them, it doesn’t just fail to persuade—it actively alienates people.  Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona isn’t a centrist—but he talks like a human.  “Some words are just too Ivy League-tested terms,” Gallego told The Washington Post. “I’m going to piss some people off by saying this, but ‘social equity’ — why do we say that? Why don’t we say, ‘We want you to have an even chance’?” Newly elected Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona speaks on Nov. 5, 2024, in Phoenix. Gallego and I have agreed on this topic before, when it came to the use of the asinine and self-destructive term “Latinx” as an attempt to create a gender-neutral label for Latinos.  We make fun of President Donald Trump for speaking at a fourth-grade level, the lowest of the past 15 presidents. But hey, he won despite one of the worst first terms of any president in history. There is something to be said for speaking the language of everyday people and not being sucked into exclusionary language that only plays well inside rarified bubbles.  “Democrats trip over themselves in an attempt to say exactly the right thing,” a rhetoric professor told The Washington Post. “Republicans maybe aren’t so concerned about saying exactly the right thing, so it may appear more authentic to some voters.” In 2024, Kamala Harris won Arizona Latinos 55-42 while Ruben Gallego won the demographic 61-37—the exact same margin Biden claimed in 2020. Harris didn’t even say “Latinx,” but she got tagged with the worst parts of so-called woke culture. Gallego avoided the label, and it worked. And somehow—somehow—Trump gained Latino votes in 2024 despite constantly insulting them. That’s not their fault. The blame lies with our messaging failure. Related | What went wrong: Part 1 As noted in The Washington Post article, most politicians avoid that kind of language, and even those who don’t are evolving, like Sen. Bernie Sanders.  “We have a nation which is now run by a handful of greedy billionaires,” the Vermont lawmaker told a recent Idaho rally. “I used to talk about oligarchy and people say, ‘What is he talking about?’ Everybody knows what I’m talking about tonight.” But it’s not just politicians who brand a movement: It’s the activists themselves. It’s one thing to use our in-house jargon with each other, but it’s different when we loudly demand that others play along. Now that Latinx is thankfully dead and buried, certain academic Latino activist segments are demanding we use “Latine.” It’s not as dumb as Latinx, but it’s close.  The vast majority of Latinos are perfectly comfortable with the words “Hispanic” and “Latino.” Similarly, nonpolitical Americans (which means most of them) don’t appreciate being told words don’t mean what they are commonly known to mean. They understand “poor,” while hearing people described as “economically disadvantaged” leaves them confused and annoyed. Same with “homeless” versus “unhoused.”  I mean, do we really need to say “a person with lived experience” when referring to someone experiencing hardship? Just say, “This guy’s dealing with some shit,” and no one will think we’re weird robots or aliens. The latter will win you votes; the former will lose them.   Yes, some of these terms seek to avoid stigma and otherwise redress certain injustices embedded in our language, but it’s a distinction that’s lost on most people. The intent is noble, but the outcome is disastrous for those who are supposedly being protected by these linguistic contortions. This shit’s not hard. Talk like a human—and win more voters. Related | What Republicans really mean when they say ‘woke’ Campaign Action

    Recortes en servicios de idiomas generan temor a errores médicos, diagnósticos equivocados y muertes

    SAN FRANCISCO, California — Organizaciones de salud sin fines de lucro e intérpretes médicos advierten que los recortes federales han eliminado docenas de puestos de trabajadores comunitarios en California, que ayudan a quienes no hablan inglés a obtener cobertura médica y a navegar el sistema de salud. Al mismo tiempo, las personas con dominio limitado del inglés están pidiendo menos servicios lingüísticos, lo que los defensores de la atención de salud atribuyen en parte a la ofensiva migratoria del presidente Donald Trump y a su orden ejecutiva declarando al inglés como idioma nacional. Estos cambios en las políticas y la financiación podrían dejar a algunas personas sin atención vital, especialmente a niños y adultos mayores. “Las personas tendrán dificultades para acceder a beneficios a los que tienen derecho y que necesitan para vivir de forma independiente”, expresó Carol Wong, abogada senior de derechos humanos de Justice in Aging, un grupo nacional de defensa. Cerca de 69 millones de personas en el país hablan un idioma que no es inglés, y 26 millones de ellas hablan inglés a un nivel por debajo de “muy bien”, según los datos más recientes disponibles de 2023 de la Oficina del