Obama also defended his record on Hispanic-related issues, in particular on increasing access to a college education and on appointments. The appointments of U.S. Dept. of Labor Sec. Hilda Solis (the first Hispanic woman to serve on the Cabinet) and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor were both referenced multiple times in Obama’s speech.

Calling immigrants “[j]ob creators who came here to seek opportunity and now seek to share opportunity,” Obama argued that the current U.S. immigration system tolerates those who break the rules — undocumented immigrants and businesses that employ them — while punishing legal immigrants.

He defended himself on what Hispanic leaders say is a broken campaign pledge, “La Promesa,” to get comprehensive immigration reform on the congressional agenda. Obama said he supported the DREAM Act — a bill providing a path to citizenship to undocumented youth provided they go to college or serve in the military — and was disappointed when Senate Republicans voted against it in 2010.

“Many of the folks who walked away had previously been sponsors [of the DREAM Act],” Obama pointed out, referring to Republican U.S. senators like Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Richard Lugar (Ind.) who worked with Democrats on immigration legislation in the past but now refuse to support legalization efforts because they say immigration has been politicized by the White House.

However, when Obama stated that he could not use the power of the executive branch alone to prevent people who qualify for the DREAM Act from being deported, the crowd broke into loud cries of “Yes you can! Yes you can.” Many have taken a recent memofrom Immigration and Customs Enforcement director John Morton urging prosecutorial discretion on immigration cases to be a sign that the administration was seeking immigration reform without going through Congress.

But Obama appeared to reject executive-driven immigration reform, telling the chanting conference attendees that he had to follow the laws as written by Congress.

“Feel free to keep the heat on me, and keep the heat on Democrats, but here’s the thing to remember: The Democrats and your president are with you. Remember who it is that we need to move in order to change the laws,” he said.

Earlier in the speech Obama also said he supported putting laid-off construction workers to work building infrastructure and schools, adding that the burden was on Congress to produce such legislation so that he could sign it. He also spent a portion of the speech discussing ongoing deficit talks, restating his belief that new revenue should accompany meaningful spending cuts.

Barreto pointed to a new poll out today from Latino Decisions that shows climbing enthusiasm from Latino voters, particularly among those likely to vote for Democrats. While about 40 percent of Latinos said they were very enthusiastic about voting in the midterms a month ago, last week that figure rose to 58 percent. “These may indicate that the Latino vote is no longer a sleeping giant but a looming giant that will continue to play a part in an increasing number of races,” Sharry said.

Latino Decisions has a useful graph tracking the enthusiasm progression:

Democrats have an advantage: Polling indicates Democrat-favoring Latino voters are more likely to be enthusiastic about the Nov. 2 elections than Republican-favoring voters. Barreto attributed this to anti-immigrant rhetoric made by many Republican politicians. “If you are a Republican who is a Latino, you’re probably less excited about your party this year than, say, the Tea Party is.”

Barreto and Sherry said the midterms have created a perfect storm to push Latino voters to support Democrats in certain states. Republicans have increasingly pushed for anti-immigration laws that some consider anti-Latino, and meanwhile some Democrats have reasserted their support for immigration reform measures. Immigration is consistently among the top issues listed as a priority by Latino voters, although generally jobs and the economy are considered more important.

Democrats have failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform, or even smaller legislation such as the DREAM Act, which means Latino voters aren’t necessarily favoring them out of support for their action over the past two years. But Republicans are generally considered to be the greater of two evils. “The current enthusiasm is much more related to opposition to Republicans and the possibility of Republican control of the House and the Senate,” he said.

President Obama made a similar argument against Republicans during an interview aired today on Univision’s “Piolin por la Manana,” where he was asked why Latinos should support him despite his failure to enact immigration reform. “If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder [to pass reform], and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on Nov. 2,” he said during the interview.

The Spanish-language ad shows images of a wedding and highlights Latin-American values: work, family, and children. Boxer, the announcer says, doesn’t share “nuestros valores”— our values. The ad goes on to say that Boxer “supports abortion and homosexual marriage” and that she “voted against immigration reform to permit our people to come here legally to work.” It closes by praising Boxer’s opponent, Republican candidate Carly Fiorina.

Boxer’s support for abortion and civil marriage rights for same-sex couples is well documented, and it’s not surprising, given NOM’s mission, that the organization is attacking her for it. The senator’s longstanding support for comprehensive immigration reform makes the ad’s second attack appear more questionable — and all the more like a thinly veiled attempt to manipulate the state’s Latino population into voting against her.

The language of the attack could possibly be referencing a temporary guest worker program which Boxer opposed in 2007 on the grounds that it would exploit workers, but it seems like a stretch to turn around and argue that she “voted against immigration reform.”