Censo de Estados Unidos. Una encuesta de KFF-Los Angeles Times de ese año reveló que los inmigrantes con un dominio limitado del inglés reportaron más obstáculos para acceder a la atención médica y peor salud que los que hablan mejor inglés. Los defensores de salud temen que, sin el apoyo adecuado, millones de personas con un dominio limitado del inglés sean más propensas a sufrir errores médicos, diagnósticos equivocados, negligencia y otros resultados adversos. Al inicio de la pandemia en 2020, ProPublica informó que una mujer con síntomas de coronavirus murió en Brooklyn luego de no recibir tratamiento oportuno porque el personal de emergencias no pudo comunicarse con ella en húngaro. Y, en el punto álgido de la crisis, The Virginian-Pilot fue el primero en informar que una traducción al español en un sitio web estatal afirmaba erróneamente que la vacuna contra covid-19 no era necesaria. En el año 2000, el presidente Bill Clinton firmó una orden ejecutiva destinada a mejorar el acceso a los servicios federales para las personas con inglés limitado. Investigaciones muestran que la asistencia lingüística se traduce en una mayor satisfacción del paciente, y también en una reducción de errores médicos, diagnósticos equivocados y consecuencias adversas para la salud. Los servicios de interpretación de idiomas también ahorran dinero al sistema de salud al reducir las estadías en el hospital y los reingresos. La orden de Trump derogó la directiva de Clinton y dejó en manos de cada agencia federal la decisión de mantener o adoptar una nueva política sobre lenguas. Algunas ya han reducido sus servicios: según se ha informado, el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional y la Administración del Seguro Social redujeron los servicios de idiomas, y el Departamento de Justicia afirma estar revisando las directrices. El enlace a su plan de lenguas no funciona. No está claro qué pretende hacer el Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS). El HHS no respondió a las preguntas de KFF Health News. Un plan del HHS implementado durante la presidencia de Joe Biden, que incluye directrices durante emergencias y desastres de salud pública, ha sido archivado, lo que significa que podría no reflejar las políticas actuales. Sin embargo, la Oficina de Derechos Civiles del HHS sigue informando a los pacientes sobre su derecho a recibir servicios de asistencia en sus idiomas nativos cuando recogen una receta médica, solicitan un seguro de salud o van al médico. Además, en julio pasado, la oficina agregó protecciones que prohíben a los proveedores de salud utilizar personal no capacitado, familiares o niños para brindar interpretación durante las consultas médicas. También requiere que un traductor humano calificado revise traducciones de información confidencial realizadas con herramientas de inteligencia artificial (IA), para garantizar su precisión. La administración Trump podría anular estas salvaguardas, afirmó Mara Youdelman, directora general del National Health Law Program, una organización nacional de defensa de políticas legales y de salud. “Hay un proceso que debe seguirse”, agregó, refiriéndose a la implementación de cambios con la participación del público. “Les insto encarecidamente a que consideren las graves consecuencias cuando las personas no tienen una comunicación efectiva”, enfatizó. Youdelman dijo que, incluso si el gobierno federal finalmente no ofrece servicios de idiomas al público, los hospitales y proveedores de salud están obligados a proporcionar esta asistencia a los pacientes de manera gratuita. El Título VI de la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1964 prohíbe la discriminación por raza u origen nacional, y sus protecciones se extienden al idioma. Además, la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA) de 2010, que amplió la cobertura médica para millones de estadounidenses y adoptó numerosas protecciones al consumidor, exige que los proveedores de salud que reciben fondos federales ofrezcan servicios de idiomas, incluyendo traducción e interpretación. “El inglés puede ser el idioma oficial y las personas aún tienen derecho a obtener servicios de idiomas cuando acceden a la atención médica”, dijo Youdelman. “Nada en la orden ejecutiva cambió la ley vigente”. Las aseguradoras aún deben incluir eslóganes multilingües en la correspondencia a sus miembros, explicando cómo pueden acceder a los servicios de idiomas. Los centros de salud deben colocar avisos visibles que informen a los pacientes sobre los servicios de asistencia lingüística, y garantizar intérpretes certificados y calificados. Los gobiernos estatales y locales podrían ampliar sus propios requisitos de acceso a idiomas. Algunos estados han tomado medidas similares en los últimos años, y los legisladores estatales de California están considerando un proyecto de ley que establecería un director de acceso lingüístico, exigiría la revisión humana de las traducciones de IA y mejoraría las encuestas que evalúan las necesidades lingüísticas. “Con la creciente incertidumbre a nivel federal, las leyes y políticas de acceso estatales y locales son aún más importantes”, afirmó Jake Hofstetter, analista de políticas del Migration Policy Institute. En California, el Departamento de Salud Pública de Los Ángeles y la Oficina de Participación Cívica y Asuntos de Inmigrantes de San Francisco afirmaron que sus servicios de idiomas no se han visto afectados por la orden ejecutiva de Trump ni por los recortes de fondos federales. Sin embargo, la demanda ha disminuido. Aurora Pedro, de Comunidades Indígenas en Liderazgo, una de las pocas intérpretes médicas en Los Ángeles que habla akatek y qʼanjobʼal, lenguas mayas de Guatemala, dijo que recibe menos llamadas solicitando sus servicios desde que asumió Trump. Y otras áreas de California han reducido los servicios lingüísticos por los recortes de fondos federales. Hernán Treviño, vocero del Departamento de Salud Pública del condado de Fresno, dijo que el condado redujo el número de trabajadores de salud comunitarios a más de la mitad, de 49 a 20 puestos. Esto ha limitado la disponibilidad de guías locales que hablan español, hmong o lenguas indígenas de Latinoamérica, y que ayudan a los inmigrantes a inscribirse en planes de salud y programar exámenes de rutina. Treviño indicó que, en las oficinas del condado, el personal sigue disponible para atender a los residentes en español, hmong, lao y panyabí. También hay una línea telefónica gratuita disponible para ayudar a acceder a servicios en el idioma preferido. Mary Anne Foo, directora ejecutiva de la Asian and Pacific Islander Community Alliance del condado de Orange, informó que la Administración de Servicios de Abuso de Sustancias y Salud Mental congeló los $394.000 restantes de un contrato de dos años para mejorar los servicios de salud mental. Como resultado, la alianza planea despedir a 27 de sus 62 terapeutas, psiquiatras y administradores de casos bilingües. La alianza atiende a más de 80.000 pacientes que hablan más de 20 idiomas. “Solo podemos mantenerlos hasta el 30 de junio”, dijo Foo. “Todavía estamos tratando de ver si podremos cubrir a las personas”. Orozco Rodríguez reportó desde Elko, Nevada. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF. USE OUR CONTENT This story can be republished for free (details).

    Language Service Cutbacks Raise Fear of Medical Errors, Misdiagnoses, Deaths

    SAN FRANCISCO — Health nonprofits and medical interpreters warn that federal cuts have eliminated dozens of positions in California for community workers who help non-English speakers sign up for insurance coverage and navigate the health care system. At the same time, people with limited English proficiency have scaled back their requests for language services, which health care advocates attribute in part to President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown and his executive order declaring English as the national language. Such policy and funding changes could leave some without lifesaving care, particularly children and seniors. “People are going to have a hard time accessing benefits they’re entitled to and need to live independently,” said Carol Wong, a senior rights attorney for Justice in Aging, a national advocacy group. Nearly 69 million people in the U.S. speak a language other than English, and 26 million of them speak English less than “very well,” according to the most recent U.S. Census data available, from 2023. A KFF-Los Angeles Times survey from that year found that immigrants with limited English proficiency reported more barriers accessing health care and worse health than English-proficient immigrants. Health advocates fear that, without adequate support, millions of people in the U.S. with limited English proficiency will be more likely to experience medical errors, misdiagnosis, neglect, and other adverse outcomes. During the start of the pandemic in 2020, ProPublica reported that a woman with coronavirus symptoms died in Brooklyn after missing out on timely treatment because emergency room staffers could not communicate with her in Hungarian. And, at the height of the crisis, The Virginian-Pilot first reported that a Spanish translation on a state website erroneously stated that the covid-19 vaccine was not necessary. In 2000, President Bill Clinton signed an executive order aimed at improving access to federal services for people with limited English proficiency. Research shows language assistance results in higher patient satisfaction, as well as fewer medical errors, misdiagnoses, and adverse health outcomes. Language services also save the health care system money by reducing hospital stays and readmissions. Trump’s order repealed Clinton’s directive and left it up to each federal agency to decide whether to maintain or adopt a new language policy. Some have already scaled back: The Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration reportedly reduced language services, and the Justice Department says it is reviewing guidance materials. A link to its language plan is broken. It’s unclear what the Department of Health and Human Services intends to do. HHS did not respond to questions from KFF Health News. An HHS plan implemented under President Joe Biden, including guidance during public health emergencies and disasters, has been archived, meaning it may not reflect current policies. However, HHS’s Office for Civil Rights still informs patients of their right to language assistance services when they pick up a prescription, apply for a health insurance plan, or visit a doctor. And the office added protections in July that prohibit health providers from using untrained staff, family members, or children to provide interpretation during medical visits. It also required that translation of sensitive information using artificial intelligence be reviewed by a qualified human translator for accuracy. Those safeguards could be undone by the Trump administration, said Mara Youdelman, a managing director at the National Health Law Program, a national legal and health policy advocacy organization. “There’s a process that needs to be followed,” she said, about making changes with public input. “I would strongly urge them to consider the dire consequences when people don’t have effective communication.” Even if the federal government ultimately doesn’t offer language services for the public, Youdelman said, hospitals and health providers are required to provide language assistance at no charge to patients. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race or national origin, protections that extend to language. And the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which expanded health coverage for millions of Americans and adopted numerous consumer protections, requires health providers receiving federal funds to make language services, including translation and interpretation, available. “English can be the official language and people still have a right to get language services when they go to access health care,” Youdelman said. “Nothing in the executive order changed the actual law.” Insurers still need to include multi-language taglines in their correspondence to enrollees explaining how they can access language services. And health facilities must post visible notices informing patients about language assistance services and guarantee certified and qualified interpreters. State and local governments could broaden their own language access requirements. A few states have taken such actions in recent years, and California state lawmakers are considering a bill that would establish a language access director, mandate human review of AI translations, and improve surveys assessing language needs. “With increasing uncertainty at the federal level, state and local access laws and policies are even more consequential,” said Jake Hofstetter, policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. The Los Angeles Department of Public Health and San Francisco’s Office of Civic Engagement and Immigrants Affairs said their language services have not been affected by Trump’s executive order or federal funding cuts. Demand, however, has dropped. Aurora Pedro of Comunidades Indígenas en Liderazgo, one of the few medical interpreters in Los Angeles who speaks Akatek and Qʼanjobʼal, Mayan languages from Guatemala, said she has received fewer calls for her services since Trump took office. And other pockets of California have reduced language services because of the federal funding cuts. Hernán Treviño, a spokesperson for the Fresno County Department of Public Health, said the county cut the number of community health workers by more than half, from 49 to 20 positions. That reduced the availability of on-the-ground navigators who speak Spanish, Hmong, or Indigenous languages from Latin America and help immigrants enroll in health plans and schedule routine screenings. Treviño said staffers are still available to support residents in Spanish, Hmong, Lao, and Punjabi at county offices. A free phone line is also available to help residents access services in their preferred language. Mary Anne Foo, executive director of the Orange County Asian and Pacific Islander Community Alliance, said the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration froze $394,000 left in a two-year contract to improve mental health services. As a result, the alliance is planning to let go 27 of its 62 bilingual therapists, psychiatrists, and case managers. The organization serves more than 80,000 patients who speak over 20 languages. “We can only keep them through June 30,” Foo said. “We’re still trying to figure it out — if we can cover people.” Orozco Rodriguez reported from Elko, Nevada. This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF. USE OUR CONTENT This story can be republished for free (details).