In response, Boxer’s campaign manager, Rose Kapolczynski, told the Center, “It’s outrageous that a wealthy right-wing outside group is running attack ads lying about Barbara Boxer’s record. The fact is that Barbara Boxer is a strong supporter of comprehensive immigration reform and has worked closely with the Latino community on everything from job creation to education.”

The non-partisan Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Louisiana wasn’t amused by the add — they told a local TV station Thursday that Vitter’s immigration spot is “totally abhorrent and shocking” and “racist” in its depiction of illegal immigrants. “In this ad, he has these Hollywood stereotypes, caricature-types portraying Latino workers,” a spokeswoman from the Chamber said. “First of all, he uses the word ‘illegal’ so many times.”

Latino groups have pushed for politicians and media to stop using the word “illegal” in referring to undocumented immigrants, arguing its bad connotations create “an environment of hate.”

It isn’t Vitter’s first controversy over anti-illegal immigration campaign ads. Vitter also came under fire in the past week when ThinkProgress discovered he and Nevada GOP candidate Sharron Angle used the same stock photo to illustrate illegal immigrants. (Ironically, the photo is of Mexican citizens in Mexico, according to the photographer.) Angle’s ad, which is based on a rather dubious claim that opponent Harry Reid’s policies favor the undocumented over Americans, has also been criticized for its depiction of illegal immigrants:

“Sharron Angle is going way over the line with her anti-Latino campaign ads,” said Adam Luna, political director of America’s Voice. “While claiming to target the issue of unauthorized immigration, her campaign puts out a mailer demonizing the entire country of Mexico and her television ads paint a sinister picture of Dream Act-eligible youth who are, in reality, the poster children for the American success story. This is race-baiting at its worst, just like the Bush ‘Willie Horton’ ad or the Jesse Helms ‘hands’ ad. But in a state like Nevada, with its growing Latino population, this sort of thing may very well come back to bite Nevada Republicans where it hurts.”

While it is never a good thing for candidates to be accused of racism, it’s unclear to what extant outrage over the ads will impact Vitter and Angle’s campaigns. Both candidates have staked out hard-line stances on illegal immigration that are likely to scare off many Latino voters, a majority of whom support comprehensive immigration reform and favor Democratic candidates. Luna is right: The Latino vote is important in Nevada, where Latinos make up 26 percent of the population. But if Angle is not going to win Latino voters anyway, she may be tempted to play to her base with ads that overstate her opponent’s support for illegal immigrants.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, and the Courage Campaign today called on the National Organization for Marriage, or NOM, to explain why its tax-exempt charitable organization, the Ruth Institute – a project of NOM’s Marriage Education Fund – is violating federal laws by intervening on behalf of a candidate for elected office.

This past Monday, Ruth Institute President Jennifer Roback Morse spoke on behalf of her organization at a campaign stop of the “Vota Tus Valores” bus tour, a NOM-backed independent expenditure in support of California Republican U.S. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina in San Diego. At the campaign event Morse talked about the role of the Ruth Institute, held up the organization’s signage and closed her remarks by saying, “We’re very glad to be part of this electoral effort.” (Watch the Courage Campaign’s video of Morse speaking at event.)

Morse’s campaign appearance followed a NOM-issued press release titled “National Organization for Marriage and Ruth Institute Join Bus Tour Supporting Carly Fiorina in California.” The release states that “Brian Brown, president of NOM, and Jennifer Roback Morse, president of The Ruth Institute, a project of NOM’s Marriage Education Fund, will both be supporting the bus tour as it makes its way around California.” In addition to supporting Fiorina, the NOM charitable group has also illegally participated in a campaign to elect California judges.

In other words, HRC is arguing that although NOM is a 501(c)4 and therefore allowed to do political advocacy (up to a degree), its Marriage Education Fund broke the law because it’s registered as a 501(c)3 — which can receive tax-exempt donations but cannot do any political work as a result.

It’s hard to say without further investigation to what extent Ruth Institute President Jennifer Roback Morse’s appearances and other activities on behalf of Fiorina constitute sufficient material support to justify a complaint. NOM’s 501(c)4, for its part, is already fighting numerous cases in Maine, Rhode Island, and other states for the right to keep its donor lists secret even when it chooses to advocate on behalf of candidates in state races.

A majority of the 1,600 Latino voters surveyed in California, Colorado, Florida and Texas said they identify as Democrats, with only 16.5 percent identifying as Republicans. Most said they would be likely to vote against a candidate if they disagreed with the candidate’s stance on immigration.