    Gilroy sets district map and election rules after months of deliberation

    In a series of moves set to shape Gilroy’s elections for years to come, the City Council has chosen the final map for its districts and laid the rules for how elections will take place in Gilroy. The map creates six districts and splits the city’s heavily-Latino East Side into two districts — the culmination of a months-long process that wrestled with how best to represent the city and its majority Latino population. “Overall, I’d say it’s a positive move. It’s one long time coming,” said Kevin Shenkman, the Malibu-based lawyer who sent the initial letter that sparked Gilroy’s districting process, in an interview. “I think it’s a good thing that Gilroy has moved to districts and done so with a map that is decent – I’ve seen a whole lot worse.” The council voted to begin the districting process in late February. The move came after Shenkman sent a letter threatening Gilroy with legal action under the California Voting Rights Act if the city did not move to district-based elections, where residents in different sectors of a city vote for a single city councilmember to represent their district. No city has won a lawsuit against districting under the state election law, and some, including Santa Clara, have paid out millions in legal fees after attempting to fight it. Under the state voting law, the city can avoid those hefty legal fees by creating voting districts in a 90 day window — by May 27 for Gilroy. Over four months of meetings and public workshops, most of the public attention has centered on how districting would affect Gilroy’s heavily-Latino East Side, which was cited in the letter threatening a lawsuit as the impetus for moving to districts. Gilroy City Council decided earlier this week on the final map for its six districts, when those districts would be up for election, and how long candidates should be residents before running. Each of the six districts will elect a single council member with the mayor chosen by the entire city, and three districts voting every two years. The final two proposed maps in the Gilroy districting process. Draft D (left) groups together Gilroy's East Side, while Draft F (right) distinguishes between the north and south of the East Side. (Courtesy of Redistricting Partners/City of Gilroy)  At their last meeting, the council narrowed down their choices to two maps: Draft D, which kept the East Side in a single district and Draft F, which outlined two districts in the East Side. Several advocates and residents of the city’s East Side called for keeping the East Side united, arguing that best ensures representation of the majority-Latino community. “The East Side has been, historically, left out of key decisions that take place in the city,” said East Side resident Tanaya Stumpf. “This is an opportunity to give the neighborhood and families like mine a real chance of representation. It reflects who we are.” East Side resident Jesus Becerra argued that representation on the council could have repercussions for future generations. “I want to see kids inspired by someone from the city council, from their neighborhood … I want them to dream that they can make their community better.” Others claimed that supporting the creation of the two districts on the East Side goes against the spirit of the law that set Gilroy’s districting process in motion. “East Side Gilroy is a vibrant, culturally-rich community where blue-collar Chicano and immigrant families have called home for generations,” said Rebeca Armendariz, former city councilmember and whose family has lived in the East Side for generations. “We are unequivocally a community of interest, and map F would break it up in violation of the California Voting Rights Act.” Even so, several on the council, and a heavy majority of email comments, argued for the map ultimately chosen. “(East Side is) almost a third of the city, I think it’s only fair that it be represented by more than one person,” said Councilmember Dion Bracco, who argued that the two districts actually gave the East Side more representation by allowing them two representatives. Bracco — who lives in the East Side and whose family has resided there for generations — also held that the map connected communities across the railroad that divide the city. “When I was in school, I remember they’d say, ‘Oh, you’re from the other side of the tracks.’ And there’s always been that stigma of the East Side of Gilroy.” Despite the apparent split in public opinion, the council voted unanimously on the map with two East Side districts. The map will apply for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 elections, after which the city will have to redraw its districts following the 2030 census. The council also voted unanimously to put districts 4, 5, and 6 up for election in 2026, since no councilmember currently lives in District 4 and the councilmembers who live in Districts 5 and District 6 will already be up for re-election. The districts represent the city’s East Side and downtown core. The remaining districts — 1,2 and 3 — will vote for representatives in 2028. Finally, the council set a rule requiring candidates to be residents of the district 30 days prior to filing their papers nominating them as a candidate. Shenkman said the City Council’s decisions apparently rested on whether keeping communities in tact was more important than the potential effects of packing that community into a single vote. Determining whether the final map ultimately strengthens or dilutes Latino vote could require complicated analysis, he said, adding, “What is more likely to tell us whether that (map) was appropriate or not, is the election results over the next one or two cycles.”

    Latino voters turn on Trump over heinous deportation agenda

    A surge of support from Latino voters helped Donald Trump to win last year’s election, but new data finds that those same voters are now souring on his presidency amid his heavy-handed immigration crackdown. A new poll from the Democratic group Equis Research, conducted in conjunction with Data for Progress, shows deep cracks in the so-called multiracial coalition the GOP hoped to build. And if the trend holds, Trump won’t just be bleeding support—he’ll be dragging down his party with him. Among Latino voters who backed former President Joe Biden in 2020 but flipped to Trump in 2024, a staggering 64% now say Trump has gone too far with deportations and is targeting immigrants who strengthen the U.S. That’s in line with the share of overall Latino voters (66%) who think that. And only 29% of Latino voters overall agree with the idea that the pain inflicted by deportations is a “price to pay to ensure our safety.” Worse for Trump, more than a third (36%) of Latino voters who backed him last year say he’s gone too far. And 15% of Latino Trump voters now flat-out disapprove of the job he’s doing as president. For comparison, only 4% of all Trump 2024 voters disapproved of his job performance in the most recent Civiqs poll for Daily Kos. The Equis Research/Data for Progress poll was first reported by The Bulwark on Friday. Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, right, speaks with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran citizen who was living in Maryland and deported to El Salvador by the Trump administration, in a hotel restaurant in El Salvador on April 17. This sharp backlash shouldn’t be surprising. Trump and his Cabinet have shredded due process, bulldozed legal boundaries, and made examples of immigrants like Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland father who was wrongly deported to El Salvador. Trump’s immigration agenda isn’t just aggressive—it’s punitive, personal, and politically toxic. Equis’ data goes deeper as well. For instance, 73% of Latino voters say mass deportations will “tear families apart, many of whom have been in the U.S. for a long time.” Another 71% say the crackdown unfairly targets “undocumented immigrants who are law-abiding members of society, work hard, and pay taxes.” Yes, these voters still want a secure border—but they’re not buying Trump’s scorched-earth version of it. In fact, many of Trump’s newer voters assumed he’d narrowly focus on deporting criminals and recent border-crossers, Equis found. What the voters say they didn’t sign up for was a sweeping war on immigrant families and communities. That disconnect is now exploding in the numbers.  The clearest red flag is how many young Latino men have abandoned Trump. Among those who responded to the poll, Latino men ages 18 to 34 backed Trump by 11 percentage points in 2024—and now his approval rating with this bloc is 11 points underwater. His net approval rating on the economy with this group is at -17 points, and on immigration, it’s down to -12 points. These young men were supposed to be the foundation of Trump’s next-generation GOP. Instead, they’re already bailing. While the 2026 midterm elections are a ways off, and 2028 is even further away, these are the kinds of shifts that shape political futures.  Carlos Odio, co-founder of Equis, told The Bulwark that while this isn’t a total collapse in Latino support for Trump, it’s a clear sign of mounting dissatisfaction. Immigration is “playing an important supporting role,” he said, but “the economy is the lead actor.” (Trump’s net approval on the economy among Latino voters is -26 points, according to the poll.) President Donald Trump So no, it’s not just about immigration. It’s the economy, stupid—and Latinos aren’t impressed with Trump’s performance on either front. This, of course, raises the obvious question: Does this open the door for Democrats? Possibly. But it’s not automatic.  Among Latinos who disapprove of Trump’s immigration policy, 25% don’t support either party on the issue. This and other data suggest that Democrats have a small window—but only if they show up with something real. That means not just opposing Trump’s cruelty but also offering a concrete vision: real border security, smart and compassionate immigration reform, and a strong commitment to keeping families together. Odio put it plainly: Latino voters “don’t want chaos in our communities or families ripped apart because some ICE agent needed to meet their quotas.” Some Democrats are beginning to meet the moment. For instance, members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus recently traveled to Mexico to meet the family of an 11-year-old U.S. citizen who was deported with her parents despite recovering from a brain tumor.  Trump might try to claw back support with performative executive orders and headline-grabbing stunts. But fewer Latino voters are falling for the show. They’ve seen what he does with power—and they’ve had enough. Campaign Action

    Luego de prometer atención médica universal, el gobernador de California debe reconsiderar la cobertura para inmigrantes