The Washington Post’s Michael D. Shear reported today that the Obama administration hopes to use immigration to drive a wedge between Republicans and Latino voters:

West Wing strategists argue that the president’s call for legislation that acknowledges the role of immigrants and goes beyond punishing undocumented workers will help cement a permanent political relationship between Democrats and Hispanics — much as civil rights and voting rights legislation did for the party and African Americans in the 1960s.

As a result, although the president is unlikely to press for comprehensive immigration reform this year, he has urged his allies to keep up the pressure on Republican lawmakers.

“Look: The Republicans, if you do the math, cannot be successful as a national party if they continue to alienate Latinos,” said one Democratic strategist familiar with White House thinking on the issue.

Another top Democrat who has advised the administration on immigration added: “If the Republicans continue on the same course they are on, the politics of immigration are potentially devastating to their party.”

That’s expected to change on Tuesday, Dec. 15, when Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) is expected to introduce the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (CIR ASAP), along with members of the Congressional Hispanic, Black, Asian Pacific American, and Progressive Caucuses.

“We have waited patiently for a workable solution to our immigration crisis to be taken up by this Congress and our President,” Gutierrez said in a statement released today. The bill “is the product of months of collaboration with civil rights advocates, labor organizations, and members of Congress. It is an answer to too many years of pain —mothers separated from their children, workers exploited and undermined security at the border— all caused at the hands of a broken immigration system. This bill says ‘enough,’ and presents a solution to our broken system that we as a nation of immigrants can be proud of.”

If yesterday’s House Homeland Security Committee hearing is any guide, expect a protracted debate over every provision.

It seems Dallas police were confused when, after pulling drivers over for other suspected violations, the police checked their in-car computers and a pull-down menu listed the “non-English speaking driver” charge as an option. The violation actually referred to a federal law governing commercial drivers that the Dallas police now say they don’t even enforce. However, at least 39 non-commercial drivers were fined $204 for their limited language skills.

Dallas Police Chief David Kunkle said on Friday that they would be reimbursed.

Although Dallas police don’t seem to have been attempting to enforce any immigration laws in these incidents, there’s a parallel to the ongoing controversy over a federal program that allows local police around the country who stop Latinos for minor traffic violations to check their legal status, then turn them over to federal immigration authorities for deportation if they can’t prove they’re in the United States legally.

The federal program, known as 287(g), deputizes some local police to enforce federal immigration law. But abuse of that power, often due to similar misunderstandings by local police officers, has at times led to the deportation of legal U.S. residents and even citizens, and prompted angry complaints from immigrants’ advocates.

Ultimately, much of the problem — in Dallas and beyond — seems to come from a lack of training of local police. The revelation that non-English speakers were getting fined in Dallas therefore could end up casting more attention on the 287(g) program, to the extent that local officials are wrongly arresting immigrants due to a lack of training on immigrants’ rights, local law enforcement authority, and what actually constitutes a crime.

My recommendation is now and has been that the Administration — in placing minority members in visible jobs — stop concentrating on the “media’s minorities” (Blacks, Mexican Americans, Spanish-speaking) which are tough to crack, almost solid Democratic — and begin focusing on the large ethnic minorities (Irish, Italians, Poles, Slovaks, etc.), the big minorities where the President’s name is not a dirty word, where the President’s personal beliefs and political actions are more consistent with their own.

When we begin to recognize and act on the idea that there are as many Italian-Americans in the Bronx as there are Black Americans in Harlem, we will better begin to serve the President’s interests.

Later in the memo, Buchanan suggests a specific appointment that the president could use to prove that he cared about white ethnics: a seat on the Supreme Court.

[I]nstead of sending the orders out to all our other agencies — hire blacks and women — the order should go out — hire ethnic Catholics preferable women, for visible posts. One example: Italian Americans, unlike blacks, have never had a Supreme Court member — they are deeply concerned with their “criminal” image; they do not dislike the President. Give those fellows the “Jewish seat” or the “black seat” on the Court when it becomes available.

It’s striking how little Buchanan has changed in the intervening 38 years. In one of his anti-Sonia Sotomayor columns, he argued that the nominee had no more right to a seat than a “Polish- or Portogeuse-American” and that Hispanics would support her because “people often come out to vote for one of their own.”

(Hat tip: Rick Perlstein)

LIDDY: Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.

Maybe it’s OK if female Supreme Court Justices are post-menopausal?  Or have no feelings or sentiments at all?

Even if the conservative crazies are energizing the base or perhaps helping to raise money for strapped right-wing organizations, these sorts of attacks don’t seem to be having much effect on Republican senators, who are the ones who have to vote on the nomination.

As ThinkProgress reports:

Last night, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) called the attacks “terrible” and “wrong.” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was asked if he agreed with Newt Gingrich’s characterization of Sotomayor as a “Latina woman racist.” “No, I don’t agree with that,” Hatch replied.