    SACRAMENTO, California — El gobernador Gavin Newsom no esperaba enfrentarse a otra crisis sanitaria. En marzo, mientras el presidente Donald Trump y los republicanos del Congreso intensificaban el debate nacional sobre la posibilidad de recortar la atención médica para los estadounidenses pobres y con discapacidades, el gobernador demócrata tuvo que informar a los legisladores estatales que los costos del cuidado de salud en California se habían descontrolado. Esto debido a las grandes iniciativas de Medicaid que Newsom apoyaba, incluyendo la mayor expansión del país de la atención médica financiada con fondos públicos para inmigrantes que viven en Estados Unidos sin papeles. Sus altos funcionarios del Departamento de Finanzas estatal revelaron con discreción a los legisladores californianos en una carta que el estado había solicitado un préstamo de $3.400 millones para pagar a las aseguradoras, médicos y hospitales que atendían a los pacientes inscritos en el programa estatal del Medicaid, conocido como Medi-Cal. Ante el aumento de los costos de la atención en medio de una crisis presupuestaria estatal cada vez más profunda, Newsom ahora debe considerar la posibilidad de reducir la cobertura y los beneficios. El gobernador, en su segundo mandato, se enfrenta a una difícil decisión política: no cumplir con su promesa de lograr una atención médica universal y retirar la cobertura a millones de inmigrantes sin estatus legal, o buscar recortes presupuestarios en otros lugares. Con casi 15 millones de residentes inscritos en Medi-Cal, California tiene más que perder en materia de atención médica que cualquier otro estado. Sin embargo, aunque Newsom ha condenado la estrategia de Trump sobre los aranceles y las políticas ambientales, se ha mantenido hermético en materia de política de salud. Para complicar su situación política, las encuestas muestran que brindar cobertura médica a inmigrantes sin papeles cuenta con escaso apoyo. Y cualquier problema presupuestario resultante podría perjudicar su legado político si se postulara a la presidencia en 2028. “Todos sabemos que los recortes definitivamente se avecinan”, dijo Carlos Alarcón, analista de salud y beneficios públicos del California Immigrant Policy Center, que ha ayudado a impulsar una campaña de una década en el estado para expandir Medicaid a los inmigrantes sin documentos elegibles. “El gobernador debe cumplir su compromiso; nos decepcionaremos mucho si vemos recortes y reducciones. En tiempos difíciles, siempre son nuestras comunidades marginadas y desatendidas las que salen perdiendo”, agregó. California permite a cualquier adulto de bajos ingresos inscribirse en Medi-Cal si gana el 138% del nivel federal de pobreza, o $21.597 al año o menos, independientemente de su estatus migratorio. Sin embargo, los costos han sido mucho más altos de lo esperado. El gobernador demócrata Jerry Brown amplió Medi-Cal a las personas de 19 años o menos sin papeles, pero expresó su reticencia a extenderlo más allá de ese grupo debido a los posibles costos. Newsom promulgó leyes que incluyen a las personas de 20 años o más. Se estima que 1.6 millones de inmigrantes sin estatus legal ahora están cubiertos, y los costos se han disparado a $9.500 millones al año, en comparación con los $6.400 millones estimados en noviembre. El gobierno federal aporta aproximadamente $1.1 mil millones de ese total para atención médica del embarazo y emergencias. “Podemos expandirnos por pura generosidad a todas partes, pero en cuanto estos recursos se agoten, todos perdemos. Estamos llegando a un punto crítico”, dijo el asambleísta de California David Tangipa (republicano de Fresno). “O asumimos la responsabilidad fiscal, o no habrá servicios para nadie, incluyendo a los californianos y a los inmigrantes indocumentados”. Los líderes demócratas responsables de aprobar el presupuesto estatal no aceptaron entrevistas. En un comunicado, la senadora estatal María Elena Durazo (demócrata de Los Ángeles) quien defendió la expansión en la Legislatura, declaró: “Revertir este progreso sería una decisión perjudicial y obtusa”. Los legisladores están considerando congelar la inscripción de inmigrantes sin papeles, imponer medidas de costos compartidos como copagos o primas sobre los medicamentos, o restringir los beneficios, según personas familiarizadas con el tema, que pidieron no ser identificadas para proteger sus relaciones en el Capitolio estatal. Sin embargo, es poco probable que Newsom recorte drásticamente los fondos en su revisión presupuestaria, publicada el 14 de mayo. En cambio, los recortes se producirían si los republicanos del Congreso aprueban un acuerdo presupuestario con importantes reducciones al gasto federal en Medicaid. “Esto va a ser muy problemático para el gobernador. Los recortes del presupuesto afectarán la vida de millones de inmigrantes que recién comienzan a tener atención médica, pero el gobernador tiene que hacer algo, porque esto no es sostenible”, dijo Mark Peterson, experto en atención médica y política nacional de la UCLA. “La posibilidad de recortar otros gastos para apoyar a los inmigrantes que viven en el país sin autorización sería una estrategia política difícil; no creo que eso suceda”, dijo. Si Newsom, junto con la Legislatura controlada por los demócratas, se viera obligado a realizar recortes, podría argumentar que no tenía otra opción. Trump y los republicanos del Congreso han amenazado a estados como California con la última propuesta de la Cámara de Representantes de EE.UU. de recortar la financiación de Medicaid en 10 puntos porcentuales para los estados que ofrecen cobertura a inmigrantes sin papeles. Para Newsom, Trump podría ser un chivo expiatorio fácil, dicen analistas. “Puede culpar a Trump; el dinero disponible es limitado”, dijo Mike Madrid, analista político republicano anti-Trump en California, especializado en temas latinos. “Esto está haciendo que la gente vea la atención médica que no puede pagar y se pregunte: ‘¿Por qué demonios se la damos gratis a quienes están aquí sin documentos?’”. El costo exorbitante ha sido una sorpresa. En la primera propuesta presupuestaria de Newsom como gobernador, en la que propuso ampliar Medi-Cal a los adultos jóvenes sin documentos, su administración estimó que extender los beneficios a todas las personas elegibles, independientemente de su estatus, costaría aproximadamente $2.4 mil millones anuales. Pero la última cifra reportada a los legisladores fue casi cuatro veces mayor. Newsom se negó a responder preguntas de KFF Health News, y en su lugar hizo referencia a comentarios anteriores que dejan la puerta abierta a la posibilidad de reducir Medi-Cal. El gobernador destacó las conversaciones “serias” con los legisladores y afirmó que recortar el programa es una “pregunta abierta” en la que el presidente influirá considerablemente. “¿Cuál es el impacto de Donald Trump en muchos de estos temas? ¿Cuál es el impacto del vandalismo federal en muchos de estos programas?”, se preguntó Newsom retóricamente en diciembre, sugiriendo que no está claro si podrá sostener la expansión para los inmigrantes sin papeles en los próximos años. Newsom expandió Medi-Cal en tres fases, comenzando con los inmigrantes de 19 a 25 años, quienes se volvieron elegibles en 2020, resistiendo la presión de los defensores de la atención médica para una expansión grande y costosa. Argumentó que hacerlo de forma gradual, en última instancia, ahorraría dinero a California. “Es lo correcto moral y éticamente”, dijo Newsom en 2020. “También es lo financieramente responsable”. Los superávits presupuestarios récord de los últimos años permitieron que los demócratas continuaran. Los adultos mayores de 50 a 64 años comenzaron a ser elegibles en 2022, y Newsom cerró la brecha al año siguiente, aprobando la cobertura para el grupo más numeroso, el de 26 a 49 años, a partir de 2024. Sin embargo, los costos han aumentado muchísimo, mientras que el panorama presupuestario se ha deteriorado, según un análisis de KFF de los registros más recientes de 2023 disponibles del Departamento de Servicios de Atención Médica del estado, que administra Medi-Cal. Por fuera de los niños, fue más caro brindar cobertura de Medicaid a los inmigrantes sin estatus legal que a los residentes legales. Por ejemplo, Medi-Cal pagó a L.A. Care, una gran aseguradora de salud en Los Ángeles, un promedio de $495.32 mensuales por brindar atención a un adulto sin hijos sin papeles, y $266.77 por un residente legal sin hijos. No solo fue más caro para los inmigrantes sin estatus legal, sino que California asumió la mayor parte del costo. El estado pagó aproximadamente entre el 60% y el 70% de los costos de atención médica para un inmigrante adulto sin hijos cubierto por L.A. Care, y alrededor del 10% para un residente legal sin hijos. Estos costos no abarcan el costo total de la atención, que puede variar según en donde viven los pacientes de Medi-Cal, y aumentar al surtir recetas, ir al dentista o buscar atención de salud mental. Estos pagos también varían según la aseguradora, pero la tendencia se mantiene en todos los planes de Medi-Cal. En la mayor parte del estado, los pacientes pueden elegir entre más de un plan de salud. En muchos casos, la cobertura para los niños sin estatus legal fue más económica que la de los niños con residencia legal. Generalmente, los niños son más saludables y necesitan menos atención. Mike Genest, quien se desempeñó como director de finanzas durante el gobierno del ex gobernador republicano Arnold Schwarzenegger, argumentó que el estado debería haber previsto el enorme costo. “La idea de que a largo plazo podamos pagar la atención médica para todas estas personas indocumentadas es insostenible”, dijo Genest. Si bien ahora los costos son altos, la expansión de Medi-Cal generará ahorros a largo plazo para los contribuyentes y el sistema de salud, afirmó Anthony Wright, quien anteriormente presionó a favor de la expansión como director de la organización sin fines de lucro Health Access y ahora lucha contra los recortes a Medicaid como director ejecutivo de Families USA, con sede en Washington, D.C. “De todas formas, seguirán acudiendo a nuestro sistema de salud”, afirmó Wright. “Dejarlos sin seguro médico solo resultará en salas de emergencia más congestionadas y costará aún más. No tiene sentido económico que no tengan seguro; eso les quita ingresos cruciales a clínicas y hospitales, lo que solo causa más problemas”. Esta historia fue producida por KFF Health News, que publica California Healthline, un servicio editorialmente independiente de la California Health Care Foundation. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF. USE OUR CONTENT This story can be republished for free (details).

Add a blog to Bloglovin’
Enter the full blog address (e.g. https://www.fashionsquad.com)
We're working on your request. This will take just a minute...